Clinton as the Insiders' Shoo-in
Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog -- The Fix
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
It's official: Washington insiders believe Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee.
Just take a look at some of the evidence:
* Sunday's front-page New York Times story led with this sentence: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her early lead in the Democratic presidential contest, showing steady strength as the candidates head toward the first voting early next year."
* Clinton appeared on five --FIVE! -- Sunday talk shows, winning generally positive reviews and, as importantly from her perspective, not making any errors.
* Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) -- at one point a candidate for the 2008 nod himself -- on Monday threw his support behind Clinton, calling her a "seasoned, experienced leader who will be ready to lead this country on day one." The two serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee together and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan in January.
* Early predictions for the third fundraising quarter, which ends Sunday, hold that Clinton will outraise Sen. Barack Obama.
Those four factors -- not to mention President Bush saying that he expects Clinton to be the nominee -- and, voila, you see the Washington establishment lining up behind the Clinton "inevitability" view.
"The 'establishment' fears nothing more than not having booked passage on a ship set to sail," explained senior party strategist, Carter Eskew, who is not supporting any of the current candidates. "She has passed early tests in the debates, built a great campaign, gained ground in Iowa, blunted negatives [and] mastered the Sunday talk gauntlet."
One senior party strategist not involved in any of the campaigns added that "not everyone is on board as there are mavericks amongst us all, but more and more she is pulling folks to her."
It's hard to disagree with this view. But the broader argument is whether it makes any difference that Clinton now seems to be the default nominee in the eyes of the inside-the-Beltway class.
Ask Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic party strategist supporting Clinton, and he insists that there is a real impact to the gelling of the D.C. establishment behind his chosen candidate.
"Iowa caucus attendees are somewhat like D.C. insiders in terms of how much attention they pay to the race and how focused they are in who can win," argued Elmendorf.
We agree -- sort of. Iowa voters like to tout their independence from national trends, but no well-informed voter can avoid paying some attention to what is going on nationally. People like to be with a winner, and if Clinton looks like a winner heading into the early days of January (when we expect the Iowa caucuses to be held), then Elmendorf's line of thinking says the caucus-goers will be behind HRC.
But it's harder for us to see the comparison between the D.C. chattering class and the average Iowa caucus voter. Both are, as Elmendorf says, far more politically minded than the average American, but most Iowans don't do politics as their full time job. That means that they don't live it day in and day out like people in Washington (The Fix included).
For those less favorably inclined toward Clinton, Washington's alignment behind her is to be expected and is relatively meaningless.
It's no mistake that on the same day that Clinton rolled out her endorsement from Bayh, the Obama campaign held a conference call to announce that Gordon Fischer, the former Iowa Democratic Party chairman, is supporting the Illinois senator.
The message? Clinton may have the Washington types behind her, but the people who really matter -- well-connected activists in early states -- are lining up behind Obama. Both Obama and Edwards have spent considerable time seeking to link Clinton to the Washington establishment (and to her husband's administration), believing that Democratic voters are ready for a change in politics as usual, regardless of which party is practicing it.
While political Washington is broadly unpopular, it's hard to argue that official Washington's belief that Clinton will be the nominee is bad for her. Like it or not, much of the campaign conventional wisdom is set in Washington; if a slew of politicians begin to come out for Clinton, it will further cement the idea that she is the inevitable nominee.
The short-term benefit for Clinton is financial. Donors who might have jumped on early with another candidate or simply hadn't opened their checkbook for Clinton yet are almost certain to hedge their bets to ensure that they aren't on the outside looking in if and when Clinton becomes the nominee.
One unaffiliated Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about Clinton, suggested there are benefits beyond money for her campaign as a result of the professional political class getting behind her. "She can use official Washington as validators on policy and positions, endorsements from organizations, organizers in key states, and [to] influence media coverage," the source said.
The long-term effects are less clear and could develop in vastly different ways.
Under one scenario, Clinton will use her growing sense of inevitability in Washington to turn her campaign into a juggernaut heading into the new year. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, people jump on with Clinton because she looks like the nominee.
On the other hand, Clinton's clear emergence as the candidate of the party establishment could raise expectations to an unreasonably high level, meaning that if Clinton doesn't win in Iowa it could be more devastating than if the race was still regarded as wide open.
blog.washingtonpost.com |
