Sometimes, the best way to lose a presidential nomination is to be too far ahead too soon. Perhaps the events of the past week are an indicator that Hillary Clinton’s as-yet-unannounced presidential campaign is in danger, having peaked too early in the process.

A 2008 Clinton nomination may not be as inevitable as it sometimes seems.

Last week was a bad one for the New York Senator. The week started off poorly when The Des Moines Register released the results of a poll it recently conducted. This poll had new and startling results. When asked who they preferred as a Democratic presidential nominee, the majority did not favor Clinton. Instead, most favored former Senator John Edwards (30 percent). Clinton placed second, with 26 percent, and Senator John Kerry lagged in third with 12 percent.

But Clinton’s bad news did not end there. Late in the week, the results of a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll were released. Respondents were asked to identify which potential presidential candidate "frightens you the most." Clinton couldn’t win in Iowa, but she led this poll with a hefty 36 percent—more than double the percentage of the next closest candidate, Rudy Giuliani (17 percent). Even worse for Clinton, her showing among Democrats in this poll wasn’t particularly commendable. Twenty-two percent of polled Democrats named her as their scariest candidate. This number was only slightly less than that earned by Giuliani (29 percent), despite his Republican status. Among independents, a solid 25 percent were frightened by Clinton, compared to only 12 percent for Giuliani.

Clinton’s poor poll results were soon exacerbated by at least one lackluster public appearance. On Tuesday, the Senator gave a talk before the liberal "Take Back America" conference. Despite her alleged status as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton found herself in the unusual position of being booed by liberals. Her crime? Taking a moderate stance on the War in Iraq. By contrast, her potential rival, John Kerry, received a standing ovation when he denounced his own past support for the war.

Clinton—and the rest of the Democratic Party—faces a dilemma during the 2008 election cycle. She must figure out how to satisfy the left wing of the party long enough to win the primaries, yet she must do so in a way that allows her to remain competitive with mainstream America during the general election. Such a juggling act is an issue in any election, of course, but it seems particularly challenging for Democrats this election cycle.

Many anti-war voters in the Democratic base are not just angry. They are furious. They are past the point of compromise. They do not tolerate dissent. They do not seem to care about understanding the more moderate positions of the vast majority of the country.

They are entitled to their opinions, of course, but this intransigence will not win elections. At this rate, Democrats could lose again in 2008. Quite a feat, given the degree to which Republicans have been falling apart in recent years.

The anti-war problem in the Democratic Party will be faced by each of its potential nominees, but in many ways it is hitting Clinton particularly hard. Perhaps it’s because she, along with her husband, has been the face of the Democratic Party for so long. Maybe liberal voters have higher expectations for her. Or maybe it’s because she’s been the frontrunner for the party’s presidential nomination for too long, leaving her more time to make a misstep that will disappoint intractable anti-war voters.

In June 1990, the Christian Science Monitor reported that former DNC chairman Charles Manatt classified potential Democratic presidential candidates in two categories: the "Inner 3" and the "Outer 4." The former were most likely to obtain the nomination, but the latter were considered long shots.

Guess who was a member of the Outer 4? Bill Clinton.

Fourteen years ago, the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination eventually lost to a Governor from Arkansas. How ironic if this dynamic worked in reverse in 2008, this time leaving a Clinton in the dust.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment