While I was watching the returns on Tuesday night the realization hit me that Hillary Clinton is probably unelectable at a national level. Too cold, too calculating, too mean, too liberal, too many pink suits. That said, it is going to be difficult - probably impossible - for any of the Democratic contenders to muscle her out of the way if she wins re-election in 2006. She may get the nomination but she won't win.
nytimes.com
November 4, 2004
2008 CONTENDER
For the Moment, Mrs. Clinton Looks Like the Candidate to Beat
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists.
Many Democrats have been saying for months that a Kerry victory on Tuesday would have forced Mrs. Clinton to put off any plans she had to run for president in 2008 because Mr. Kerry would, as the incumbent, be in a strong position to win the party's nomination for a second term.
But now, even this soon after Mr. Kerry's loss, many Democrats in and out of Washington are mentioning Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, as the leading contender for the party's nomination in 2008, citing her immense popularity among Democrats, her fund-raising prowess and her formidable political operation, which was employed, unsuccessfully, in the Kerry presidential bid.
"Hillary now becomes a natural rallying point for the party," said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic consultant in New York. "Hillary has a national constituency, a top-tier political organization and shrewd political skills."
"The party will be looking to her," said Chris Lehane, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry early in his campaign. "Hillary is uniquely positioned."
But that said, Democratic officials cautioned that it would be unwise to count out the bench of potential Democratic stars, including Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and, of course, John Edwards, Mr. Kerry's running mate.
More than that, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately maintained on Wednesday that she has a far bigger hurdle to surmount before she can seriously contemplate any presidential candidacy: her own re-election back home in New York in 2006. Her aides and other strategists argue that she must win her re-election decisively - not merely eke out a victory - because it would be futile for her to begin a national campaign with a shaky base of support back home.
"She knows that she has to keep her eye on the ball, and the ball is 2006," said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton who spoke on condition of anonymity. "She's methodical and meticulous, and so she is going to focus on what's in front of her right now."
As things stand, Mrs. Clinton has done a notable job enhancing her popularity among New Yorkers in the last four years, with 61 percent supporting her in September, compared with 38 percent in February 2001, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
But at the same time, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers have had to contend with a stark fact of life for her: there are large numbers of voters who simply do not like her, no matter what she does.
Roughly one of three New York voters surveyed have told pollsters for Quinnipiac University that they have an unfavorable opinion of her. (This core of seemingly implacable critics is a major reason that some of her advisers had serious doubts about her presidential prospects this year.)
Mrs. Clinton's unfavorable ratings make her an enticing target for Republicans, who can count on the so-called Hillary haters to give momentum to any campaign they decide to mount against her. Indeed, some Democrats believe that one big-name Republican giving serious thought to challenging her in 2006 is Gov. George E. Pataki, a three-term incumbent who has made inroads among Democratic voters and who is up for re-election that year.
In discussing her viability as a candidate for national office, Mrs. Clinton's advisers note that over the last four years she has been able to turn so-called undecided voters into admirers. The number of people who have told Quinnipiac pollsters, for example, that they are undecided about her has dropped - to 7 percent in September from 33 percent in February 2001 - even as her approval numbers have climbed.
"Look, there's a core of people who are not going to vote for her, no matter what she does," said the Clinton adviser who asked not to be identified. "But in the last few years she has done a remarkable job of winning over swing voters."
Mrs. Clinton may face another obstacle if she decides to seek her party's nomination: The last thing the Democrats may be looking for right now is a politically polarizing Northeastern senator who is regarded as a liberal in many political quarters.
But her aides point out that since arriving in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has staked out moderate-to-conservative positions on a host of issues, from welfare to the war in Iraq, much to the chagrin of her liberal supporters and the satisfaction of some Republicans.
Democrats say that the role Mrs. Clinton plays in national politics will hinge in large part on what President Bush does over the next four years. As perhaps the best-known Democrat in the Senate, she is naturally poised to become a spokeswoman for the party under a Republican administration that is expected to deal with a host of politically charged issues, like any Bush nominations to the Supreme Court.
"Hillary Clinton is the one who the party, the press and the public will look to to engage and respond to the Bush administration," said Mr. Lehane, the Democratic strategist.
But Mr. Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, says he thinks that the Democratic Party, in seeking to rebuild itself in the next few years, should also be looking outside Washington for its new generation of leaders.
"The power center of the party has to be shared," he said. "It can't be just Congressional Democrats or Senate Democrats. It has to include Democratic governors who are being elected in non-Democratic strongholds like the West and the South."
Finally, Democrats say that a danger for Mrs. Clinton is that if she is seen as the top contender at this point, her Democratic rivals have nearly four years to try to undercut her.
But it is not just Democrats who will look to undermine her if she widely perceived as a leading presidential contender, political analysts say. It is also Republicans, particularly those in New York, who are certainly going to argue during her re-election campaign in 2006 that she is simply using the state as a launching pad for her national ambitions.
"If she runs for re-election in New York, that will bring the inevitable question of whether she will serve out her full term in the Senate," said one person who is close to the Clintons. |
