af40's Blog

A Preliminary Caveat: Political predictions tend to leave just a slightly more bitter taste in one's mouth than pedestrian opinions: not only are they largely subjective and infused with the political flavor of one's choosing, but they often leave one scrambling for a viable palliative on the "Monday" after the game.  Opinions, as Plato might say, are not ideal forms: There is no ultimate truth to them.

Even so, I believe that there are a few good reasons to believe that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. And I say this knowing full well that she is not liked on a personal level even by many of her supporters. If George W. Bush won the 2000 (arguably?) and 2004 elections on the fact that he is the type of guy one would want to have a beer with, then Hillary is the type of woman you'd want to exchange a few cursory, not entirely informal, pleasantries with at a wine and cheese party. A forced smile, a handshake, and you move on, it's that sort of personal level with Hillary.

But the fact that she has gained so much support and continues to hold onto it despite not being a very warm and outwardly affectionate human being may say more about Hillary's true viability as a candidate than anything else. She must be doing some things right to have such a large base of support, with such an awkward public persona and so much personal baggage to boot. Having climbed far, no doubt owing in large measure to her much more well-liked husband, she has shown that a hard work ethic and a commitment to social causes sometimes offer more appeal than the un-appeal of a dry and sangfroid personality. And she is, indeed, the real deal, not just a highly polished and suave politician.

In fact, most great public officials have been known more for their hard work ethic and effectiveness than for their looks (JKF excepted). I tend to have a rule of thumb that the better looking the politician, the more likely he or she is vapid, dull, and cookie-cutter. I don't mean to imply that someone like a Romney or an Obama- both Harvard Law grads- are vapid and dull. They are not. But there is often a lack of substance that pervades an all-too-polished politician, who does not pull himself up by his bootstraps but looks out and usually down towards an audience of infatuated admirers (and who often attracts the younger crowds, more apt to accept the sheer energy and sex drive of the vibrant superstar politician, the hot new thing).  Too slick and polished is sometimes too good to be true.

Hillary is not of that variety of politician. Though she is by no means unattractive physically, either, she is by no means a "looker".  And if we were to go by historical presidential statures (most of which hover around the six foot mark), she isn't even that tall (she is of average height for a woman, but at 5'5" she is the shortest cadidate, Dennis Kucinich being perhaps just slightly taller).  She's a workhorse in the style of a Truman or a Goldwater (the latter whom, incidentally, she worked for as a teenager with early political aspirations). And Like a Truman or a Goldwater, she is not always too likeable; but she is generally respected. Respect, in politics, often carries with it more weight than overblown rhetorical appeals that tend to cater more to pundits than constituencies.

This season's crop of candidates is wide but in large measure shallow. While we have probably the most diverse swath of social, religious, and racial backgrounds (we have, for the first time, a viable African American and a female candidate, a Mexican American, and a Mormon), the platforms tend to typify the general thrust of ideologies from the respective parties. The Republican candidates, for example, tend to all agree on the need for strong defense and a continued troop presence in Iraq, while focusing less energy on such typically progressive issues like health care, the environment, education and energy independence, the champion causes of Democrats.  Were it not for an occasional ad hominem or personal attack regarding a long-ago faux pas or personal mis-step (such as Romney hiring a landscaping company that hired "illegal" immigrant labor or Giuliani's much publicized marital infidelity), we might think that there is no real difference between the Republican aspirants. 

The Democrats for their own part symbolize slightly greater divergence of opinion (Edwards, for example, has tried to cast himself as the candidate for the working middle class, while Obama represents the upwardly mobile branch, the much maligned "champagne" Liberal establishment, although he tries a little too hard to dispel that idea). Kucinich, probably the most genuine representative of working class America, is not really a viable candidate, unfortunately. For the most part, the Democratic ticket is a race between Hillary and the polished Obama and Edwards. All, incidentally, are lawyers.

But Hillary brings with her not only experience, but the kind of bread-and-butter realism that the Democratic party is frequently devoid of. She cannot use the sex appeal of her husband, who did well in addressing middle class issues in his run sixteen years ago. But she has the same interest in addressing what matters to voters, especially at a time when economic issues are coming to the fore. In fact, Bill Clinton might have lost his first campaign were it not the case that the heady pomp and patriotism of the first Gulf War had subsided just in time for the voting public to realize that domestic issues were not being addressed (by a president so far removed from them that he could not tell the price of milk or bread). It seems like the same events are happening now, in an eerie way a deja vu of sorts: an unpopular Bush waging a war in Iraq, the economy beginning to show its wear, a Clinton talking about what matters to working people.

