Column: "Hillary Clinton, in Danger of Decline"

Wednesday, 28 February 2007
777 words

When you hear pro-Clinton Democrats wonder aloud whether Barack Obama is qualified to be president, feel free to ask exactly what Hillary Clinton has done to make her imminently more qualified than Senator Obama, or anyone else in the field. Senator Clinton has served one full term (and about two months of a second term) in the Senate but has held no other office. This means she has only four more years of on-the-job experience than Obama, unless you count the eight years she spent sticking her nose into her husband’s business.

The Constitution sets rather pedestrian limits for who can be president: If you were born here, have maintained a residence in-country for fourteen years and have aged thirty-five years, you too can add your name to the list of intellectual malcontents hoping to push the United States even closer to full blown socialism. Of course, “qualified to be president” means something extra-constitutional in the modern parlance, and differs depending on which party is eyeballing the candidates. Republicans tend to lean toward pro-life, pro-family, small government, no-new-taxes / lower tax contenders, someone of the brand who will say, “When it concerns the United States and / or its allies, we must stare down the dirt worshipers and make them blink and bend to our will, never vice versa.” Democrats … well, Democrats lean in opposite directions.

Except that in the case of Obama and Clinton, “qualified to be president” means something above and beyond even the modern parlance. Both are cookie-cutter liberals; both are old world socialists; and if left to their own devices, they will each take virtually the same stance on almost every issue facing the electorate. The fight is over the direction of the Democratic party as a whole.

For Clinton supporters, there is a “business as usual” feel to her candidacy, a sentiment predicated upon the belief that everything worked out so well for Bill Clinton (in a manner of speaking), there’s no reason not to trust the sequel. Meanwhile, those supporting Obama have developed a distinct feeling that Democratism must modernize to remain relevant; that it shouldn’t carry such a stilted, stale, inherited sense about it. This speaks to the obvious truth: Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is nothing if not an inherited movement. Never mind the Democratic nomination – how close would Mrs. Clinton be to the Senate if her husband hadn’t been president? Suppose Bill Clinton abandons the governorship and goes straight to the private sector; in that instance, Hillary Clinton has no more chance of winning the presidency in 2008 than I do.

Said another way, a lot of Democrats are tired of seeing and hearing Hillary Clinton, but too few will be upfront about saying so, in case they have to hitch their cart to her later on (i.e., if Obama fails to secure the nomination). What made David Geffen’s comments so interesting was his willingness to flatly declare his dislike for Clinton while thinking nothing of the aftermath. This is what true conviction looks like. Geffen won’t vote for a Republican, and would never counsel a fellow Democrat to do so, but through his public objection has made it plainly known that he’ll only vote for Clinton if he can hold his nose at the same time.

In the pantheon of political mistakes, overstaying your welcome is one of the most severe, as voters tend to lose patience with anyone seen lingering in the spotlight for too long. The Clinton campaign’s immediate, visceral reaction to Geffen’s interview shows not only that she’s scared of Obama’s growing popularity, especially among blacks, but also that she is keenly aware this is her one real shot at the presidency. Oh, she can run again as many times as she’d like, but you can count the number of failed, major party re-nominees on one hand. She knows her time is short.

Question: Is Hillary Clinton in danger of slipping badly this far removed from the nation’s first primary? Well, there is only so much slippage a tightly controlled candidate can manage without first killing a puppy on stage, but yes, she is in danger. Clinton whips Obama in name recognition and nothing else; he is smoother, more honest, and more likeable than Clinton. Unless Obama himself takes to puppy slaughter, he will spend the spring and summer familiarizing himself with as many Democrats and fence sitters as possible. He may not surpass Clinton in the polls, but Obama will create greater distance between himself and third place, which will leave the Clinton campaign puzzled as primaries draws closer. Trust me when I tell you: Legitimate competition has no place in Clinton campaign strategy.