Slate's Bizbox
hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked.

Hillary in 2004?You (and all those Beltway journalists) have got to be kidding.

By Joshua Micah Marshall
Posted Friday, Jan. 5, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Illustration by Charlie Powell

Hillary Clinton in 2004? Why not? Empire State governors and senators are perpetual contenders for the White House, and the first lady already commands a national following and deep support among Democratic activists. Think of all those chits she can call in from elected officials and operatives. She also comes to the table with the fund-raising Rolodex that made her husband the biggest harvester of campaign cash in American history. And she's a winner.

When you add up the first lady's advantages it's understandable why the right-wing media (Robert Novak) and the mainstream media (Sam Donaldson) are making the question of resurgent (Hillary) Clintonism such a topic of speculation. Understandable, that is, if you ignore the gazillion reasons why the idea of Hillary Clinton running for president is ridiculous.

To understand the outlandishness of this idea, consider the New York Senate race results. Hillary Clinton won her seat with 55 percent of the vote. But the margin of victory is less revealing than the way she came by it. Her campaign polarized the electorate between those who really, really wanted Hillary and those who really, really didn't want her. That intensity of commitment on both sides allowed the relative-unknown Rick Lazio to bounce into the low- to mid-40s in the polls within days of entering the race. In the end it was the Hillary people versus the anti-Hillary people. But few states have as many Hillary people as New York.

This is all a way of saying that the first lady is a very divisive figure. Presidents can leave office as exceedingly divisive figures, but successful ones seldom enter the game that way. And that's just the start of Sen. Clinton's problems. She probably couldn't win a single state that Al Gore lost in this election.

Here's why.

Gore won virtually all the Northeast, all the West Coast, and nearly all the Industrial Midwest, but failed to win any other state except New Mexico. What did him in in the rest of the country was cultural liberalism—support for gun control, abortion rights, and gay rights. This handicap was particularly evident in Appalachia—West Virginia, Tennessee, western Pennsylvania, and southeastern Ohio. And who is more identified with cultural liberalism, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton?

Or frame the issue this way: A pressing problem for Democrats is their dwindling support among white men. Given the party's mounting majorities among women and minorities, the fact that Republicans consistently win majorities of the white male vote is neither surprising nor even that troubling. But Democrats can't afford to lose them in quite the numbers they have of late. George W. Bush beat Gore by almost 2-to-1 among white males (60 percent to 36 percent). And if we're talking about voters in Ohio, western Pennsylvania, or Missouri, do you think candidate Hillary Clinton improves on that score? (Among white men in New York, Al Gore outpolled Hillary Clinton by 16 percentage points.)

There are those, of course, who say that Gore's problem wasn't so much cultural liberalism as the way his boss, Bill Clinton, seemed to personify the dark side of cultural liberalism—sexual license, moral relativism, irresponsibility, and so forth. But if that's the case, should Democrats really take their next shot at the White House with Clinton's wife?

Next we come to the question of political baggage: health care, the travel office mess, the FBI files question, the froth of Whitewater, the billing records, etc. I don't believe there's much of anything to these charges. But then, who cares? You don't need to believe these charges to know that many people in the country do, and that fact has real political consequences.

Sure, Hillary would pull fevered support from her devoted supporters. But then most any serviceable Democratic candidate would get those people's votes anyway and without guaranteeing the opposition of other voters, at least some of whom a Democratic presidential candidate very much needs. Even her greatest admirers have to admit that for a Democrat, Hillary Clinton's public persona plays to cleavages in the national electorate in the worst way.

To get the nomination in the face of such an uphill struggle, a candidate needs a do-or-die base of support within the party or committed supporters among the party's powers that be. Right-wingers may imagine that the barons of the Democratic Party obey Hillary Clinton. But most of them only like her. They don't love her. They'd drop her in a second for someone who stood a better chance of winning the big prize. True, the apparent next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, is a Clinton loyalist. But he only raises gobs of money. He can't change the laws of gravity.

