The inevitable has finally happened: Hillary Clinton has declared her candidacy for president. After being foretold by Saturday Night Live last night, Hillary announced her campaign over social media. So, just as I have done for Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, I will look at her strengths and weaknesses, and offer my thoughts on the viability of her campaign. Truth be told, there is hardly anything new I can offer to the discussion, but this will be fun, anyway.
Strengths
Let's state the obvious, first: Hillary Clinton is the undisputed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Like 2008, she has the support of party leaders and the infrastructure of the political machine she and her husband have built over the last thirty years. Unlike 2008, she does not have to worry about an insurgency campaign from a rising star like Barack Obama, primarily because the Democrats have no rising stars. By all accounts, she has neutralized the threat of Elizabeth Warren, probably the only Democrat who could launch a lefty insurgency against her. Hillary has the support of nearly all branches of the party and should have no trouble securing the finances and organizational support necessary to win a number of primaries.
Yes, Hillary Clinton has the potential to "make history" by becoming America's first female president. Is it sufficient to win the nomination and the White House? No, but it certainly does not hurt her. For all the rumblings about the glass ceiling and other structural barriers to a woman becoming president, I really do not believe there are too many people still out there who would not vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Even if some of these people do exist, they are surely neutralized and outnumbered by the number of feminists determined to ensure that a woman wins the presidency next year. All in all, the gender factor should be an overall advantage for Mrs. Clinton, especially if the GOP does not put a woman on the ticket.
Another advantage Hillary has is her extensive resume. Although this would ideally be the first thing people discuss when considering any candidate, including Clinton, we all know that it is not. In any event, Secretary of State has been a strong launching point for future presidents at several points in American history (although James Buchanan was the last Secretary of State to become president). Hillary's tenure, while controversial at times, was more or less successful and has certainly given her the foreign policy chops to do well in primary debates and could be advantageous if she ends up facing an opponent with limited foreign policy experience (which pretty much describes all potential Republican candidates at this point). Her tenure in the Senate, while somewhat brief, would be helpful if she were to win the White House as she can take advantage of her legislative connections to get policies passed. Finally, her active (perhaps excessively so) time as First Lady can only be advantageous as she will know better than anyone else the intricacies and difficulties of life in the White House. Hillary has, in short, a resume as long as any of her potential rivals, especially in an otherwise-weak Democratic field.
Weaknesses
As 2008 showed us, however, Hillary is not invincible. As much as she is expected to cruise to the nomination, it is still extremely early and she will be the hunted from now on. Being the "frontrunner" is a precarious position, as your whole life is laid bare and the media compete to break the story that ruins you.
Hillary certainly is not without her faults. First, she could face a challenge from an economic liberal (Bernie Sanders come to mind) who could rally the Liz Warren wing against Hillary's reincarnation of Al From's New Democrats of the 90's. Martin O'Malley is actively trying to do this right now, and could force Hillary to move to the economic left in order to shore up the Democratic base at the expense of the economic middle (although the effect of this could be negligible if Jeb is forced to move right in order to convert conservatives to his camp). Second, her past vote for the Iraq War could still hurt her if Lincoln Chafee and/or Jim Webb officially decide to run. An oppositional campaign from Chafee would be especially interesting as he was a Republican at the time he cast that vote, which would give him even more credibility on the issue. Although Larry Sabato think the vote is "fading in importance," a strong campaign from Chafee or Webb would make this vote relevant, again (especially if they can tie that vote to some of her actions as Secretary of State).
Recently, some scandals have emerged involving Mrs. Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Personally, I doubt they will make much of a difference in the primary season- Democrats will simply shrug off the email scandal as white noise and the Benghazi scandal as the paranoid ramblings of FOX News pundits. I do not know who is "right" in these cases, but I am very skeptical that Hillary will suffer many repercussions in the primary season from these scandals. As for the general election, it could make a difference if something actually comes of the emails that is tangible and transcends partisan politics.
