America Tired of
Dueling Monarchies

Two weeks ago in this column I took conservative commentator Ann Coulter to task for calling a presidential candidate disparaging names. I got some positive responses from a few readers and also a challenge from one reader to direct some of my criticism of the political process toward liberals and Democrats for a change.

It’s a challenge that I’m ready to take so here goes.

I believe that I will live long enough to see a woman serve as president of the United States. That woman will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I know that sounds like a bold statement considering that many recent polls have Clinton ahead of fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John Edwards. She is also way ahead of her opponents when it comes to raising campaign money. An Associated Press story this week stated that campaign finance experts estimate that she will have raised as much as $40 million for her run at the White House by April 15, the day that the first finance reports for the 2008 presidential race are due. By comparison, Al Gore raised $28 million for his entire race in 2000.

So why don’t I believe that Hillary Clinton can win the 2008 election? Here are a number of reasons:

No. 1—The Hatfield/McCoy Factor
By November 2008 America will have had a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for the past 20 years. If you count the eight years that Bush Sr. served as vice president under Ronald Reagan, a Bush or a Clinton will have had a desk in the White House for the past 28 years. America is a democracy, not some form of government that relies on dueling monarchies for its leader. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, can we look forward to a presidential race between Chelsea Clinton and Jenna Bush in 2016? I think America is ready to reject the whole “Family Feud” aspect of the executive branch of government.

No. 2—She is Not Centrist Enough
The reason that Democrats took back the Senate and the House in the 2006 elections is that they reclaimed the middle road on a number of issues that Americans care about. While Republicans were forced to support an unpopular president and his unpopular war, Democrats countered with ideas about health care, Social Security, education and the environment. While it is true that Hillary Clinton touched on a number of these issues as a senator from New York, much of America views her stands as far too liberal.

No. 3—Her Personal Style
In speech after speech, Hillary Clinton comes across as the girl who was at the top of her class who still tells you about her SAT scores 40 years after the fact. It is somewhat deceiving that she has received thunderous applause for her campaign rhetoric—most of which criticizes a lame duck president who will leave office in two years. The manner in which she has responded to criticism from other presidential candidates is far more telling. In short, her demeanor is viewed by many as shrill and bristly.

No. 4—Her Husband
Although Bill Clinton is one of the shrewdest political minds of the last hundred years, his eight years in office left a bad taste many Americans’ mouths (see reason No. 5). Although his two terms are commendable for economic prosperity and wonderful foreign relations (especially when compared to the current administration), many Americans view the Clinton era as one filled with scandal and lost opportunities on issues such as Universal Health Care. Like him or not, Bill Clinton is probably not the most viable candidate for first First Husband in U.S. history.

No. 5—Monica Lewinsky
I know, it hardly seems fair to bring up the name Monica Lewinsky. But believe me, somebody’s going to do it in the next year-and-a-half. America doesn’t think Hillary was in the Oval Office offering to hold Monica’s hair back in a ponytail when the whole sordid mess went down. But Hillary’s subsequent “Stand By Your Man” attitude seemed disingenuous at best and politically calculating at worst. She should have slapped him across the face on national television. That would have elevated her in the eyes of many Americans.

No. 6—She Voted for the War
In speech after speech, Clinton has declared that she would not have voted for a resolution in October 2002 authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq if she knew then what she knows now. For many Americans who saw the war as a bad idea from the get-go, that excuse is not good enough. In retrospect, many people believe that every senator and congressperson voted for Bush’s plan because to vote against it would have seemed unpatriotic after 9/11. The truth is that 23 out of 100 senators voted against the resolution, as did 133 of 429 members of Congress. Clinton was not alone in voting for the war resolution but she lagged far behind others such as John Edwards and John Kerry in calling their votes a mistake.

No. 7—Middle America Will Not Vote For Her
She may yet be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, but she has big hurdle to face with the rest of American voters. A Harris Poll released on March 27 indicate that 50% of U.S. adults would not vote for Senator Clinton if she were the Democratic candidate, while only 36% said they would (11% were unsure). Among registered Democrats, 21% said they would not vote for her. Among Independents, 48% said they would not vote for her, while 37% said they would.

According to the Harris Poll numbers, “52% agree that she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level, and this number is even higher among married women (53%), men (56%) voters aged 62 and older (68%), and, of course, Republicans (73%).”

In conclusion, Democrats may want to think long and hard about putting all their eggs in Hillary Clinton’s basket. Then again, I might be wrong. A lot can happen in a year-and-a-half.