Jim Edgar runs for Senate in Illinois, 2004

Jim Edgar, even in 2004, was popular in Illinois, and as a result he almost ran for Senate against Barack Obama. If Edgar had run, it wouldn't be likely for Obama to give the DNC keynote (because you don't have the biggest speech of the convention given by someone who might lose), and Edgar would likely win. This means Obama can't run for President in 2008. So who would have filled that anti-war void? Would anyone? Would Clinton have cruised to the Democratic nomination, or would someone like Russ Feingold do what Obama did IOTL?

What are your thoughts?
 
My own opinion is that Obama would have still won even against Edgar; if there are butterflies here, it would be along the lines that Clinton might have taken Obama as a more serious opponent; OTL they did not, based on personal knowledge.
 
My own opinion is that Obama would have still won even against Edgar; if there are butterflies here, it would be along the lines that Clinton might have taken Obama as a more serious opponent; OTL they did not, based on personal knowledge.

I agree. Obama may have a closer race but some dirty laundry may be aired and no longer new news by 08 and winning a race against a real opponent only helps Obama in the long run.
 
Jim Edgar, even in 2004, was popular in Illinois, and as a result he almost ran for Senate against Barack Obama. If Edgar had run, it wouldn't be likely for Obama to give the DNC keynote (because you don't have the biggest speech of the convention given by someone who might lose), and Edgar would likely win. This means Obama can't run for President in 2008. So who would have filled that anti-war void? Would anyone? Would Clinton have cruised to the Democratic nomination, or would someone like Russ Feingold do what Obama did IOTL?

Oooh, neat POD. I agree with you that Obama is probably not the keynoter if he's in a loseable race, but he might still get the star treatment (cf. Elizabeth Warren IOTL) and still exit 2004 with considerable shine on his resume.

If not, you're absolutely looking at John Edwards getting the 2008 anti-war vote; he ran to everyone's left in the primary and came very close to winning Iowa. Obviously, that campaign is not built to go the distance vs. Hillary in the 2008 primaries, to say the least.

To be honest, it's hard to imagine any other campaign being able to withstand the Clinton '08 onslaught, even if they had been the recipient of significant early helium by running to Clinton's left.
 
Edgar is only popular because he didn't go to prison. Illinois has a different set of standards for our Govs. :p

Honestly, I am unsure if Edgar would run, he had just had heart surgery...
 
Top