The polls in recent months have shown that Hillary is no longer the shoe-in Democratic candidate of one year ago and that Obama and even Edwards can yet chisel away at her lead. She may even lose in Iowa and New Hampshire come January. But her own husband showed that these two inaugural states are often not as important as getting a clear and believable message out. People may care for who wins a primary- it's always good PR- but that early bump pales in comparison to the power of rational contemplation- a singular, one voter-at-a-time process- about who is likely to get the job done once in office. 

Among working Americans and seniors alike, Hillary consistently comes up as the definitive winner because she has worked for issues that matter for them and this lends her the most credibility. Obama, for all his merits, has a very brief record as a national politician, and while he often comes off as highly inspiring with references to words like "hopes" and "dreams", he falls short on substance or specifics. Edwards, too, suffers from this image, even though he has promised more concrete change. Edwards' real problem is that he looks like a just slightly more erudite Dan Quayle.

If John Kerry's (lest we forget that bumbling stentorian) failed 2004 run proved anything, it is that highly charged issues often tend to backfire. Patriotism is always going to win out against idealism in a time of war, but when economic issues unite us, references to patriotism look quaint and Lee Greenwood-ish. Americans can afford to go on symbolism and style over substance in times of prosperity, but they'd much rather talk about "what will you do for me" when livelihoods and financial security is at stake (People often debate whether so-called "domestic" or "foreign" politics matter more, but even in a time of war the livelihoods of people are affected to a much greater extent by economics than the shadow of war. War is often the veil underneath which all sorts of miscreants push forth self-serving agendas. We fight them over there so we don't fight them here, sure, but what about the economy, stupid?).

 Hillary Clinton represents a little of every part of America. She was born in the midwest but has lived in the south and now represents a state in the northeast. She came from a modest background and worked her way up by verve, passion, and intelligence. She may never get huge laughs with her sometimes resultingly off-color attempts at humor (such as trying to sound African-American or southern at respective African-American and southern audiences). Her campaign ads try to make her look softer and gentler- a female Obama or Edwards- but the result is that she often looks more stiff and awkward than before- that forced smile echoing in one's memories like the nightmarish laugh of the Joker (frequently over-dubbed on YouTube).

Hillary Clinton is not a politician with the star qualities of her husband, and she will not win the presidency if she focuses her energies on resurrecting his image. She is her own woman, and she will do well if she proves this by holding firm on issues like economics, health care, and education.  Unlike some of her fellow candidates, she is not campaigning as an anti-war candidate, partly because she voted to authorize the Iraq war, but also partly because she strategically realizes that that issue has had its heyday.  John Kerry showed that having a stance against something but failing to stand for something is a losing effort. Somewhat like Bill, she does try to play to issues of concern to both sides of the political aisle, being Conservative on some issues- like her departure from universal amnesty for illegal immigrants- but traditionally Liberal on others. Her ability to stand generally in the middle politically will attract quite a few independent voters and possibly even a few Republicans- who may dislike her personally but respect her politically.

 Camelot Hillary's marriage is not, but neither was JFK's. It is much closer to the relationship between FDR and Eleanor, a working relationship forged on great political, if not personal, devotion. And like Eleanor, Hillary more than makes up for her oratorial and social awkwardness with her passion and commitment to issues of social relevance.

 Americans have proven that while they are often polarized on rhetorical issues, such as God, gun control and terrorism, they realize that sometimes only a hard-working Liberal will fight for them. Republicans are great when the economy is good, but fail to address middle-class issues during rough economic spells (the Bush capital gains tax cuts, in my opinion, were better for Wall Street than for the average working American, and statistics bear out the fact that the discrepancy between the rich and poor is growing wider). 

 So while I make my prediction with one finger half crossed, and being ready to swallow the bitter pill that comes with so many predictions gone bad, I believe that there is a good chance that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

She is, indeed, the best woman for the job, and I say this not because I want to praise her as a paragon of excellence as a woman, but because she bests all her male competitors so fundamentally where the real issues matter.