Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and consequently losing the election. But there's a further danger if Hillary's nominated--that she will win but then split the Democratic Party.

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

To prevail in close races, Democrats need enthusiastic volunteer involvement. This happened in 1992, and then again in 2006. If Hillary is the nominee, she's likely to significantly damp this involvement, especially among anti-war activists, many of whom are currently saying her candidacy would lead them to sit out the election entirely. She'll also draw out the political right in a way that will make it far harder for down-ticket Democrats in states like Kentucky and Virginia where the party has recently been winning. A recent Pew poll gave her both higher unfavorable and lower favorable ratings than either Obama or Edwards. And in a July Fox poll (of citizens, not Fox viewers), 29% of voters (including 27% of Independents and 5% of Democrats) said they would "never vote for her under any circumstances," compared to just 6% overall saying the same about Obama, and less than 1% about Edwards. A November 26 Zogby poll , albeit one with unconventional methodology, now shows her trailing the major Republican candidates, while Edwards and Obama defeat them. So she might not win at all, despite Bush's disastrous reign.

But even if she does, she is then strongly likely to fracture the party with her stands. She talks of staying in Iraq for counterterrorism operations, which could easily become indistinguishable from the present war. She backed the recent Kyl-Lieberman vote on Iran that Senator James Webb called "Cheney's fondest pipe dream." She supported at least one regressive version of the bankruptcy bill and the extension of Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. If her contributors are any guide, like those she courted in a $1,000-a-plate dinner for homeland security contractors, she's likely to cave to corporate interests so much in her economic policies that those increasingly squeezed by America's growing divides will backlash in ways that they're long been primed to by Republican rhetoric about "liberal elitists." And if Democrats do then begin to challenge her, the relative unity created by the Bush polities will quickly erode.

Because the Republican candidates show every indication that they'd continue Bush's disastrous approaches to the world, I'd vote for Hillary if she became the nominee. But I'd do so with a very heavy heart, and a recognition that we'll have to push her to do the right thing on issue after issue, and won't always prevail. We still have a chance to select strong alternatives like Edwards (who I'm supporting) or Obama. And with Republican polling numbers in the toilet, this election gives Democrats an opportunity to seriously shift our national course that we may not have again for years. It would be a tragedy if they settled for the candidate most likely to shatter the momentum of this shift when it's barely begun..

***

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org

Comments

[lgillooly]

Until we get smart and stop the massive echo chamber od talk hate radio that tells us every day how awful she is we are doomed.
Instead of blogs,pamphlets rallies etc etc we NEED to focus on balancing the 4th estate.All our efforts are fruitless unless we do this ASAP and 2nd on the list is Fair elections with a paper trail. Wake up America before it is too late

[prestodan]

This is an excellent post which really sums up the way I see this campaign. Hillary Clinton is too aligned with big business interests, has too much explaining to do over her war votes, and has way too many people who loathe her. She runs a strong campaign, but it's clear she hears the footsteps from Obama getting louder on her heels, a sound which will only get louder as his momentum continues to grow. If there is one phenomenon I witness over and over as an Obama campaign supporter, it's that the more people get to know this man, the more they like him. He embodies our nation's desire for change.

I'd like to address the comments of mvpeach10 below, who brought up the Harold Ford / Bob Corker senate campaign in Tennessee. It seems to suggest that the reason Ford lost is because he's black, that Obama would lose for the same reason, and it concluded by saying "vote for Hillary". This is fear mongering, coming from someone who clearly didn't understand the outcome in Tennessee, and probably isn't from Tennessee.
Harold Ford ran a very strong campaign, and nearly won against an opponent with deep pockets, in a state that has trended RED for years. Harold Ford was hampered the most by the significant baggage brought on by his politically powerful / always controversial Memphis-based family. His status as a bachelor hurt him with the state's voters more than being a black man did. Your suggestions don't hold up.
I have conservative friends who foam at the mouth for a chance to regroup and take on Hillary Clinton. Republicans clearly would pull out all the stops in the presidential election, as well as in future congressional elections elections, to counter her. Barack Obama is free of the baggage Hillary has from her initial Iraq war support, big business dealings, and divisive presence, and therefore presents a bewildering opponent to the republicans, a more optimistic future for the Democrats, and most importantly, for our country.

[RedRooster]

Thanks, Paul.

My sentiments exactly.

[OETKB]

I recently attended a presentation on Health Care Policy at Rivier College in Nashua, NH with Bill Richardson as the featured speaker. He solidly committed himself to address the care of mental illness with increased providers and requirements of insurance companies. He then did an interesting thing. He stated that he did not go for a single payer because of the need to have it managed by a Federal bureaucracy. "I hate bureaucrac­ies."Someo­ne reminded him of the even more complex entanglements of private insurance. After absorbing the comment he quipped, "That's a left hook." He then asked who were the supporters of Single Payer and invited them, three of us, to "convince him." At the end he stated he was warming up to the idea of Single Payer since insurance companies were beginning to tick him off. This unscripted invitation to challenge his thinking and his willingness to listen was most refreshing in a presidential candidate. It was a real conversation about our concerns.

There will certainly be a broader representation of people at the table in his administration.

Given his deep governing and diplomatic experience and skills and also being on the right side of withdrawing troops from Iraq(all of them), this is the person who should be our next chief executive.

