The danger for Clinton is the sense of inevitability
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Philip Stephens
POLITICS these days is uncomfortable with inevitability. A certain future offends the idea that vibrant democracy depends on thrills, spills and, frequently, blood. Worse, it challenges the gnat-like attention span of 24-hour rolling news. There is a problem here for Hillary Clinton.
Visiting Washington early this month I heard again and again that Mrs Clinton has all but wrapped up her party's nomination for the presidency. The outcome of the Democratic primary season that begins in the opening days of 2008 was a foregone conclusion. A prominent Republican has now joined the chorus. Dick Armey used to be one of the Gingrich gang - the congressional leaders who first humbled, but were then outplayed by, Bill Clinton during the 1990s. Lately Mr Armey tipped the wife of his former nemesis as favourite to replace George W. Bush in the White House. Mrs Clinton, Mr Armey added, was "the most able politician in America". Ouch. That must have hurt.
Yet even as they list the reasons why her lead over Barack Obama and John Edwards is impregnable, I found Democrats in the US capital careful to add a caveat. Mrs Clinton could yet slip in Iowa or stumble in New Hampshire. Something, anything, could happen. Some hope it will.
Motivations vary. Ambitious Democrats who signed up with Barack Obama at the beginning of the year have begun to fret about the cost to their careers. Others have long greeted Mrs Clinton's candidacy with more resignation than enthusiasm.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, it must be said, is not a sequence with universal appeal. Beyond that, no one wants to be caught unawares by one of Donald Rumsfeld's pesky unknown unknowns.
Wishful thinking should not be confused with probabilities. Mrs Clinton's poll lead has depth and breadth. She has been consistently 20, often up to 30, points ahead of Mr Obama. The latest findings of the Pew Research Centre break down Democratic voters into 34 social, economic and ethnic groups - from liberal whites through black Protestants, college graduates and welfare recipients in every region of the US. Mrs Clinton beats Mr Obama and the third-ranking Mr Edwards in each and every category; and, in all but a handful, by double figures. Only among college graduates does Mr Obama come within touching distance. Mrs Clinton, wife to Bill, leads by 12 points among African Americans.
Many of the perceived character traits deemed by the media to be minuses are seen by voters as pluses. Thus Mrs Clinton is widely seen as ambitious, outspoken and tough. In each instance, the polling shows that majorities of two-thirds and above say they rather like these qualities.
In Washington, the most common explanation offered for her lead is that Mrs Clinton has had the money, the organisation, the discipline and, of course, Bill. This is all true. As the race has progressed, the former president has become more of an asset. Though 45 per cent of voters still say they are uncomfortable with the thought of Mr Clinton returning to the White House, 64 per cent say he would probably be a good influence on President Hillary.
Worse (for the Republicans anyway), Mrs Clinton is also faring quite well among church-goers. Pew asked voters to imagine a presidential contest between Mrs Clinton and Rudi Giuliani, the front-runner for the
Republican nomination. Overall, the poll puts her 8 points ahead of Mr Giuliani. Just as interesting, though, voters who regularly attend religious services split only marginally, by 52 per cent to 48 per cent, in Mr Giuliani's favour. Some of this can be attributed to the colourful private life of the former New York mayor. In Mr Armey's estimation, though, Mrs Clinton's devout Methodism has strong appeal among small government, religious conservatives.
Unsurprisingly, the media has been disappointed by all this. Mr Obama had promised an exciting race. The young black senator from Illinois represented a generational as well as an ethnic shift. He was the new political zeitgeist. As money poured into his campaign, it seemed certain that he would run Mrs Clinton close.
Instead, the two frontrunners are just about where they started. The media has been left to scrabble around examining, and then re-examining, Mrs Clinton's personal flaws.
True, she looked ruffled the other day in the face of a concerted assault from her Democratic rivals during the latest televised debate. Yet the very fact that Mr Obama now feels obliged to echo, albeit rather more quietly, Mr Edwards's attacks on Mrs Clinton's character and record testifies to the solidity of her lead.
The legendary Clinton machine offers only part of the explanation for this resilience. While her Democratic opponents have been chasing her in the primaries, Mrs Clinton has been laying the groundwork for next year's fight against the Republican nominee. In the process, she has rewritten many of the assumptions about political campaigns.
Sure, she deploys every art and artifice of modern campaigning. No one beats the Clintons at political street-fighting and aggressive rebuttal. They had plenty of practice during the wars with Mr Armey and the gang back during the 1990s. Just as striking, though less often remarked on, is the extent to which Mrs Clinton's political strategy has been rooted in a relentless preoccupation with issues and policy. From health to education, crime to welfare, climate change to families, globalisation to terrorism, she has a fully worked-up policy; and often more than one.
Some are better than others. On issues where she is vulnerable to Republican attack -- national security and immigration most obviously -- discretion and fuzziness take precedence over clarity and detail. Yet viewed overall her prospectus defies the lazy assumption that positioning always trumps substance, nowadays. Mrs Clinton has prospered because she has presented herself as a serious, capable candidate in command of the issues. Mr Obama has rooted his campaign in his own persona. It has looked flimsy by comparison. None of this means that Mrs Clinton will win the White House. If she does indeed secure the Democratic nomination, the general election will be a much harder fight. We may not yet know the name of the Republican nominee, but we do know that Mrs Clinton remains a deeply divisive figure. Her disapproval ratings have remained stubbornly above 40 per cent. The presidential contest is likely to get very personal.
On the other hand, it is probably worth reflecting that sometimes the seemingly inevitable can turn out to be ... well, just that, inevitable.
