Senator Hillary Clinton’s political career did not end on the night of Tuesday, May 6, 2008. She has a political future, and a brighter one than well over 99.9% of those who hold public office in the United States. Her plans have been thrown awry and she now has to improvise. But surely she will for as I said, she has a political future.
[Point of view - I write this as an enthusiastic support of Senator Obama and as someone who has long opposed Senator Clinton as the 2008 Democratic nominee for President]
Understanding the potential of Senator Clinton’s political future is the key to understanding her political behavior for the remainder of the 2008 campaign for the Presidency. It may be satisfying for some (but not for me) to simply paint her as evil incarnate, some sort of berserker bent on going down in a blaze of destructive glory and into the waiting arms of the valkyries for her enshrinement in Valhalla. Or one may perceive a petty vindictiveness in the Senator in which she intends to make sure that if she can’t have the prize then the one who blocked her path to the title bout won’t have it, either. These trite examples of pop-psychology surely soothe some of the frustration felt by supporters of her primary present political opponent, Senator Obama. But this isn’t an episode of the Superfriends and Senator Clinton isn’t cackling with glee somewhere in the Hall of Doom as she maniacally plots the downfall of those who impeded her diabolocal plot to control the world. She’s simply a politician and she’s plotting her political future, as bland as that reality may be. She’s a politician who plays rough and who plays to win. Personally, I think she’s toeing a dangerous line.
So what are the possible political futures of Senator Clinton? Let’s examine them one by one and reflect on how they govern her actions over the next weeks, the next six months, and the next several years.
Democratic Nominee for President
As it stands, Senator Clinton is the second-most likely individual to receive the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States in 2008. Of course, she trails the leader considerably. Actually catching the leader in delegates is going to take something unforeseen happening, something completely out of left field. This is the sort of event that wouldn’t enhance her current status so much as it would destroy the viability of Senator Obama, leaving her as the only horse in the race. So the question must be asked: why shouldn’t she simply stay in the race?
The answer, of course, is that she is damaging not merely Senator Obama but, almost certainly, the 2008 Democratic nominee. Thus she is inflicting damage on the party’s prospects when the likelihood of that damage paying off by garnering her the nomination are very long. And there comes a time when a candidate’s chances have declined to the point where they need to step aside. John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have long since reached this point, ran the cost-benefits analysis, and accepted that it was time to fold. And yet if we look at one of those individuals in particular, Mike Huckabee, we might see where Hillary Clinton stands today. It remains to be seen if Senator Clinton will continue to strenuously run against Senator Obama, or if she will alter her message and begin to run, exclusively, for herself and to an extent for progressive principles and the Democratic Party as well as against Senator McCain.
There is logic behind this practice beyond winning the nomination. First, as many have pointed out, it would be awkward and embarrassing for Senator Obama to be the presumptive nominee and the all-but acknowledged nominee even by all his opponents, and still lose next week in West Virginia and the week after that in Kentucky. The races after that are Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. Senator Obama should win the last two, and certainly will if Senator Clinton drops out before then. As for Puerto Rico, let’s be honest - losing a Spanish-speaking place that isn’t a state, doesn’t cast a slate of electors for President, and which most Americans would be hard-pressed to locate on a map wouldn’t have anywhere near the impact of losing a state like Kentucky. Second, there is the financial aspect. Continuing to run a cheap campaign in which ad buys are curtailed or eliminated and which is largely confined to public appearances would allow Senator Clinton to erase some of her campaign’s financial debt. Third, it may simply be that she prefers a time of decompression, so to speak. Rather than just yank the plug, she may slowly bring the campaign - the very long campaign - to a close. She may use her speaking oppurtunities to say some things that she hasn’t said, couldn’t say, in a competitive race. I keep waiting for signs of this sort of benign continuity of her campaign. Regrettably, I’ve yet to see it.
It may also be that she simply doesn’t think she is doing serious damage to the Obama campaign as she presses on. I have heard reports from inside the campaign that both Senator and President Clinton are convinced that 2008 is a year that so favors Democrats that whoever is the nominee can win regardless of how brutal the primary may be. This could also account for her surmised willingness to try and convince the super delegates to overturn, say, an Obama lead of 150 pledged delegates and 500,000 popular votes. Personally, however, I do not think she will do that because Senator Clinton is a highly intelligent individual and should see that there are limits to how she can win the nomination without fracturing the Democratic base. Admittedly, I am increasingly concerned that she is not showing signs of seeing this.
Do not overlook the fact that she may be laying the groundwork for her 2012/2016 campaign right now. She may be intent on strongly underscoring her status as a fighter for future reference, both to encourage supporters down the road as well as to discourage those who also might be considering running against her for some future nomination.
