What to do about Hillary?

The rumors have evolved into a pseudo-truth as the nation warms up to the idea of Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination for president in 2008. A recent poll from the Washington Post found that she held a 59% approval rating among the nation, and polls have named the New York senator as the front-runner against former Democratic presidential candidates like Gore, Kerry, and Edwards.

However, Mrs. Clinton has come under fire recently for her positions on issues like the ports deal as well as her stance on Iraq. Interestingly enough, much of the heat has come from the fact that her statements have been in opposition to those of her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

Many Republicans and other opponents of Clinton have claimed that the Clintons are simply reworking their earlier strategy coined “triangulation” by political analysts. During Bill’s presidency, policies were aimed at settling somewhere the middle of the political spectrum, appealing to both sides with stances that fell into the middle ground between both parties. This time, the Clintons are accused of attempting to cover all the bases by purposely disagreeing with each other on many of the current “hot topics” in Washington.

In February, Hillary Clinton publicly criticized the plan to let the state-owned Dubai Company handle operations at several American ports. The next month, the Financial Times announced that Bill Clinton was meeting with the United Arab Emirates with the intention of landing the deal. Concerning Iraq, Mrs. Clinton remains confident with her vote to pass the Iraq war resolution. However, last November, Mr. Clinton told an audience of Arab students that he believed the Iraq war was “a big mistake”.

Described as “divisive” by the media, the former first lady has come off to many as having what I like to call the “Kerry complex”, with an inability to appeal to a broad spectrum. All the name-recognition in the world may not be enough for Mrs. Clinton, as she has been described as “highly partisan, overly negative, and often bitter”. According to Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, “there’s a search for, not exactly the anti-Hillary candidate, but rather the non-Hillary candidate.”

Opponents to the nomination also question whether, as Senator Clinton prepares to run for a second term in the Senate this November, she will able to handle her duties in Congress while also juggling a rigorous political campaign for the presidency that may take away from her promises to the state of New York.

While I believe that some of the opposition to Mrs. Clinton is gender-based, this may be the factor that causes her to lose the democratic nomination. In February, polls showed that two-thirds of the country believed Mrs. Clinton would receive the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, only one-third of those people believed that she would win in 2008.

With eight years of a Republican-dominated Whitehouse, for the 2008 election Democrats are feeling more pressure than ever to beat out the Republican Party. The next presidency could decide the outcome in Iraq as well as important issues facing the US, like healthcare, and even social issues like gay marriage and abortion. With so much riding on this election, the Democratic Party is not likely to nominate a candidate that has a chance of losing to the Republican nominee.

On her side, some political analysts have predicted that Hillary may actually win over the support of many females with the hopes of voting for the first female president (although, personally, I don’t believe those analysts looked closely at the opinions, let alone the voting trends, of women in the southeast).

More realistically in Clinton’s favor is the fact that neither the sitting President nor Vice President are running for re-election. During a war time when the incumbent would most likely be re-elected, this leaves the oval office up for grabs for a new candidate. Voters may even view Hillary’s eight years as a politically active first lady aside former President Clinton as a plus on her resume.

Ultimately, I have my doubts that Hillary can win in 2008. I do not have confidence that the former first lady is the right road for the Democratic Party to take if they want a chance at the White House. Fun fact: while many have tried, no United States senator since Kennedy has been elected to the presidency. Not only would the party be going out on a limb by nominating a woman for president, the proposed nominee is one whom the public has found guilty of the same crime as the previous losing candidate: lacking a crossover appeal by appearing inaccessible to the general population.

Perhaps, the Democrats should successfully secure a win in 2008 with Mrs. Clinton as Vice President alongside a male candidate who more than one-third of the nation feels can win. As much as I campaign for increased female participation in politics, if Hillary truly wants the presidency in the future, she needs a Rove-like advisor (minus the baggage) to change her image from one of a “bitter elitist” in strategic opposition to her husband and partner in politics to one of an independent, bipartisan candidate who the public feels is truly reaching out.