Back to the Whitehouse
Next month Rupert Murdoch will host a celebrity fundraising event for Hillary Clinton as she busily sheds her liberal baggage and establishes a stranglehold on the right of Democratic politics. With huge funds in place, the New York senator looks a certainty to run in 2008. But is America ready to forget 'the Bill years' and return her to the White House - this time as President?
Paul Harris
Sunday May 28, 2006
The Observer
It was a breakfast speech, but still the fans needed to arrive early to grab a good seat. When Hillary Clinton speaks, people don't see a Senator from New York. Or an ex-First Lady. They come to hear the first woman President of the United States. She always attracts a crowd, and last week at the National Press Club in Washington was no different. The event sold out days earlier. Some in the audience clutched books and pens, hoping for an autograph, as if Clinton was a movie star, not a politician.
Wearing a bright yellow trousersuit, Clinton did not disappoint. She devoted her nearly hour-long address to energy policy, speaking in detail and with passion on a subject obsessing most Americans in the face of the war in Iraq and high petrol prices. She called for everyone to make changes. 'The ball is in our court. It is up to us to act, and act soon,' she said. It was classic Clinton politics. She catapulted herself to the centre of a national issue and at the same time popped the balloon of Democratic rival Al Gore. Gore, propelled by his hit environmental film An Inconvenient Truth, is now being mentioned as a candidate in 2008. Clinton's speech was the growl of someone looting an encroaching rival's main ideas. 'She made it clear who's in power and who's in Cannes,' wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd afterwards.
For Clinton it was just another hurdle cleared on a long campaign road. Her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 remains unannounced but is no secret. She has assembled a huge staff and vast funds, far greater than needed for re-election as a Senator this November. Her eyes are set on the White House, and her fame, resources and control of the party machine make her the undisputed Democratic frontrunner . That in itself is a remarkable achievement. No figure in American politics is more loved and loathed. Only a few years ago the idea of a Clinton presidential run was a conspiracy theory of right-wingers who loved to hate her. Now it is a virtual certainty. In her Press Club speech Clinton talked about energy policy needing a 'revolutionin our thinking'. She has already forged one such revolution: she has established the idea that she will run for President. But can she actually win?
In July, Manhattan will see one of the most unusual parties ever held there. Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation and rightwing media mogul, will host a fundraising bash for Hillary Clinton, the bete noire of redblooded American conservatives. To say this is an odd political marriage is like pointing out that Hitler and Stalin had political differences. Murdoch's media empire includes the rightwing Fox News channel, the Clinton-hating tabloid the New York Post and neocon bible the Weekly Standard. This is what Clinton once railed against with her talk of a 'vast rightwing conspiracy'. The announcement of the fundraiser stunned both sides of America's ideological divide. Conservatives and liberals denounced their respective heroes. But why the great surprise ? Clinton has actually supported much legislation that Murdoch has lobbied for (far more than Republican frontrunner John McCain), and Murdoch is canny enough to keep her happy.
Those who were surprised on Clinton's behalf simply have not been paying attention. Her drift to the right was the political story of last year. She has softened her views on abortion, firmly supported US policy on Iraq, been hawkish on Iran and co-sponsored legislation with rightwing Republicans. She has been slammed by Hollywood liberals and derided by many Democrats as a sell-out. And she has already partied with Murdoch this year. On 25 April she attended a Fox News party and schmoozed for an hour at Washington's posh Cafe Milano. Murdoch was there. So was Karl Rove, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and presidential spokesman Tony Snow. Clinton has been keeping odd company for some time.
This is deliberate. Clinton's staffers believe she must shed her liberal image if she is to win a presidential election. She needs to convince independents and soft Republicans that she is a centrist and tough on national security. Her supporters point out she has done this before. When she ran for a New York Senate seat in 2000 she pursued the same plan, spending much time in small towns upstate which are as conservative as much of the Midwest. It worked. And Clinton won. Yet many doubt she can repeat the trick on a national scale. They believe Clinton will never be President. Instead she will be the author of one of the longest political suicide notes in history for a Democratic party destined to lose if it picks her. 'She can move rightwards all she wants, but everyone knows what she is. She is going to get a lot of remarks about a leopard not being able to change its spots,' said Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.
In the bright spotlight of her adult life, lived in the Arkansas governor's mansion, the White House and now the Senate, it is diffi cult to pick out Clinton's personal history. Add to that the fame of being the First Lady to Bill Clinton's 'Big Dog' President, and it becomes even harder to discern Clinton as a fi gure in her own right. It will come as a shock to many to realise that Clinton was born a conservative. From a father in the textiles industry and a housewife mother, Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. Her fi rst political experiences were solidly Red State. Her family was strongly Methodist, growing up in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She entered politics at 16 in support of arch-conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. When she joined the prestigious Wellesley College in Massachusetts she was for a time President of the College Republicans. That - obviously - did not last.
