I was at a party recently with a number of my strongly Democratic friends. Many of them are still clerking, or started at firms and then left to clerk, and they will have time next year to do other than work at firms. They've started, accordingly, thinking about which campaigns to volunteer full time for, or try to get jobs with. While I have no reason to doubt my friends' sincerity, they are also ambitious people, of course. And so a big topic is apparently which of the Democrats is going to win the White House. Pick wisely, and you're an AUSA, or whatever. Pick wrong and it's back off to some prestigious DC firm. I interjected with my usual "no Democrat is going to win" position, but putting aside that, the discussion raised an interesting question. Would anyone at all vote for Hillary on her own merits?

I don't mean to say that we should discount what Bill did for her till now. I have no doubt she would be successful but obscure if not for Bill - but she has become prominent on his coattails, is now a talented politician, and that's fine. The question, rather, is raised by a refrain I heard often from the Hillary leaning democrats - that even if she is no good, electing Hillary just means electing Bill to actually be President. She might be called President, but Bill will be first citizen, and his hand will actually be on the rudder. I guess my question, then, is this - let's suppose that Bill promised to exile himself to the Falklands for the entire H. Clinton presidency, and that a Democrat was guaranteed victory (thus putting aside electability because she has a lot of money issues). Would Hillary have any Democratic support at all? My guess, actually, is no, and that Democrats would vote for someone else if Bill was out of the picture. But I'm curious what people think.