[cblcar]

I would love to read posts that talk about why people are FOR a particular candidate instead of always against this one or that one. I think it's important to remember that no one is going to get everything they want in any candidate. There are always going to be past votes or areas of disagreement, but the most important thing is to tone down the acrimony. My dream team to lead this country is Biden/Richardson, two very experienced, well-respect men who I strongly believe can kick the butts of any Republican nominee. Do I agree with every one of their stands on issues? No. But I'm looking at a bigger picture. Both of these men have foreign policy and diplomatic experience that is without peer, and that is crucial. With Biden you get a man who has proven he can work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We will have an election that focuses on issues and not personality and mud-slinging which everyone is sick of. This is probably the most important election of our lifetime. Let's not let the media and the polls decide it for us. Whoever you support, get out there and make some noise about it. Get the bumper stickers, call in to the radio shows, get involved. We don't just have to complain about who we don't want. We can work for who we DO want. I'm proud to support Senator Biden for President.

[persiangal]

Forget about Hillary. I agree, she will disappoint the hell out of us.

Go Dennis Kucinich..­..........­......

[Giglawyer]

People are quick to forget that Bill would have never won without Ross Perot scuking away GOP votes. Hillary doe snot have that advantage, and she will never be as popular a Bill. She is, quite frankly, unelectable. We need to rally around Obama and Edwards.

[ranchobob]

I am sick to death of the word or name "Hillary" If you don't call the others "Barack" and "John" then why her?
The obsessive focus on SENATOR CLINTON is appalling, boring, a form of disinfotainment.
If she comes on stage and murders a kitten I will still vote for her just to spite all the "pundits".
If she suffers massive head trauma she will still do a better job than what we have had the last 2 terms, or the callow lads Obama and Edwards.

Anyone who uses the word "flip-flop" is an idiot. They should be forced to read a list of the blatant lies, contradictions, feints, obfuscations, and 180 degree turns the present white house crew, "Rudy" and "Mitt" have given us.

Remember "GEORGE" being against nation building ? How does that compare to Senator Clinton's OH SO EVIL driver's license for illegals faux pas?

A little sense of proportion would be great.

[jackpinesavage]

Excellent post. I've grown so very tired of folks on the left pointing to the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. Sure, they look good compared to what we've endured for the last seven years, but what kind of accomplishment is that?

It seems as though the Democratic base is already splintered by HRC's campaign, regardless of whether she gets the nomination or not.

And i've come to the conclusion that '08 may very well be the end of the Democratic Party as any kind of political force. If they lose after eight years of Bush, can they really expect us to take them seriously? Can they take themselves seriously? And if they do win, presumably with HRC, will the party fair any better? That's what i don't understand, from the party's perspective anyhow.

My girlfriend asked me who i thought would be the president, i sighed mournfully and said, "whoever the Republicans nominate..." But i cannot, in good faith, vote for HRC either. What to do, what to do, what to do?

[Purple Girl]

She's made the wrong decision too many times.
I could use some more choices, let's try for some not 'Re Tooled' from the neo con factory.
Have they been shipping the Afghan Herione to DC?

[vippy]

Hillary is a GOP Lite and that is it. I won't vote for her, not even holding my nose while voting for her like so many DEMS are saying.
They will vote for her if she is the nominee but not to their liking. Do we have to lower our standards then? I am sure Bush1 would like nothing more than for Hillary to win. The Clintons owe so much to the Bush Family!
Yes, it could split the party and we lose again
for we cannot see the forest for the trees AGAIN.

[zuzuzpetals]

Thank you for saying it: Bill Clinton was disastrous for the Democratic party.

The politics of triangulation does fracture the party--just as you describe.

It's clear their effect on the party is the result of them standing mostly only for themselves and not for strongly held convictions.

I'm almost in a grief process that machine politics are enforcing this candidate on us when the situation so direly needs an authentic Democrat.

[kirsti]

I knew, when US attacked Iraq, it would result in a civil war.

I heard that Bush adm had suitcases full of little american flags to give to the Iraqi population, so they could welcome the us sodiers in their country. How dumb is that?

Hillary voted for it all.

How come that I knew more than the politicians?

[Herrington]

The era of carefully polled talking points has seemingly put an end to leadership. Leadership, in politics anyway, is done with words. And if the words do no inspire but simply mollify, the essence of leadership goes missing.

The modern campaign has also hastened and hardened the divide between the right and left. Each side is whipped with the evils of the other side so much that no transcendental movement is possible. Politicians and media alike feed on the impasse they have jointly created.

If there is a candidate out there that can reach both sides of the class war, it is most likely not Clinton. Obama or Edwards may have the will and creativity to lead, but Clinton spends her days coloring between the lines that someone else has drawn.

Loeb, you are right about the historic opportunity. The Republicans would seize it, skin it, tan it and nail it to the wall. Their hard core being, well, hard, while the vegetarians and tree sitters are just wander off in miff.

[mvpeach10]

WILL DEMS BLOW IT AGAIN? If you think Obama or Edwards has a chance to win the general election, then maybe you'd like to take a trip on the Milky Way. Get real. Nominating either of these two candidates will insure a Republican victory. Why can't Democrats stop shooting themselves in the foot? No matter what people tell the pollsters, you can be sure it will be recreation of the Harold Ford election. Remember how high he was in the polls, but when the people of Tennessee went into the voting booth, Harold Ford lost by a substantial amount. A Republican won. That, my friends, is what will happen of Obama wins the nomination. And, as for Edwards, he was once a viable candidate, but not any more, not after he presented one set of principles for the the public and lives by another set of principles privately. So there you have it. If you want a chance to win back the White House, vote for Hillary.