IF GREAT writers have a special insight into the souls of their
countrymen, Hillary Clinton ought to be pleased. Philip Roth, one of
the grandest old men of American letters, said last year that if anyone
could lose 50 states for the Democrats, she could. This week he said he
is no longer sure.
Mr Roth is hardly alone, either in his previous hatred for the
former first lady or in his grudging new acceptance of her. It is still
more than three months until the votes are cast in the first primaries,
and over a year until the election. With no incumbent president or
vice-president running, this should be the most open race for 80
years—but it certainly doesn't feel that way. Never mind the oddness,
in a republic, of having Bushes and Clintons in charge for, possibly,
28 years on the trot: at the moment, the return of Hillary and Bill
Clinton to the White House looks likelier than any alternative (see article).
MrsClinton is polling an average of some 18 points clear of her
nearest rival, Barack Obama, for the Democratic nomination, and one
poll this week put her 33 points ahead. She leads solidly in all the
early primary states except, crucially, Iowa (which matters because it
comes first), where she has only an insignificant lead. In head-to-head
polls, she now handily defeats any of her Republican rivals—and the
Republicans are divided and demoralised. And this week she reversed the
only measure on which she was trailing: in the third quarter of the
year, she narrowly beat Mr Obama in raising campaign contributions. Mr
Obama's superior fund-raising has been the main source of worry for the
Clintonistas.
That does not mean she will win. Things could go wrong even in the
primaries: ask Howard Dean, who seemed unstoppable for the Democratic
ticket at Christmas 2003, before it all went wrong one night in Des
Moines. There are plenty of things that could trip up Mrs Clinton, not
least her husband. But barring some stumble or scandal, Americans will
as usual decide on the candidates' merits, so the key to the election
is to decide which qualities are most in demand this time around.
Brilliantly dull
Top of the list surely must come competence—the attribute that has
been most sorely lacking in the Bush administration, whether in the
planning for post-war Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina or the
management of the federal budget, which George Bush, like a reverse
King Midas, has transmuted from a $240 billion surplus to a $160
billion deficit.
This is where Mrs Clinton currently leads the pack. True, she has
never run anything herself, and her most notable foray into governance,
her 1993-94 attempt to reform the American health-care system, was a
catastrophe. But she has learned from watching the rest of her
husband's presidency and, more recently, as a senator for New York,
where she has been hard-working, consensual, effective and a little
dull. Her campaign is superbly organised. In debates, her mastery of
detail is remarkable. Her second plan for health-care reform is a much
more moderate beast. And her Democratic rivals, Mr Obama and John
Edwards, have much less experience than she does. On the Republican
side, though, she faces a couple of effective governors and a former
mayor of New York who turned that city's finances and crime rates
around. She has yet to spell out much of her policy platform, including
on such vital issues as tax or climate change; and has suspiciously
meddlesome tendencies. She has already retreated alarmingly from her
husband's commitment to free trade.
After competence must come toughness on security: traditionally a
difficult area for Democrats, but less so after seven years of
incompetent machismo. More than any of her Democratic rivals, Mrs
Clinton has striven to neutralise the Republicans' advantage here. She
has refused to apologise for her 2002 vote in favour of war with Iraq,
and declines to commit herself to withdrawing the troops that are still
there. But she was fully involved earlier this year in Democratic
attempts to saddle the president with a deadline for quitting, and
remains vulnerable to a Republican challenger. America's military
weakness during the Clinton years has been overshadowed by the disaster
under Bush; but it was under Mr Clinton that al-Qaeda took root and
grew. That said, Americans want a tough president, not a psychopath:
some of her Republican rivals remain worryingly bellicose.
Hillary the healer?
The third challenge for the next American president requires a
different set of qualities: he or she will have to be a healer, both at
home and abroad. America's standing in the world has been hugely
damaged by the war, by Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, and by the
high-handed way in which it has treated international bodies and
agreements. The country needs a leader who will rebuild alliances.
Hillary Clinton has no direct experience of this, but she has already
declared that Bill would be her “ambassador to the worldâ€. His charm
may help make up for the superpower's tendency towards unilateralism;
though foreign leaders may be as uncomfortable as some Americans with
the idea of an unelected spouse swanning round the globe representing
America.
At home, Mrs Clinton will need to narrow the divisions that the
bitter partisanship of the Bush presidency has widened. She can be an
unforgiving enemy—witness her campaign's hysterical reaction when a
Hollywood mogul went over to Mr Obama's camp. In recent years she has
not given much impression of feeling anyone's pain but her own, though
she is a funnier and warmer speaker than she gets credit for. Can such
a woman, whose “negatives†are among the highest in the business,
reunite America? This doubt remains a big obstacle to a Clinton
comeback.
For all her years of scheming and positioning, Mrs Clinton is not
the finished article. No process is better at revealing flaws than
American presidential elections. This newspaper, like many voters, will
reserve judgment on this still often awkward and unknowable woman until
it has seen more of her and her policies next year. But so far the
Clinton comeback has been impressive. That is why it is her presidency
to lose.