Of course, many of these shortcomings might also be ascribed to Bill Clinton, who leaves office with the highest approval ratings of any two-term president in the modern era. But Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton. The first lady ran an impressive campaign for a first-time candidate. But that's grading on a curve. Her political skills don't compare to those of her husband. One might argue that she could compensate for these problems by tacking to the right over the next four years, as her husband did in 1995 and 1996, but Hillary already ran on a fairly moderate agenda in 2000. What hobbles Hillary's White House ambitions is the continued opposition to her as a person—and not just to her policy proposals.

A Hillary presidential candidacy seems so unworkable that you have to wonder what all the chatting is about. On the right, the question is easy to answer. Dittoheads and Hillary-haters are paranoid; right-wing fund-raisers regard the Hillary-presidency bogeyman as a cash cow they can milk for years. But what excuses do working journalists have? Some Washington journalists trapped in the Beltway echo chamber have convinced themselves that everybody named Clinton has mystical powers that allow them to overcome impossible odds. Another explanation is that a Hillary candidacy is more fun to talk about than explaining why it's never going to happen.

If anything, Hillary Clinton is the probable successor to Teddy Kennedy, a talented legislator who is beloved among his party faithful, but whose politics and personal baggage barred him permanently from higher office. If you're from Alabama or Idaho that may not sound like much of a compliment. But if you're a liberal Democrat, or just someone who cares about things like universal health care, then it's no mean accomplishment.

For Hillary Clinton to stand any chance of success in a presidential race, the Republicans would have to put up against her someone who polarizes the electorate from the right every bit as much as she does from the left. But, hey, John Ashcroft is coming on strong. So you never know.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Joshua Micah Marshall writes the Talking Points Memo.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


Hillary, just like many candidates, has a lot of bright ideas. Can she execute them? Depends on who's doing the persecution at the time.

When looking at Presidential Candidates throughout history, not one came to bat without a lot of connections. Hillary too needs to make those connections and she is now really poised to do so. She knows how long it will take, and that is beyond 2004, and she also knows that her first attempt at running may not be successful, but she is smart enough to pick the time, climate and issues that will strike a chord across the board. Even for enough white males to think America is at a time for a big change.

The Republicans would have to put a type like Christine Todd Whitman up against Hillary but as a wide group, the majority of Republicans may not fall in line with Christine which means Hillary would win in that pair-up. And you know something? By the time Hillary makes her mark, she will know that too.

--Suzy from California

(To reply, click here.)


Washington insiders have tended to do poorly in Presidential races. A liberal Senator from a liberal State is an unlikely Presidential candidate (Dukakis comes to mind, though at least he was a Governor). State Governors, particularly ones without a long record, have done best since the late seventies. Dem nomination will probably be someone not even on the radar screen right now.

Only quarrel I have with your article are the reasons you cite why people are looking at her. You really don't need to assign anything deeper that that she won big in the most watched senatorial race in a year that the Dem nominee for pres lost. Sheer name recognition and publicity made her appear to be an obvious choice for four years from now. If she did run she'd be tough in the primaries--it's just in the General Election that she would likely get pasted--though that will also depend on Bush and the next four years.

--Michael Murray

(To reply, click here.)


I am a Republican and a true believer in our free enterprise system of government who is fed up with being abused by our present medical system. I will support Hillary in '04 or '08 if she will make one more attempt at taming the beast. Profit-from-sickness should not be part of anyone's agenda. She had the balls to try it once but we listened to the wrong propaganda and let her down. Follow the dollar, if you want to know who the villain is in our system of medicine.

--Julus Moore

(To reply, click here.)


You can say what you want, and I am an Al Gore fan and hope that he will run again. But if Hillary does become the next candidate for President, you can bet that a very large population of women in this country are going to band together to help put the first woman who has a fighting chance to win, into the White House. Say what you will, all politicians have their problems, Hillary included, but don't sell short her greatest strength. She's the first female in the history of this country in striking distance of the Oval Office, and I for one will step out of the wings and work my heart out for her!

--Susan Morrison

(To reply, click here.)

(1/8)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon
PLUS » Achenblog: The New Capitalism Socialism