Ed Kilgore is correct to insist on a nuanced understanding of the term “clearing the field.” When people talk about the possibility of Hillary Clinton “clearing the field,” they do not mean that she will run for the Democratic nomination in 2016 completely unopposed. What they mean is that all the potentially viable candidates who are thinking about running for the nomination might bow out if Hillary gets in. I’m talking about people who have a combination of experience, appeal to big fundraisers, name recognition, and support within the party. We can compile a list of these people more easily if we simply pretend that Clinton won’t run. If she doesn’t, who will?
Most obviously, Vice-President Joe Biden wants to run. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to run. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is probably interested. We know that Senator (and former governor of Virginia) Mark Warner has presidential ambitions. Historically, speaking, this roster is pretty strong. But I doubt any of them are strong enough to beat Clinton. Additionally, I think they all know that they are not strong enough. So, who might run against Clinton?
It’s possible that Biden will challenge her. Martin O’Malley might want to raise his profile a bit. Other than that, we’re probably talking about people who want to emphasize certain issues or to offer a progressive alternative. In other words, we’re talking about people filling a role like Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes or Michelle Bachmann. Those are all people who ran for president without any serious expectation that they might win, but who thought they could either help their career or push their respective parties in a more progressive or conservative direction.
There is an intermediary position between vanity/issue-oriented candidates and serious frontrunners. That’s the pol who wants to audition for the second place on the ticket. This type of candidate usually lacks something needed to win, but is qualified to govern. Think Joe Biden in 2008, but also Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. Maybe they are talented politicians but they can’t compete with rare talents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Maybe they just can’t compete financially. Maybe they are a little out of step with the base of the party. In any case, they hope to impress the leading candidate enough during the campaign to warrant consideration to be on the ticket. You can usually identify these folks because they never get too rough with the frontrunner.
Now, I know that there are a lot of frustrated progressives out there who would line up to support someone willing to run sharply to Clinton’s left. The problem is that we aren’t likely to find someone who is willing to do that who also has the fundraising base and the experience and the talent to actually beat her.
Even strong past opponents of the Clintons, like myself, find it hard not to salivate at the numbers we’re seeing. Clinton is polling ahead of Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Rick Perry in Texas. She is ridiculously strong in Florida:
Hillary Clinton now leads Florida’s own Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio by double-digit margins in 2016 presidential match-ups as her popularity continues to climb in the state, according to PPP’s latest poll.
Clinton leads Bush by 13 points (53/40), Paul Ryan by 13 points (54/41) and Rubio by 16 points (56/40). This is a significant gain from January, when Clinton led Bush by 5 points and Rubio by 4 points. Clinton now claims 20-24% of the Republican vote and 55-58% of the independent vote against each of her potential Republican opponents.
I’m pretty sure you’ll find similar eye-popping results in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, which are among the states most hostile to Obama. A Clinton candidacy doesn’t just promise victory. It has the potential for historic victory.
Combine considerations of that type with an approval rating in the stratosphere, and a bandwagon effect is likely.
It’s a problem for committed progressives that is complicated by another factor that should be better understood. We could swap out Obama and replace him with Evan Bayh, and we would not get any different results as far as legislation is concerned. We could do the same with Bernie Sanders. What is determining the legislative output in Congress is not what the president is offering but the absolute ideological rigidity of the Republicans and the rules that give them the power to block everything. In 2009-2010, Obama was arguably less partisan, but he got much better results because he had numbers in Congress. A Clinton presidency with control of the House and a big Senate majority is going to produce more progressive outcomes than an Obama (or Bernie Sanders) presidency without control of the House and with a narrower Senate majority.
Yet, we can’t forget that the Clintons have always surrounded themselves with people like Dick Morris, Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, Doug Schoen, etc., who are the mortal enemies of progressive values. That’s why Alex Pareene introduced the Mark Penn Test.
The question for someone considering whether or not to support Clinton in 2016 is, will a Clinton 2016 campaign pass the Mark Penn Test? The Mark Penn Test, which I just invented, determines whether or not a person should be trusted with the presidency, based solely on one criterion: Whether or not they pay Mark Penn to do anything for their campaign. Paying Mark Penn means you’ve failed the Mark Penn Test…
…Mark Penn is just the worst example of the general Clinton family habit of associating with the most repulsive party hacks the Democrats have to offer. Her campaign was a dream team of generally useless hacks, from sweatered communications director Howard Wolfson to charmless fundraiser Terry McAuliffe to ill-tempered Harold Ickes (who, unlike the rest of the campaign, at least seemed mostly competent). These are the same Clintons who are responsible for the national stature, such as it is, of Dick Morris. In general, the Clintons run with a pretty lousy crowd. (And this is not even getting into Bill Clinton’s many gross rich man-child “friends,” like Ron Burkle.)
So, in 2016, will Hillary Clinton surround herself again with longtime Democratic National Committee and Clinton administration veterans whose primary qualification for their positions is knowing the Clintons? Or will she hire people who understand that the Democratic Party coalition, and the ways to appeal to its many members, have changed?
Mr. Pareene has identified “The Rub.” There has always been a character issue with the Clintons, albeit the character issue has always been more of an issue for Bill than Hillary. And there’s the consideration of simple judgment, illustrated by Hillary’s vote authorizing military force in Iraq. And there’s the ideological problem with a restoration of the original champions of the DLC.
If her health holds out, Clinton probably cannot be stopped in either the primaries or the general. Progressives will have to figure out if it is even worth trying. But without an alternative candidate who can actually make a serious go of it, we won’t even have a decision to make.
Is there someone out there that I’m just not seeing?