After attending a course in Washington her views changed radically and became more liberal. She joined the Democratic Party and headed off to Yale. There she met Bill. Since then her path is well known. She came into the White House on the coat-tails of her genius husband and, bowing to political realities, was forced into a role of First Lady, especially after her plans to reform healthcare ended in defeat. Then came the nightmare of Whitewater, impeachment and Monica Lewinsky. She was humiliated in the full glare of the media spotlight that constantly surrounds the most famous address in the world.
But now she has fi rmly carved out her own place in politics. To those who know the Clintons, this is not a remoulding of Hillary. It is simply stripping away Bill's influence, fame and history, exposing the Hillary that was always underneath. 'I remember in the 1980s people would say: "If you think Bill Clinton is smart, you should meet his wife." I heard that all the time,' said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former aide in the Clinton White House.
That Hillary Clinton is hyper-intelligent is no secret. She delivered the commencement speech at her own graduation from Wellesley (and earned a feature in Life magazine). 'She is simply a brilliant woman,' said Haas. Less well known is the praise she earns for her warmth and humour. Clinton has a stern public image, dry and cold. Yet many who have met her say this is wrong. Karen Friedman, who once advised Clinton on media strategy, says: 'When I have been in her presence she is a wonderful communicator. She has charm and a humorous nature.'
That is something actively promoted by her staff. In an age when the deliberately folksy George W Bush successively beats the intellectual and dry Gore and John Kerry, being seen as stiff but clever is a vote-loser. That could explain thewell-placed and widely covered recent media frenzy about the content of Clinton's iPod. Her selection of tunes eerily appealed to many voting blocs, covering the Rolling Stones, classical music and Motown. It won headlines across the country. 'People feel first and think second. You have to show a more vulnerable and human side,' Friedman said.
One obvious question remains: is America ready for a woman President? The honest answer is that no one knows. Some pundits claim America remains a traditional society uncomfortable with a female leader, especially during wartime. Others say that many countries, from Britain to Germany, have had female premiers and America is equally ready. They point to the success of Condoleezza Rice, Bush's popular ex-National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, as proof that Americans are happy with women in important positions. Ironically for Hillary Clinton, sex may be not be the issue. That is the good news.
The greatest current threat to Clinton comes from her own side. Her stance on Iraq has proved disastrous with her supporters, even as her staff see it as necessary to win any presidential campaign.
As she spoke at the National Press Club, two women protesters began shouting anti-war slogans. 'Stop the war!' they called as security hustled to remove them. One was dragged out still clinging to a banquet chair. Clinton raised her voice above the shouts, remaining fi rmly on-message. That sums up her Iraq strategy. She is unrepentant about supporting the war and critical only of the way it was handled. She favours a steady American troop reduction only when the Iraqi army is able to provide security. This policy is no different to Bush's. This infuriates grassroots Democrats. At almost every public appearance, Clinton is followed by anti-war protesters.
Thus the Democratic party finds itself divided. Clinton and her legion of allies and advisers control the party machine, assuring her of frontrunner status despite her pro-war stance. Yet there is a thirst for an anti-war policy among many voters. It is a civil war between the elite and the grassroots. It will ensure that when Clinton heads off to Iowa and New Hampshire to fight her first primary campaigns, an anti-war rival will be facing her, most likely Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. He has even called for Bush's impeachment.
For Clinton this is a double-edged sword. Facing anti-war opposition in her own party greatly helps her in her move to the centre. Independents will see her vilifi ed by the anti-war left and may fi nally accept that she has shed her liberal baggage. On the other hand, Iraq is so polarising that it could derail her in the primaries or see her limp into a national contest, permanently wounded by her own side. 'The war was a huge issue in 2004. It is going to be even bigger in 2008,' said Haas.
Clinton is already facing this issue in New York where an anti-war Democrat is standing against her in this November's Senate election. Former union organiser Jonathan Tasini has put a political face on anti-war sentiment on her home turf. Speaking by phone last week from the small town of Geneva in upstate New York, Tasini was enthusiastic about his campaign. 'In New York we don't want a pro-war Senator representing us. Her position on Iraq is no different from Bush's, Rove's or Dick Cheney's,' he said.
Last week Tasini was touring the state, speaking each day at events, drumming up anti-Hillary sentiment. 'I went to one anti-war demo and shook hands with about 3,000 people. People were excited,' he said. That could be a sign of things to come in the Democratic primaries. No one - including Tasini - believes Clinton would lose in New York. But a significant anti-Clinton vote would wound her. 'I believe she could be embarrassed,' said John Zogby, a top political pollster and founder of polling firm Zogby International.
