President Hillary? It Could be Worse

The result of the voters' harsh personal evaluation of Mrs. Clinton is obvious. In many surveys, Clinton runs 3-5 percentage points worse than the other widely known Democratic candidates, Obama and Gore, when matched up against the best-known Republican presidential candidates for November 2008. Incredibly, close to half of adult Americans already say they have an "unfavorable" opinion of her, and 43-46 percent of Americans say that they would not even consider voting for her--an extraordinarily high proportion this early in a campaign that leaves little room for error later on.

This is the point I've been making about Hillary. More than any other Democratic contender, Hillary "caps" the number of votes she can possibly receive. Nominating her would ensure another razor-thin election, and as we've already seen, anything can happen in one of those. She could win, maybe, but a lot of things would have to go right for her to overcome the (at least) 43-46% of voters who wouldn't even consider voting for her. In a year that could be awful for Republicans, maybe even worse than 2006, this really is the best-case scenario for Republicans. Keep it close and hope things break right in key states, a la 2000 and 2004.

Her nomination could also be the last hope of a GOP coalition that is stressed, at least, if not cracking. Immigration, an unpopular war, an increasingly irrelevant president who looks more and more like a man who wants to be clearing brush in Crawford, Texas -- all of these factors have led the Republican Party to arguably its lowest spot since midway through Reagan's first term. Yet the entire Republican coalition can agree on something: they loathe the Clintons and all that they stand for. A Hillary nomination could get the gang back together, with a common purpose once again. I can't imagine disillusioned Republican voters staying home if President Hillary Rodham Clinton (and her husband Bill, with time to kill) could be back in the White House.

Further, a quick examination of the Dem frontrunners leaves me with a pressing question: who would I rather have (God forbid) as the next Democratic president?

Call me crazy, but I would say Hillary Clinton. She is, by nature, calculating and careful. She's wanted this job all her life. She will be sure not to do anything that would put a second term in jeopardy. I wouldn't expect her to attempt to enact sweeping liberal reforms in her first term. She saw how well that went over with the "Hillary-care" hullabaloo, and has been as cautious as her husband (politically speaking) ever since

Also, I think she may have a better idea of the nature of the threats America faces than Obama or Edwards. She's been in the White House, she's seen the intelligence and sat through the briefings. She is unlikely to approach foreign policy with the same starry-eyed mindfuzzery that either of her unimpressive rivals would bring.

Finally, Sabato makes the point that Hillary's presidency could have far-reaching negative consequences for the Democratic Party, much like her husband's "holiday from history" ushered in six years of Republican ascendancy, ascendancy that could easily still be in place but for Bush's missteps.

Let's suppose Mrs. Clinton wins in November 2008. Democrats would have to live with the consequences. There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row, following her husband's divisive and partially wasted tenure and George W. Bush's deeply disappointing turn at bat. We bet that she would have a short honeymoon and would be unable to convince her millions of critics and detractors that she had changed--or was different than they long ago concluded she was. At a time when the nation could use a unifier and a healer--to the extent that any President can perform those roles--partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One...

The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case. The midterm election of 2010 may not be the fiasco for Democrats that 1994 was-there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton's electoral disaster in his first term-yet the GOP would almost certainly make a good start on the comeback trail for control of Congress, governorships, and the state legislatures (in the all-important redistricting election that will determine much of the legislative line-drawing for a full decade). Granted, it is virtually impossible to get partisans to think about their long-term interests, but in this respect, Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008.