Hillary's biggest weakness, however, is the sense among Americans that Clinton feels entitled to the presidency and that next year's election could be a heavyweight fight re-match between two of America's royal families. It is not as though Hillary is offering any "new" ideas, especially now that her baby of socialized health care has been more or less implemented by her predecessor. Instead, the whole basis for Clinton's presidency seems to be that it is her turn to be president, especially since a meddling kid ruined it for her in 2008. I have yet to see anything indicating that Mrs. Clinton is offering a grand, optimistic new vision for the country, especially since President Obama has, at one point or another, championed every liberal cause imaginable. At best, she can claim to try to continue Obama's vision, while fixing his mistakes. At worst, she is the embodiment of Washington politics and the continuation of a detested status quo. On the whole, Clinton seems like the safe candidate for those who like the way Washington runs and are okay with power oscillating between a few royal families.
Conclusion
At this point, it seems like a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for 2016. I have no reason, at this point, to disagree with this prediction. The Democratic field, at this point, is laughably weak beyond Hillary Clinton. Here is her potential "competition": Joe Biden- the gaffe machine bordering on creepy old man, Martin O'Malley- the ultra-liberal Governor of Maryland who enjoyed 40% approval ratings and whose hand-picked successor lost to a Republican, Lincoln Chafee- another member of American nobility who has run for offices under every banner and was deeply unpopular in his own state when he decided to not seek reelection, Jim Webb- a moderate from Virginia who has a strong distaste for conventional politics, and Bernie Sanders-a true Socialist from Vermont. Had Hillary not chosen to run, the Democratic primaries would be chaotic and unpredictable. So, for now, the party's strategy of going all-in on Clinton seems to have been the wisest course.
The general election will be tougher to call, but Hillary would still be the clear favorite. Should the GOP nominate Jeb Bush, they will lose their one critical advantage over Clinton- the ability to bring in a fresh face and name into the contest. Ideologically, however, the GOP candidate cannot be more conservative than Scott Walker. For better or worse, Clinton is perceived as being closer to the center than just about any Republican candidate (save, perhaps, Jeb Bush) and will win over more independents as the Republican candidate moves farther to the right.
Hillary Clinton is the "frontrunner" right now for both the primary season and the general election, BUT, 18.5 months is an eternity in politics and it will be a challenge for her to stay on top for so long. She is not invincible, but she will be tough for any opponent to defeat.
Strengths
Let's state the obvious, first: Hillary Clinton is the undisputed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Like 2008, she has the support of party leaders and the infrastructure of the political machine she and her husband have built over the last thirty years. Unlike 2008, she does not have to worry about an insurgency campaign from a rising star like Barack Obama, primarily because the Democrats have no rising stars. By all accounts, she has neutralized the threat of Elizabeth Warren, probably the only Democrat who could launch a lefty insurgency against her. Hillary has the support of nearly all branches of the party and should have no trouble securing the finances and organizational support necessary to win a number of primaries.
Yes, Hillary Clinton has the potential to "make history" by becoming America's first female president. Is it sufficient to win the nomination and the White House? No, but it certainly does not hurt her. For all the rumblings about the glass ceiling and other structural barriers to a woman becoming president, I really do not believe there are too many people still out there who would not vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Even if some of these people do exist, they are surely neutralized and outnumbered by the number of feminists determined to ensure that a woman wins the presidency next year. All in all, the gender factor should be an overall advantage for Mrs. Clinton, especially if the GOP does not put a woman on the ticket.
Another advantage Hillary has is her extensive resume. Although this would ideally be the first thing people discuss when considering any candidate, including Clinton, we all know that it is not. In any event, Secretary of State has been a strong launching point for future presidents at several points in American history (although James Buchanan was the last Secretary of State to become president). Hillary's tenure, while controversial at times, was more or less successful and has certainly given her the foreign policy chops to do well in primary debates and could be advantageous if she ends up facing an opponent with limited foreign policy experience (which pretty much describes all potential Republican candidates at this point). Her tenure in the Senate, while somewhat brief, would be helpful if she were to win the White House as she can take advantage of her legislative connections to get policies passed. Finally, her active (perhaps excessively so) time as First Lady can only be advantageous as she will know better than anyone else the intricacies and difficulties of life in the White House. Hillary has, in short, a resume as long as any of her potential rivals, especially in an otherwise-weak Democratic field.