If Clinton persuades her party to support her in 2008 and makes it through the primaries, one thing is certain: the Republican attack machine will make Democratic sniping over Iraq look like child's play. Senior Republicans like Rove believe the tried and tested playbook of relentlessly attacking an opponent will work far better on Clinton than it did even on Kerry. She certainly presents a host of targets. Despite her shift rightwards, Republicans will portray her as an unchanged liberal. They will subtly undermine her as a woman, using the national security issue that worked even when faced with a decorated veteran like Kerry. Finally, Clinton's long public life has left decades of scandals and comments to be pored over by researchers looking for fresh dirt. At a push, even old dirt left over from Whitewater and Lewinsky, will suffice. 'It is an old technique to throw mud against the wall and see what sticks. But how much space is there actually left on Clinton's wall for more mud?' said Zogby.
Clinton has generated a booming market in conservative books relentlessly attacking her. They boast titles like American Evita or The Hillary Trap. There is even a children's book featuring Clinton as a monster called the Grinch. The latest, brought out by one of Murdoch's New York Post columnists, John Podhoretz, is called simply: Can She Be Stopped? That is a taste of what is to come.
Then there is the Clintons' marriage. It is a strange union, forged by politics as much as genuine love. It seems like an old European dynastic marriage. There is clearly a deep personal bond but at the same time every action and spoken word has political signifi cance. In the past it was keeping Hillary out of the limelight. Now it is controlling Bill, allowing her to carve her own way. The pair are rarely seen together at public events. They each keep busy schedules: she in Washington or at fundraisers across the country; he in New York or abroad working 'safe' issues like Aids in Africa. Bill keeps a tightknit circle of friends, such as millionaire bachelor Ron Burkle, who he dines and parties with. Hillary's social engagements are nearly always work-related.
Already the dynamics of this odd relationship are being minutely re-examined. Last week the New York Times produced a front-page article on their marriage. Its analysis extended to bizarrely detailed information like the fact the Clintons spent 51 weekends together out of the last 73 and saw each other an average of just 14 days a month in 2005 with the most being August (24 days out of 31) and the least being February (just once).
Hillary's staff privately acknowledge that Bill needs to be managed. Hillary reportedly now has 'fi nal say' on what he says and does. The wisdom of that policy is obvious. Bill recently dined with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach at New York restaurant BLT Steak. Though a dozen other diners were present at their table, it sparked a mini frenzy of speculation among New York gossip columnists. Bill also recently embarrassed his wife during the furore over a deal to give Dubai Ports ownership of some American ports. Hillary predictably joined the knee-jerk condemnation of a company based in an Arab nation. That appealed to rightwingers, except that it quickly emerged Bill was privately advising the United Arab Emirates on how to get the deal through. For Republicans that showed Hillary really represents a return of Bill to the White House; that the Big Dog is still running around the yard of American politics. That is palpably unfair. Not to say sexist. But for Republicans it is useful. While Hillary can raise millions for her own campaign, she is also a mighty motivator for her opponents. At the Press Club breakfast the announcer introducing Clinton jokingly praised her as a great fundraiser '... for the Republicans!' There is little doubt Clinton's candidacy will energise the Republican right, which Rove has used to forge two White House victories. These people, mainly evangelical Christians, are Republican footsoldiers, providing the party's volunteer strength. At the moment they are angry over Iraq and spiralling govern-ment spending. But they will fl ock back to the Republican camp at the prospect of a Clinton returning to the White House.
Yet just for a moment imagine this: it is January 2009, and Hillary is taking the oath of office. A silver-haired Bill stands beaming at her side. The Bushes, after eight long years, have left the White House. She has won.
What would Hillary's presidency look like? She would still face the War on Terror. She might still face the war in Iraq and Iranian nuclear ambitions. Nothing she has ever done would suggest less than a hawkish stance on such issues. At the same time she would have to revisit healthcare. America is facing a growing demographic crisis, and Clinton, once defeated on the issue, would come back to try and sort it out at last. Her foreign policy would be more inclusive and more international. Unlike Bush she already counts many foreign leaders as personal friends. Women's rights would never be far from her agenda either. That would be her historical duty as the fi rst president from her sex. America would truly have changed course.
At the moment that is nothing more than a vision. The conventional wisdom says she cannot do it. She has too much baggage. America, in an age of war and terror, wants a strong, conservative man at its helm. It wants a John McCain. Not a liberal, not a woman and certainly not another Clinton. But John Zogby remembers having these thoughts before. It was in the run-up to Clinton's 2000 Senate race when she was being written off as a carpetbagger and a joke. She would never win the state. Zogby penned a high profi le column in the New York Times headlined: 'Wrong state, wrong time.' Clinton went on to win.
Zogby is more cautious now about the possibility of Clinton winning the White House. 'I did not think she would win New York and I gave a lot of good reasons why,' he said with a rueful chuckle 'She won it anyway. I learned it is dangerous to bet against Hillary Clinton.'
