Hillary Clinton put an end to the worst kept secret in American politics last Sunday by officially announcing that she was running for President.
In her opening video posted on the social media, she said she would hit the road to “earn” America’s vote and pledged to champion “everyday Americans”. Her two-minute video clip portrayed upbeat middle-class families from a variety of backgrounds sharing their aspirations.
Clinton, who lost her bid to be the Democratic nominee to Barack Obama in 2008, will attempt to become the first woman president of the US, and has long been considered to be the frontrunner for her party’s nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
It is not clear whether any other Democratic candidates will challenge her in this race but it is important that Clinton does not act as if she is entitled to the presidency, like she did in 2008. The fact that she said she wanted to “earn” the support of the American people is certainly a step in the right direction.
Although Clinton is attempting to make history by becoming the first woman US president, history is not really on her side. In the entire post-war period, a political party has only once won three consecutive presidential elections, and that was when Republican Ronald Reagan won in 1980 and 1984 and Republican George H. Bush won in 1988. Furthermore, a party has never won four consecutive presidential elections during this period, so Clinton will really make history if after being elected in 2016 she is then re-elected four years later.
There is little doubt in my mind that Clinton is qualified to be President. She is a former First Lady, a former Senator from New York and a former Secretary of State with a good record. Her four years at the State Department makes her the most experienced of all the potential presidential candidates.
As Secretary of State Clinton was instrumental in ushering in President Barack Obama’s welcome emphasis on multilateralism as opposed to George W. Bush’s dangerous unilateralism, she deserves some credit for this month’s Iran nuclear framework deal – she helped lay the groundwork for the negotiations with Iran and made possible the back-channel discussions with Teheran through the Sultan of Oman – and she was instrumental in strengthening US ties with Asia.
Of course, Clinton will inevitably face fierce criticism on a number of issues about her past and can expect ruthless opposition from the Republican party, whose declared presidential candidates so far – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio – are all right-wingers.
Will Clinton be more successful than Obama in reducing the stalemate in Congress?
Clinton – who is somewhat of a hate figure among conservatives – will be criticised for her link to the Obama administration (she should on the whole defend Obama’s record), her perceived lack of principles – she opposed gay marriage in the past and now says she supports it – and parts of her record as Secretary of State such as when the US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists.
Conservative Republicans will almost certainly slam Clinton for her support of the Iran nuclear framework deal, which, however, she should continue to defend in principle but reserve final judgement for when a comprehensive agreement is hopefully reached in June. She will also be criticised as being a ‘Washington establishment’ figure, although she can always argue that her experience will help her be a better President.
Some voters might also consider her too old for the job – she will be 69 when the next President takes the oath of office in January 2016 – but she can always argue that conservative icon Ronald Reagan, who served two full terms, became President at exactly the same age.
Clinton’s major challenge, however, is to convince Americans that she will be better at ending the gridlock in Washington than Obama has been. Even though Obama has, broadly speaking, the right policies in place, he failed to push some of them through Congress, mainly because the Republicans, who control both chambers, have been largely hostile and uncooperative. However, many voters don’t see it that way, and to a considerable extent blame Obama for the gridlock and hold him responsible for not being flexible enough with the Republicans in Congress.
Will Clinton be more successful than Obama in reducing the stalemate in Congress? Will she be able to work in a bipartisan manner and reach out to the Republicans who almost certainly will retain control of Congress after the 2016 election? Up until now Clinton has had a reputation as a polarising figure, so she has some work to do to convince voters that she will be able to work well with Congress.
Having said that, she is more of a centrist that the three declared Republican candidates so far, and might therefore have an advantage in appealing to the electorate. However, should centrist Republicans enter the race, such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (who has a good record in dealing with a Democratic-controlled legislature), or Jebb Bush (although his surname will work against him), then that will be a different scenario.
Clinton is without doubt the strong favourite to win the Democratic party nomination for the presidency. This means that she need not appeal too much to the party’s liberal base – and can thus consolidate her centrist position. In contrast, her Republican opponents will have to bend over backwards to attract support from the party’s increasingly powerful conservative base, possibly alienating the wider electorate in the process.
However, this is not going to be an easy campaign for Clinton, and as she said in her campaign video, she has to earn the support of Americans in her bid for the presidency. She will need to spell out exactly what she stands for, convince voters that she will be able to work with Congress and must tread carefully between praising Obama’s legacy and explaining how her presidency would differ from his.