Weaknesses
As 2008 showed us, however, Hillary is not invincible. As much as she is expected to cruise to the nomination, it is still extremely early and she will be the hunted from now on. Being the "frontrunner" is a precarious position, as your whole life is laid bare and the media compete to break the story that ruins you.
Hillary certainly is not without her faults. First, she could face a challenge from an economic liberal (Bernie Sanders come to mind) who could rally the Liz Warren wing against Hillary's reincarnation of Al From's New Democrats of the 90's. Martin O'Malley is actively trying to do this right now, and could force Hillary to move to the economic left in order to shore up the Democratic base at the expense of the economic middle (although the effect of this could be negligible if Jeb is forced to move right in order to convert conservatives to his camp). Second, her past vote for the Iraq War could still hurt her if Lincoln Chafee and/or Jim Webb officially decide to run. An oppositional campaign from Chafee would be especially interesting as he was a Republican at the time he cast that vote, which would give him even more credibility on the issue. Although Larry Sabato think the vote is "fading in importance," a strong campaign from Chafee or Webb would make this vote relevant, again (especially if they can tie that vote to some of her actions as Secretary of State).
Recently, some scandals have emerged involving Mrs. Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Personally, I doubt they will make much of a difference in the primary season- Democrats will simply shrug off the email scandal as white noise and the Benghazi scandal as the paranoid ramblings of FOX News pundits. I do not know who is "right" in these cases, but I am very skeptical that Hillary will suffer many repercussions in the primary season from these scandals. As for the general election, it could make a difference if something actually comes of the emails that is tangible and transcends partisan politics.
Hillary's biggest weakness, however, is the sense among Americans that Clinton feels entitled to the presidency and that next year's election could be a heavyweight fight re-match between two of America's royal families. It is not as though Hillary is offering any "new" ideas, especially now that her baby of socialized health care has been more or less implemented by her predecessor. Instead, the whole basis for Clinton's presidency seems to be that it is her turn to be president, especially since a meddling kid ruined it for her in 2008. I have yet to see anything indicating that Mrs. Clinton is offering a grand, optimistic new vision for the country, especially since President Obama has, at one point or another, championed every liberal cause imaginable. At best, she can claim to try to continue Obama's vision, while fixing his mistakes. At worst, she is the embodiment of Washington politics and the continuation of a detested status quo. On the whole, Clinton seems like the safe candidate for those who like the way Washington runs and are okay with power oscillating between a few royal families.
Conclusion
At this point, it seems like a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for 2016. I have no reason, at this point, to disagree with this prediction. The Democratic field, at this point, is laughably weak beyond Hillary Clinton. Here is her potential "competition": Joe Biden- the gaffe machine bordering on creepy old man, Martin O'Malley- the ultra-liberal Governor of Maryland who enjoyed 40% approval ratings and whose hand-picked successor lost to a Republican, Lincoln Chafee- another member of American nobility who has run for offices under every banner and was deeply unpopular in his own state when he decided to not seek reelection, Jim Webb- a moderate from Virginia who has a strong distaste for conventional politics, and Bernie Sanders-a true Socialist from Vermont. Had Hillary not chosen to run, the Democratic primaries would be chaotic and unpredictable. So, for now, the party's strategy of going all-in on Clinton seems to have been the wisest course.
The general election will be tougher to call, but Hillary would still be the clear favorite. Should the GOP nominate Jeb Bush, they will lose their one critical advantage over Clinton- the ability to bring in a fresh face and name into the contest. Ideologically, however, the GOP candidate cannot be more conservative than Scott Walker. For better or worse, Clinton is perceived as being closer to the center than just about any Republican candidate (save, perhaps, Jeb Bush) and will win over more independents as the Republican candidate moves farther to the right.
Hillary Clinton is the "frontrunner" right now for both the primary season and the general election, BUT, 18.5 months is an eternity in politics and it will be a challenge for her to stay on top for so long. She is not invincible, but she will be tough for any opponent to defeat.
RSS Feed
