Can anyone stop Hillary Clinton?
Pit Stop
Neil McKenty
Unlike national campaigns in Canada, which last little longer than a month, the American presidential race is a gruelling marathon that goes on for almost two years. Candidates grab a plane that whisks them off to Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina where they have as many as eight events over a single day. A brutal pace.
This frenetic schedule is further complicated by the crazy-quilt primary system. More than half a century ago, Harry Truman said, “All these primaries are eyewash …” Not any more. The fact is the primaries are crucial. For example, if democrat John Edwards loses Iowa (a state where he has expended enormous effort), he is almost certainly finished. Senators Clinton and Obama could lose Iowa and probably New Hampshire too and still live to fight another day. That day would be February 5th when no fewer than 20 states (including such biggies as New York and California) hold their primaries.
To complicate this picture even more, some states have advanced their primary dates and others are making noises about leapfrogging the frontrunners. (Is it possible we could have the first primary in December?) These states argue that Iowa and New Hampshire are rural states with mostly white populations and they do not reflect the demographics of the country at large. Furthermore Michigan and Florida want to influence the selection of the nominees before they are all locked up.
And what in the world would Harry Truman say today about the cost of running in these primaries and in the national election? Candidates like Truman and Jimmy Carter had hardly two dimes to rub together when they launched their presidential campaigns. (Carter ’s campaign team had to sleep in friendly houses because they could not afford motels.)
By the end of this year, Senators Clinton and Obama will have raised more than $100 million each. In the last quarter, Republican Mitt Romney threw eight million of his own fortune (about $400 million) into his campaign. It is now estimated that by the time the next president is elected, advertising expenditures of all the candidates will amount to about three billion dollars.
What does all this money buy? For Hillary Clinton, written off by many experts at the beginning of the campaign, it has helped her to her current position as the Democratic front runner. Her poll numbers are staggering. Among Democratic voters she leads Barack Obama by more than 30 points. She is ahead of Obama and John Edwards by double digits in New Hampshire and she is leading in Iowa, though the other two are still competitive there.
In the last national poll I saw, Senator Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, the current Republican leader, were running neck and neck. The former mayor of New York has christened himself Captain America (much as Brian Tobin hailed himself Captain Canada) because of his stand against terrorism after 9/11. But many (including a group of New York fire fighters who dog his campaign appearances) argue that he has vastly exaggerated his anti-terrorism role.
Furthermore, so far as the Republican base goes, Giuliani carries a lot of baggage. He is anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-gay and he was sleeping with his third wife while still married to his second. Up to now Giuliani ’s closest competitor has been Law and Order’s Fred Thompson. But my own view is that Thompson peaked just before he announced and he is now fading fast. Despite lack of cash, Senator John McCain is still alive. But the final showdown could well be between Giuliani who has the reputation and Mitt Romney who has the cash.
This brings us back to Hillary Clinton. She has enormous strengths, beyond the primaries to the national election. These include a well-oiled organization, her husband, Bill, the finest politician of his generation and her experience. Hillary would be one of the best qualified presidents ever, having spent eight years in the White House and another eight in the Senate. She knows how to work the system. So far the primary campaign has come down to experience (Hillary) versus change (Obama). Hillary has profited from her mistakes, like health care, and she has argued successfully that experience is the best spring-board for change. Obama is only 48 and will have another shot.
That said, there are a couple of valid concerns about Senator Clinton. In her strategy of moving to the centre, she is overly sensitive to prevailing opinion and focus groups. For example, her vote to declare Iran ’s Republican Guard a terrorist organization enraged the left wing of the Democratic party (they considered it a step toward giving President Bush a blank cheque for war with Iran) and seemed to pander to the military-industrial complex. Presumably Hillary thinks she must take these positions to prove that she is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief. It may also be that she is looking beyond the primaries to the general election.
Senator Clinton’s position on free trade is one that could make Canadians nervous. She wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. She first talked about this when she was trying to win the votes of up-state New York farmers in her senate campaigns. However it should be said that Democrats traditionally run to the left until nominated and then, if elected, govern from the centre.
At this stage of this interminable campaign, those who are critical of Hillary Clinton must answer two questions: who is better qualified and who is likely to beat her for the Democratic nomination and for election to the Oval Office?
Barring a political catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, I expect Hillary to win both.
Visit my Blog at www.neilmckenty.wordpress.com
