Hillary Clinton will not be elected president in 2008. Now that this news is out, Americans, specifically the news media and hopeful Democrats, can concentrate on what’s going to happen over the next three years.
Since Nov. 3, it seems like a week hasn’t gone by without mention of the 2008 election. As soon as Bush’s re-election was official, political analysts on every major news network were making predictions about who they thought would try to capture the Democratic nomination for the 2008 election, and all eyes were on former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton, whose name was thrown around when America was waiting for John Kerry to announce his running mate, has yet to express interest in returning to the White House as the nation’s leader.
Some will argue that she has expressed her intent to run simply by avoiding a straight answer. Those people that feel this way need to be reminded that politicians have to beware answering questions with an outright “yes” or “no” because their political career could be in turmoil if they ever have a change of mind.
Despite Clinton’s neutrality on the subject, Democrats nationwide have already named her their presidential nominee. Some have even labeled her the only hope for the Democratic Party in 2008.
Why all of the fuss over Clinton? Perhaps it is because she seems to be the first hope for a female president or because there’s something appealing about having a former first lady in the nation’s highest office.
Maybe Democrats are simply nostalgic for the Clinton years, or it could be that she’s a phenomenal politician. No matter what the reason is for all of the Hillary hype, Clinton is going to need more than an army of followers to get into the White House.
In 2004, the Democratic Party nearly crumbled during and after the November elections. Republicans captured more governorships, more seats in congress and the presidency. This is really no surprise, considering the Democratic role model for 2004, John Kerry.
His inability to be consistent with his stance on issues caused Americans to lose faith in him and Democrats in general. In order for Democrats to get into the White House after George W. Bush, a Democratic candidate needs to be somewhat moderate rather than a hard-core Democrat so that there can be a transition period to the liberal government Democrats hope to build.
Although Clinton is not quite a hard-core Democrat, she does not take a moderate enough stance on issues to sway Republicans and independents in her direction.
Her name alone is too strongly associated with Democratic ideals and her husband’s Democratic presidency for her to be a valid choice to follow the Bush administration.
Additionally, her voting record is much too similar to Sen. Kerry’s. On issues such as national security, abortion, the war in Iraq and federal spending, Clinton has voted the same as Kerry. Their voting records have differed only slightly over the past few years on issues such as campaign financing and the recent nominations for Cabinet positions.
If Americans didn’t want Kerry in office because of his stance on issues, then they aren’t going to elect Clinton either.
She could always try to reform her stance on issues, but if she attempts to do so in just three years, she’ll be labeled a flip-flopper and though she could easily capture the Democratic nomination, undecided voters and persuadable Republicans would quickly cast her aside.
An important ticket for a candidate to capture the presidency is to convince voters in the South that he or she is a person with strong Christian values. Because conservative candidates almost always represent the morals that Southerners look for, the South tends to vote Republican in presidential races.
It is going to take more than three years for a historical democrat like Clinton to make the South believe that she can be a liberal and a Christian, too. Even if Howard Dean is capable of magically converting Southern Republicans, a Democrat with Clinton’s fame is going to have trouble getting elected.
Despite the hype, it’s unlikely that Clinton will consider running for the presidency in 2008. Her independent political career is still in its developmental stages.
Although she has proven to be a powerful politician outside of Bill Clinton’s shadow, she has not yet created a strong enough political name for herself. Eight years in the Senate will seem like a brief fling with politics if she is up against a Republican who has been politically active since the ’70s.
During the early stages of his campaign, John Edwards was often attacked for his political inexperience. Clinton could very well receive the same treatment.
I realize the Democratic Party is eager to see more blue on the map, but it would probably be best if they put more energy into building the party as a whole rather than placing a single person on a pedestal.
After all, wouldn’t it be better to have an army of strong political contenders representing liberal ideals than to have the pressure of reclaiming Washington, D.C., for the Democrats on the shoulders of one person?
Perhaps Democrats should focus on what they can do over the next three years to strengthen their name, and when the time comes to campaign for 2008, start advertising candidates.
Until then, let’s have some time to recover from 2004.
Michael Robert is a freshman biological science major. He can be reached at [email protected].