Anybody but Hillary
The Democratic presidential frontrunner for 2008, at least according to the polls, is Hillary Clinton.
In a nationwide Marist College Poll of Democrats and Democratic leaners who are registered to vote that was taken Feb. 14-16, Hillary was the choice of 39 percent for the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. John Kerry came in second place, with 21 percent, and John Edwards came in third, with 15 percent.
A Feb. 4-6 nationwide CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of Democrats and Democratic leaners who are registered to vote showed similar results: Hillary came in first, with 40 percent; Kerry came in second, with 25 percent; and Edwards, with 18 percent, came in third.
The Republicans' top two choices for 2008 are Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
In a nationwide Marist College Poll of Republicans and Republican leaners who are registered to vote that was taken Feb. 14-16, Giuliani was the choice of 25 percent for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. John McCain came in second, with 21 percent; Condoleezza Rice came in third, with 14 percent; and Jeb Bush came in fourth, with 7 percent.
A Feb. 4-6 nationwide CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of Republicans and Republican leaners who are registered to vote showed Guiliani on top with 33 percent; McCain at No. 2, with 30 percent; Jeb Bush in third place, with 12 percent; and Bill Frist in fourth place, with 7 percent.
In case you think this was just a February thing, a nationwide Ipsos-Public Affairs poll in December showed the same order of preferences at the top: Hillary came in first (33 percent), Kerry second (19 percent) and Edwards third (15 percent) for Dems. For Repugs, Giuliani was the top choice, with 29 percent; McCain was at second place, with 25 percent; and Jeb Bush and Frist were tied at third place, with 7 percent each.
If this trend holds, my guess is that we're looking at Hillary Clinton or John Kerry vs. Rudy Guiliani or John McCain in '08.
In hypothetical '08 matchups, polls show Hillary (and Kerry) consistently losing to both Giuliani and McCain. (Hillary does beat Jeb Bush, as does Kerry, so I think it's unlikely that we'll see Jeb Bush as the '08 GOP candidate.)
So a plurality of Dems love Hillary, but the nation, as a whole, seems to be not so crazy about her (or about a second presidential run by Kerry).
It's awfully early to be discussing '08, I know, but neither party has any rising star who will be ready to run for the White House in '08, so, barring any surprises, it looks like we're stuck with one of the aforementioned from each party. (The leaders of both parties, I think, are guilty of being too preoccupied with securing their own power to mentor and foster future standard-bearers for their parties.)
Poll numbers aside (as much as I love the polls), should Hillary Clinton run for president in '08 and actually win, the presidential lineup will be President Bush (1989-1993), President Clinton (1993-2001), "President" Bush (2001-2009), President Clinton (2009- ).
This Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton pattern shows a disturbing lack of imagination on Americans' part, I think. Are we Americans so desperate for leadership that we will elect only members from two families to the White House? Could I predict a Jenna Bush-Chelsea Clinton presidential race in, say, 2016 or 2020 or beyond, and have a pretty good chance of being correct? Will Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution be amended to read: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, and possess the surname of Bush or Clinton"?
The reason so many Dems want Hillary in '08, I think, is that they look back wistfully to the time when the Democrats last held the White House.
When we look to the past, however, we tend to do two things: One, we tend to romanticize it and forget the negative things that happened -- such as Bill Clinton's welfare "reform" (which was named the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act," which would make whomever coined the "Clear Skies Act" jealous); his support of the North American Free Trade Agreement; his failure to deliver on his key 1992 campaign promises to reform the health care system (Hillary's plan for health care reform went down in flames [and why was it her plan and not the president's anyway?]) and to gain gay men and lesbians equal rights in the military (instead we got "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act).
And, of course, there was the whole Monica Lewinsky and impeachment thing...
And secondly, when we look to the past, we tend to remain frozen in the present; we aren't prepared to meet the challenges of the future because we're fixated on the past.
That's the mistake that the Democrats are making now as they look to Hillary to regain the White House in '08 while they fail to groom new leaders for the future. (Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is the only nationally well-known Democratic rising star whom I can think of. One isn't enough.)
It's true that under Bill Clinton we had eight years of relative peace and relative prosperity -- during his two terms Clinton created more than 22 million new jobs and we saw the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, and Clinton turned Bush I's record federal budget deficit into a record federal budget surplus, which Bush II then promptly returned to a new record federal budget deficit. (And it's true that when there is a Bush in the White House, the economy tanks and we drop bombs on Iraq.)
But the Clinton family isn't the only family in the United States of America from which we Democrats and progressives can draw leadership.
If we must go back in time for 2008 (and it appears that we must), I'd rather see Al Gore than Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate in '08. Al has developed a fire in his belly after his "loss" to George W. Bush in 2000 -- a fire I wish he had possessed before the 2000 election -- and what better qualification does he have than already having won a presidential election for the Democrats?
I'm perfectly fine with a female Democratic presidential candidate, but I'd much rather see Barbara Boxer than Hillary Clinton in '08. When, as U.S. senator, did Hillary ever make a politically risky stand within the national spotlight? Hillary's political style and strategy mirror her husband's: Triangulate, try to say what everyone wants to hear, remain difficult to pin down.
And I have the same problem with Hillary Clinton that I have with Rep. Doris Matsui: I don't think that having been married to a popular politican is a qualification for elected office. I believe that politicians, male or female, should earn public office (especially federal office), the old-fashioned way: By earning it. (True, if she were to win the White House, Hillary would have been a U.S. senator first, but would she ever have become a U.S. senator if she hadn't been married to the president of the United States? Especially in a state in which she didn't even live?)
Because of a dearth of Democratic stars it might already be too late to, as the New York Repugnicans want to do, stop Hillary from winning the '08 Democratic presidential nomination.
I might have to hold my nose in November 2008 and cast a vote for Hillary Clinton for president.
But I hope it doesn't come to that.
I wrote this piece for Sacramento for Democracy's Web site. For more of my pieces for Sacramento for Democracy's Web site, click here.
7:43:47 PM 
|
|
