Would Obama still be a rising Democratic star without Iraq?

My question is pretty simple: say for whatever reason the Bush administration abstains from plans to invade Iraq (perhaps Saddam fell in the 90s). Would the other elements of Obama's platform (in both his 2004 Senate and 2008 Presidential campaigns) still allow him to be a rising star in the Democratic Party?
 
Yes he would still be charismatic but he would not be able to defeat Hillary Clinton and probably end up as Governor of Illinois.
 
No Iraq implies a different set of political circumstances. I can't be certain that the 2004 primaries in Illinois would have turned out given the butterflies involved. Obama might be a rising star in the party due to his background and anti-culture war rhetoric. His convention speech didn't really mention Iraq if I remember correctly. He may not give that speech here-but his 2004 "no red state or blue state America" message will have resonance in the Bush era even without Iraq.

Rising star and "elected President next cycle" aren't the same thing. He wouldn't have much of a case against Hillary here but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be someone the institutional party paid attention to.

The Governor of Illinois position will not be open until 2010-and with Rod Blagojevich being who he was an attempt at a third term isn't out of the question. Or he could commit some other offense. If Blagojevich doesn't run and isn't thrown out he'd face steep competion for the nomination. Then again nobody actually likes Pat Quinn and he'd already have defeated Dan Hynes so he'd probably prevail in that contest.

There's also the possibility that he would run for Mayor rather than for Governor.
 
Top