The drumbeat has already started. Yesterday's
New York Times ran two stories about Hillary Rodham Clinton's run for President in 2008. By the time the nominating process starts in earnest, there could be an air of inevitability about her, even more so than with Mondale in 1984, Dole in 1996, and Gore in 2000.
A media-driven bandwagon effect is great news for Hillary, but terrible news for the Democratic Party. Here's why:
- She supported the Iraq war . It was bad enough that anti-war Democrats had to suck it up and voted for John Kerry, who voted to give George W. Bush a blank check in Iraq. Hillary is worse: she's even more hawkish. And the last thing the Democrats need in 2008 is a strong supporter of the Iraq debacle. The Democrats need to hang that war around the GOP's neck and make they pay for their pig-headedness. That's something Hillary can't do.
- She'll put the DLC back in charge. While Howard Dean didn't win the nomination, he gave the party a backbone and the moved the rank-and-file away from the DLC's losing Republican Lite strategy. If Hillary winds up at the head of the ticket, all those gains go by the board, and Al From and Bruce Reed are back in charge.
- The road to the White House doesn't lead through the Senate. Only two U.S. Senators have been elected president in the last 100 years, Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy. The odds aren't exactly in Hillary's favor.
- Re-fight the Clinton Wars? No thanks. With Hillary as the nominee, the topics of discussion won't be health care, education, or Social Security. They'll be the Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, and the stain on Monica's blue dress. Guess who'll win on those issues?
- She'll motivate the wrong base. It's only a matter of time before GOP fractures into its libertarian/fiscally conservative and authoritarian/socially conservative wings. But that won't happen if Hillary is the nominee. She's is the Right's ultimate bogeyperson, a GOP fundraiser's fondest dream.
- Does America need even more celebrity politics? Nominating Hillary will perpetuate, depending on your point of view, either a bad soap opera or the American version of the Wars of the Roses: the House of Bush versus the House of Clinton. It would also further America's descent into celebrity politics, a trend that has put the appalling Arnold Schwarzenegger in California's governor's mansion.
- Her negatives are too high. There's an old saying in politics, "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." And Hillary has plenty of enemies: polls show her negatives in the 40-percent range. Since just about everyone knows her and has an opinion of her, those numbers won't change.
- She's bad news for down-ticket races. During Bill Clinton's two terms, the Democratic Party lost seats at every level from U.S. Senate down to drain commissioner. With the Clintons' friend, Terry McAuliffe, at the head of the DNC, the rot at the federal level continued. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I doubt it.
- The Democratic Party is not a Clinton fiefdom. But as long as Bill and Hillary are in the limelight, they'll suck the oxygen out of the room, denying up-and-coming Democrats the chance to introduce themselves to the voters. The party's farm system, not Hilllary, is the key to a comeback.
- She's the insider's insider. We've seen what the consultants, pollsters, and fat cats have done to the Democratic Party. It's time to think outside the Beltway, But that won't happen if Hillary, the party's ultimate establishment figure, becomes the nominee--and, with it, the titular leader of the party.