Replies

'Stop Hillary' bandwagon gathers pace
The Sunday Times ^ | January 29, 2006 | Sarah Baxter

Posted on 01/29/2006 12:49:56 AM PST by MadIvan

THE frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton, is heading into a hail of opposition from within her own party after a poll showed last week that most Americans would “definitely” not vote for her.

Aides in Bill Clinton’s White House are warning she could be a risky choice. To their left, an anti-war “stop Hillary” bandwagon is gathering momentum, threatening her ability to unite the Democrats.

Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s White House press secretary, fears the 2008 campaign could be brutal for the former first lady, now a senator for New York. He remembers how she became a “lightning rod” for the right during her husband’s years in office.

“She has proven that she works hard at being senator and does that job well, but bringing the country together and moving it in a different direction is an entirely different matter,” McCurry said. “It is very hard to reinvent yourself in politics.”

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last week found that 51% of Americans “definitely” would not vote for her and only 16% said they definitely would. Among men, 60% said they would not vote for her.

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, said there was “nervousness” among Democrats about backing such a controversial figure at a time when many Americans believe President George W Bush had polarised the country.

Like McCurry, he wondered whether Clinton was “the kind of lightning rod that would stimulate all of the opposition” and resurrect the “hate side of the political agenda”.

“Ultimately the issue is: do we turn to something new? We’ve been through the Clintons, we’ve been through the Gores, we’ve been through the Kerrys, all of whom are known quantities in politics,” Panetta said.

Bush described Clinton as “formidable” in an interview ahead of his annual State of the Union address this Tuesday. Republicans are determined not to underestimate her voter appeal in 2008, particularly as they are short of well-known candidates.

“This is an unusual year because this is the first time there hasn’t been a kind of natural successor in the party,” Bush said.

The Democrats have a new rising star in Mark Warner, who recently stepped down as governor of the conservative state of Virginia. His proven appeal to moderate voters is attracting Democrats of all shades who are anxious to win, but he remains little known on the national scene.

The doubts about Clinton’s electoral viability have surfaced as she romps towards re-election as New York senator this year.

She has already seen off one Republican challenger — whose campaign was reduced to tatters — and last week dispatched another, Ed Cox, the son-in-law of former president Richard Nixon. He turned down his party’s increasingly desperate pleas to stand.

Clinton’s modest success with voters in small-town upstate New York is taken by some as proof that she can win over conservatives, although according to last week’s poll, 90% of Republicans will “definitely” not vote for her.

New Republic magazine, the left-of-centre weekly, argues in its current issue that the voters of rural New York bear little comparison to diehard Republican voters in the South and Midwest. “She is going to have to bring something else to the national stage,” it warned.

Clinton’s hawkish stance on the war on terror, Iraq and Iran has infuriated the anti-war movement. Molly Ivins, a left-wing commentator, wrote last week she would not support her for president. “Enough,” she fumed. “Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone.”

McCurry believes that, contrary to legend, Clinton is a conviction politician rather than “a wild-eyed liberal”, yet were she to become president her divisive reputation could get in the way of her programme for government. “It would not be a comfortable place to be hunkered in a bunker for four to eight years getting pelted by the Republicans with rotten tomatoes,” he said.

Clinton is waiting for her Senate race to be over in November before making a final decision on whether to stand. There is no doubt she would love to return to the White House, this time with Bill as “first gentleman”.

The further away he is from the centre of power, the more Bill Clinton has gained in popularity. If he returns to the fray, the cash-for-pardons scandal at the end of his presidency and the minutiae of his sex life are likely to be re-examined. And after two Bushes in the White House, two President Clintons could be regarded as overly dynastic.

In the Senate, Clinton has forged political alliances on such issues as heathcare with the rightwinger Newt Gingrich and on the environment with Senator John McCain, a 2008 Republican contender. According to McCurry, she is enjoying the role of consensus-maker.

“She clearly understands there is a real need to re-establish some sense of bipartisan co-operation and has to assess, ‘Could I be that kind of leader?’ That takes you to the question the polls raise, which is: would she get that opportunity?”

Clinton has raised more than $15m (£8.5m) for her Senate re-election campaign, which could be diverted to a White House run. She has all the name recognition, money and ambition a candidate could want, but is keeping her options open about whether to stand.

“Sometimes presidential campaigns take on a momentum of their own and they become inevitable,” said McCurry, “but she is wise enough to avoid that predicament.”