POLITICS these days is uncomfortable with inevitability. A certain future offends the idea that vibrant democracy depends on thrills, spills and, frequently, blood. Worse, it challenges the gnat-like attention span of 24-hour rolling news. There is a problem here for Hillary Clinton.
Visiting Washington early this month I heard again and again that Mrs Clinton has all but wrapped up her party's nomination for the presidency. The outcome of the Democratic primary season that begins in the opening days of 2008 was a foregone conclusion. A prominent Republican has now joined the chorus. Dick Armey used to be one of the Gingrich gang - the congressional leaders who first humbled, but were then outplayed by, Bill Clinton during the 1990s. Lately Mr Armey tipped the wife of his former nemesis as favourite to replace George W. Bush in the White House. Mrs Clinton, Mr Armey added, was "the most able politician in America". Ouch. That must have hurt.
Yet even as they list the reasons why her lead over Barack Obama and John Edwards is impregnable, I found Democrats in the US capital careful to add a caveat. Mrs Clinton could yet slip in Iowa or stumble in New Hampshire. Something, anything, could happen. Some hope it will.
Motivations vary. Ambitious Democrats who signed up with Barack Obama at the beginning of the year have begun to fret about the cost to their careers. Others have long greeted Mrs Clinton's candidacy with more resignation than enthusiasm.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, it must be said, is not a sequence with universal appeal. Beyond that, no one wants to be caught unawares by one of Donald Rumsfeld's pesky unknown unknowns.
Wishful thinking should not be confused with probabilities. Mrs Clinton's poll lead has depth and breadth. She has been consistently 20, often up to 30, points ahead of Mr Obama. The latest findings of the Pew Research Centre break down Democratic voters into 34 social, economic and ethnic groups - from liberal whites through black Protestants, college graduates and welfare recipients in every region of the US. Mrs Clinton beats Mr Obama and the third-ranking Mr Edwards in each and every category; and, in all but a handful, by double figures. Only among college graduates does Mr Obama come within touching distance. Mrs Clinton, wife to Bill, leads by 12 points among African Americans.
Many of the perceived character traits deemed by the media to be minuses are seen by voters as pluses. Thus Mrs Clinton is widely seen as ambitious, outspoken and tough. In each instance, the polling shows that majorities of two-thirds and above say they rather like these qualities.
In Washington, the most common explanation offered for her lead is that Mrs Clinton has had the money, the organisation, the discipline and, of course, Bill. This is all true. As the race has progressed, the former president has become more of an asset. Though 45 per cent of voters still say they are uncomfortable with the thought of Mr Clinton returning to the White House, 64 per cent say he would probably be a good influence on President Hillary.
Worse (for the Republicans anyway), Mrs Clinton is also faring quite well among church-goers. Pew asked voters to imagine a presidential contest between Mrs Clinton and Rudi Giuliani, the front-runner for the
Republican nomination. Overall, the poll puts her 8 points ahead of Mr Giuliani. Just as interesting, though, voters who regularly attend religious services split only marginally, by 52 per cent to 48 per cent, in Mr Giuliani's favour. Some of this can be attributed to the colourful private life of the former New York mayor. In Mr Armey's estimation, though, Mrs Clinton's devout Methodism has strong appeal among small government, religious conservatives.
Unsurprisingly, the media has been disappointed by all this. Mr Obama had promised an exciting race. The young black senator from Illinois represented a generational as well as an ethnic shift. He was the new political zeitgeist. As money poured into his campaign, it seemed certain that he would run Mrs Clinton close.
Instead, the two frontrunners are just about where they started. The media has been left to scrabble around examining, and then re-examining, Mrs Clinton's personal flaws.
True, she looked ruffled the other day in the face of a concerted assault from her Democratic rivals during the latest televised debate. Yet the very fact that Mr Obama now feels obliged to echo, albeit rather more quietly, Mr Edwards's attacks on Mrs Clinton's character and record testifies to the solidity of her lead.
The legendary Clinton machine offers only part of the explanation for this resilience. While her Democratic opponents have been chasing her in the primaries, Mrs Clinton has been laying the groundwork for next year's fight against the Republican nominee. In the process, she has rewritten many of the assumptions about political campaigns.
Sure, she deploys every art and artifice of modern campaigning. No one beats the Clintons at political street-fighting and aggressive rebuttal. They had plenty of practice during the wars with Mr Armey and the gang back during the 1990s. Just as striking, though less often remarked on, is the extent to which Mrs Clinton's political strategy has been rooted in a relentless preoccupation with issues and policy. From health to education, crime to welfare, climate change to families, globalisation to terrorism, she has a fully worked-up policy; and often more than one.
Some are better than others. On issues where she is vulnerable to Republican attack -- national security and immigration most obviously -- discretion and fuzziness take precedence over clarity and detail. Yet viewed overall her prospectus defies the lazy assumption that positioning always trumps substance, nowadays. Mrs Clinton has prospered because she has presented herself as a serious, capable candidate in command of the issues. Mr Obama has rooted his campaign in his own persona. It has looked flimsy by comparison. None of this means that Mrs Clinton will win the White House. If she does indeed secure the Democratic nomination, the general election will be a much harder fight. We may not yet know the name of the Republican nominee, but we do know that Mrs Clinton remains a deeply divisive figure. Her disapproval ratings have remained stubbornly above 40 per cent. The presidential contest is likely to get very personal.
On the other hand, it is probably worth reflecting that sometimes the seemingly inevitable can turn out to be ... well, just that, inevitable.