Finally, it may also be that Senator Clinton simply only understands two modes: not running for President (see, 2004) and running for President (see, 2008). If this is the case, it is not good news for the Democratic Party.
Democratic Nominee for Vice President
Does Senator Clinton want to be Senator Obama’s running mate? I am not convinced of this. Let us consider how it enhances her chances to one day be President. On one hand, it puts her second in line to the Presidency. On the other hand, Senator Obama would be the fifth youngest President and a mere 55 years of age if he leaves office in 2017, having served two full terms. Ascent to the Presidency due to vacation of the office seems rather unlikely. Then there’s the possibility that she might, as a sitting two-term Vice President, succeed President Obama by election directly to the Presidency. After all, George H.W. Bush did that. But he is the only sitting Vice president to do such a thing in the last 170 years. And Senator Clinton is probably aware that since the middle of the 20th Century, only once has the party which has held the White House for eight years managed to hold onto it for another four years (in 1988). While some Vice Presidents could afford to wait four or eight years after leaving the Vice Presidency before seeking the Presidency, Hillary Clinton will be 69 years old in 2016; waiting until 2020 would be problematic, to say the least.
And what if Senator Obama loses in 2008? If he does lose, would it not be better for her to not be associated directly with the Obama campaign? Being the losing Vice Presidential nominee, the good soldier who put aside her differences and tried to help her one-time opponent win the White House, would likely enhance only her chances of the nomination in 2012; it wouldn’t help her actually win the general election in that year. She would be better off simply supporting the Obama campaign - strongly supporting the ticket - and if Senator Obama loses, then positioning herself for the nomination four years from now. Her message then, implicitly and most certainly not explicitly, could be, "Four years ago you chose my opponent. I felt I would make a stronger candidate, and I still feel I would have won the election that he lost. But I accepted the choice of the party and I strived to get Senator Obama elected. Now I’m asking that you make me the nominee."
And if she is not the Vice Presidential nominee and Obama wins the Presidency, there is always the chance (granted, not a likely one) that he would not pursue a second term. Alternatively, she can still run in 2008, even if the sitting Vice President runs as well. That could be problematic but it might not be an insurmountable impediment.
United States Senator (Democrat - New York)
Hillary Clinton is a United States Senator. That is a very powerful position. While her supporters often complain that she is being denied - yet again! - the top position, the fact remains that there is only one top position. In the American body politic, United States Senator is a rather lofty position. That she is a United States Senator from a large state such as New York is all the more impressive.
There also remain goals for which she can reach even aside from the Presidency. Here on DKos it is often suggested that Senator Clinton become Majority Leader Clinton. It is hardly inconceivable that Majority Leader Reid might be retired from that post by the party. There is Governor of New York, now held by David Paterson, a man who probably never expected to become Governor and who has certainly had a rocky first couple of months. I’ve heard quite a bit of skepticism that he will even run - or that if he tries, he’ll face serious challenges in getting the Democratic nomination - in 2010.
It is worth also considering non-elective office. In an Obama administration one can imagine a variety of cabinet positions for Hillary Clinton: Secretary of Health and Human Service, Attorney General, Secretary of State.
And these goals need not simply be viewed as consolation prizes. Each could burnish the resume of Senator Clinton, the Governorship in particular. There is life after failing to become President. John Kerry remains a Senator, and probably not one under the delusion that he’s likely to ever get another shot at the Presidency. Senators Goldwater and McGovern served for years in the Senate after failing as Presidential nominees. Vice President Humphrey returned to the Senate after he lost the 1968 election. Senators Kennedy and Dole and McCain, Congressman Gephardt, and many others have had long and fruitful political careers after failing to get their party’s nomination for the Presidency.
What Now?
We (and I say this mainly from the Obama-supporter point of view) sit back and see what the next week holds. It is not off to an encouraging start with Senator Clinton’s "white Americans" meme. And yet that fits with the "Who cares, either me or Obama is a shoe-in in November anyway" line of thought (which is not my line of thought, just to clarify).
And then there are the superdelegates. After all, whatever hope she retains of winning this year rests on the superdelegates. She can lose the pledged delegates and win the nomination (conceivably, if a long shot) but she can’t lose the superdelegates. And even she sees that when they decide, it’s over.
My main point is that I think it’s best to deal with the reality of Senator Clinton, not the caricature. The caricature can’t be dealt with because it doesn’t exist. The reality does exist, it’s ultimately rationale (even if based on assumptions with which you and I don’t agree) and can be dealt with. And this is why Senator Clinton will not intentionally cripple the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign. Mind you, I am increasingly concerned that she may cripple it unintentionally.
Thanks for bearing with me and indulging my notion that my thoughts are worthy of your time.