The Dynamic Center 11.02.07: The Flavorless Play It Safe Campaign of Hillary Clinton

Posted by Dan Martin on 11.02.2007

She is seemingly running away with it, but is anyone excited about her as a candidate? Who exactly is her base? How is a hawk winning the Democratic nomination!?!?

I want to start with some statements that I think are obviously true in order to shed light on my thesis that Hillary Clinton's campaign supremacy runs the risk of being a disaster for the Democratic Party.

1. Democrats won in 2006 because most Democrats, some Republicans and many Independents were seriously troubled by the state of the Iraq War.

2. Hillary Clinton is the most Hawkish candidate in the Democratic Primary.

3. Democrats have much of their activist energy and enthusiasm coming from wings of the party that want massive change away from the status quo of the Bush administration.

4. Hillary Clinton has sent a message due to her fund raising tactics that her style of government will be a change in degree rather than kind from Bush's.

The even numbered points seem to be in direct contradiction to the odd numbered statements. So, how is it that Hillary is winning? What are the implications of her as the nominee?*

Thee Reasons Why the Democratic Primary is So Close to Being Over

1. Institutional Power: Hillary Clinton has made few if any technical mistakes in her campaigning. She has locked up a lot of institutional support within the Democratic Party. This is no doubt due in some part to the connections forged during her husband's 8 years as President. Iowa's Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary instead of fellow governor Bill Richardson. Many labor unions have endorsed Hillary or refrained from endorsing John Edwards who put labor issues at the forefront of his platform. Hillary Clinton has received key endorsements from virtually every key Democratic constituency and thus has received all of the mailing lists, volunteer lists and other organizational advantages that such endorsements provide.

2. Money Power: Hillary Clinton has also raised a ton of money. She has done so in a different fashion from the grass roots cash machine that is the Barak Obama campaign. Still, Hillary drew in enough funds to surpass her top rival even if it meant cozying up with many special interests. John Edwards hammered her on this point. I think the criticism has legs, but it is a criticism that will also take time before the voters really buy into it. That leads us to Hillary's third advantage: the frontloaded primaries.

3. Clock Management: If Hillary wins a few early primaries, the nomination will more or less be over. An unknown challenger needs time to build a case, and the primary frontloading just is not going to allow for that to happen. With a compressed primary schedule, Hillary's money and organizational advantages overshadow any weaknesses she has as a candidate.

Running Out the Clock by Avoiding Mistakes

Hillary Clinton is in a position to win a war of attrition in Iowa and then simply run out the clock. She simply has to remain gaffe free in order to have great odds at victory. This gaffe free campaigning is largely bland and flavorless in a political climate that could use some frenzied voters and heated debates. Team Hillary has largely succeeded at avoiding gaffes. In the debates, she has deflected criticism. Her fundraising has set up a nice war chest. Her husband wrote a non-controversial book and got a national tour to go and talk about charity and volunteerism (the book is pretty good). The timing of the book, the book's media blitz and book tour certainly coincided with Hillary's campaign for President accidentally right? I am sure the paperback edition will also coincidentally be released around the time of the general election.

The Tony Blair Wing of the Democratic Party Produces the Nominee?

The war hawk, but economically and socially progressive wing of the Democratic Party had one bright point when Joe Lieberman briefly held the lead in the 2004 Democratic Primary polls. Tony Blair offered a model Democrats likely would have had to follow if W. had not invaded Iraq. Instead, the Iraq War galvanized the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. Given the unpopularity of the war among Democrats and Independents, one has to question the wisdom of nominating a candidate who is not clearly anti-war on Iraq. Still, due to the money, organization and truncated primary schedule, Clinton appears to be the best bet for the nomination. I guess we may yet see "Compassionate Conservatism", the best a progressive can hope for from a Hillary Clinton Administration.

Likeability in General Elections

If Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have anything in common, it is that they are both more personable than their opponents were when they ran for President. Likeability is a major issue in presidential politics and while Bill and W. each struck the wrong note with some groups and engendered hatred, on a whole each was able to come across as generally likeable. Bob Dole even described Bill Clinton as a "likable rogue" in Bob Woodward's chronicle of the 1996 election entitled The Choice.

Hillary Clinton is not very likable. The bland approach of winning endorsements and racking up cash is not likely to push her to the White House in a competitive 2 person race. Nevertheless, if the Republicans nominate someone who fractures their base, such as a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights candidate or a flip flopping New Englander, bland will win the 2008 general election. Otherwise, the Democrats may blow the biggest sure thing in recent political memory. In short, Hillary may have the edge in primary support, but she is unlikely to fire up the voters who will vote for her and unlikely to sway voters on the fence. Many pollsters have already spilled a lot of ink dealing with her ceiling of popularity that rests below 50%. A more likable candidate would have a greater margin for error in the 2008 general election.

Iowa Pitfall?

Hillary's nomination hopes do not hinge on victory in Iowa, but a win more or less ends the fighting before it gets started. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich told his supporters to caucus with John Edwards' if they did not meet the minimum numbers in their precinct because he liked Edwards' economic positions. I cannot see the very anti-war Kucinich throwing his supporters to Hillary. Therefore, Kucinich will likely push his supporters to either Edwards or Obama. If Edwards really means what he said about Hillary earlier this week, he may have to consider a well timed endorsement of Obama in order to avert a Democratic version of W.'s policies. This seems highly unlikely due to Edwards own chance at victory in Iowa.

Weak Opposition

Hillary Clinton is likely deliver a kinder gentler version of today's policies. That fact has me still trying to get my head around who her natural constituency might be. Professional women and New York area voters make sense as her base. Still, my best guess says her success to this point is owed to nostalgia for her husband and the weakness of her opponents as much as it is anything she is doing right. Mark Warner was likely the best candidate to excite the Democratic base while putting Electoral College pressure on the Republicans. Hell, Virginia's freshman senator Jim Webb could pull of Biden's tough guy act while being likable. The Democrats do not have a Southern candidate despite past success with nominating Southerners. If a Warner-Obama ticket existed, the 2008 election would be a slam dunk for the Democrats. Instead, Hillary Clinton and ____________ (Bill Richardson, Wes Clark, Tom Vilsack …) will be the safe, flavorless, bland ticket that will run for the presidency in November 2008. This ought to throw enough water on the Democratic base to make 2008 a competitive election.



* In fact, Al Gore and climate change is the other figure/issue that has generated a lot of buzz among progressives. It is fast becoming a badly kept secret that the Gores and Clintons are not as friendly as they once were. How Hillary is winning when her stance on the War is at odds with a motivated base and she has a poor relationship with the new global statesman Al Gore is beyond my powers of reasoning.