Rewriting History Part 14

Moreover, if President Bush is re-elected in 2004, then in 2008 the Democrats will have history on their side. Six times since World War II, two-term presidents have tried to arrange their succession by a candidate from their own party - and five times they have failed. Truman couldn't get Adlai Stevenson elected. Eisenhower, despite his ma.s.sive popularity, failed with Nixon. Johnson couldn't help Humphrey win. Nixon's chosen successor, Gerald Ford, lost to Carter. And Clinton failed to propel Gore into office. Only Ronald Reagan bucked the trend, propelling George H. W. Bush into office (with plenty of help, of course, from the hapless Mike Dukakis).

Why the high failure rate for two-term presidents? Often, ironically, their very success extinguishes their mandate and leaves their chosen successor with little more to do and even less to run on. Once Truman had acted to preserve the New Deal's accomplishments, who needed Stevenson? After Eisenhower secured peace and prosperity - forever, it seemed - what did voters need with Nixon? Once Johnson had pa.s.sed the civil rights bills, America felt little need for Hubert Humphrey. Eight years of Clinton-era prosperity left voters feeling free to stray from the fold and vote for Bush.

Today, the very success of the Republican Party is, perversely, threatening to be its undoing. Bush has cut taxes; Clinton had already cut the welfare rolls; a combination of factors has reduced violent crime - and thus the hot b.u.t.ton issues that animated the Republican surge of 1994 have largely dissipated. Partisan gerrymandering and the war on terror have kept voters in line behind Republican majorities in Congress, but underlying att.i.tudes on most domestic issues have s.h.i.+fted sharply to the left.

Peel back the war on terror, and what are the issues that most concern Americans? According to a Fox News poll of May 20, 2003, the economy, health care, education, and social security top the list. But when the pollsters asked voters who they felt would do the better job on these domestic issues, Democrats beat Republicans on nearly every one. Voters felt that Democrats were better at handling Social Security by 46 to 32, health care by 48 to 30, and education by 40 to 35. On the economy the parties broke even, with Republicans at 40 percent to the Democrats' 39. As the war on terror winds down, the Democratic edge on these domestic issues is likely to grow.

Nor is the stable of Republican candidates lining up to succeed Bush and keep Hillary out of the White House particularly promising. The search for successors usually starts with the inc.u.mbent vice president. Eight of the last twenty candidates for president first ran for vice president. Given his age and health, though, d.i.c.k Cheney is the first vice president since Truman's Alben Barkley who does not harbor White House ambitions. This traditional springboard to the presidency is empty.

The Bush administration harbors no heir apparent. Rumsfeld is too old, Ashcroft too controversial. Ridge and Thompson have not become popular figures. The ranks of Republican governors and senators are similarly thin. Schwarzenegger is foreign-born and hence ineligible. Texas's Perry is too new, New York's Pataki too old. Majority Leader Bill Frist might run, but can he excite ma.s.s commitment? Jeb Bush? The Bushes aren't that popular. George H. W. Bush lost in 1992, attracting only 37 percent of the vote. His son lost the popular vote in 2000, and faces a tough battle in 2004. If Americans aren't tired of the Bushes by 2004, they are going to be exhausted by 2008. The most popular potential Republican candidates are Secretary of State Colin Powell and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Powell, or for that matter Condoleezza Rice, would slice deeply into the Democratic ethnic base, breaking the stranglehold that demographics would give Hillary in 2008. Rudy Giuliani, still a hero after 9/11, would put New York's electoral votes in play for the first time since 1988.

But can either be nominated? Both are pro-choice on abortion, support gun controls, and back affirmative action. Could the GOP reverse direction on these core issues without triggering a right-wing defection? Even a.s.suming Powell or Giuliani could prevail in conservative-dominated Republican primaries, either man would be hard-pressed to lead a united party into the election. The true believers from the NRA and the Christian Coalition might well bolt the party altogether, splitting it as disastrously as Ross Perot did in 1992.

To a gambler, then, the Democratic Party looks like the way to bet in 2008. But why bet on Hillary Clinton?

Because with or without the looming demographic perfect storm, no Democrat is likely to be able to stand up to Hurricane Hillary. Should John Kerry win, Hillary will have to bide her time for eight years instead of four. But she will emerge in 2012 as strong as ever.

Hillary's hold on a future Democratic presidential nomination stems from the control the Clinton organization has over the Democratic National Committee. Ever since 1992, the Clintons have run the Democratic Party the way a Mafia don runs his family. Their hand-picked caporegime, Terry McAuliffe, is its reigning leader. McAuliffe dominates the party's fund-raising efforts. Democratic fat cats give when they are told, and to whom they are instructed by the smoothly oiled national fund-raising operation. Despite Howard Dean's now-legendary Internet-driven fund-raising success, the big checks still do the talking - and the Clintons control the process.

Just as important are the "superdelegates" - the congressmen and other party and public officials who attend the Democratic National Convention by right of their position. And the former first lady is making sure she has lOUs among all these prominent Democrats throughout the land. Hillary's campaign committee says that she has partic.i.p.ated in 127 fund-raisers for other candidates or committees since she joined the Senate - forty-five of them outside of New York or Was.h.i.+ngton.

The Buffalo News reports that Hillary's "fund-raising committees have given $1.66 million to Democratic candidates and causes. . . . [Mrs.] Clinton's political activities have touched at least 40 states. She has attended fund-raisers in 25 states. ... No other senator has had a fund-raising outfit as successful as HillPAC, the senator's federal political action committee. HillPAC gave away $902,000, which is $244,000 more than the second-most-active Senate PAC, run by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle."

Hillary's Democratic fund-raisers have mastered the game of raking in soft money despite the ostensible prohibition against doing so in the McCain-Feingold reform law. Even though Democratic senators led the battle to ban these donations to party committees and refused to pa.s.s the legislation without this provision, Democratic fund-raisers haven't gotten the word. Instead they have simply set up "independent" committees like Move On and Americans Coming Together to take soft-money donations. As Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, an opponent of campaign finance reform, points out, "Soft money is not gone, it has just changed its address." Instead of sending checks to the Democratic National Committee, donors just mail them to these specially created front organizations. Ironically, Republicans have proven more adept at raising hard money under the limits of McCain-Feingold than the Democrats, generating twice as much through September 2003. Democrats use the loopholes in the finance reform law to keep the soft money flowing to offset this advantage.

And Democrats have developed guardian angels to fill their coffers. Financier George Soros and his friend Peter B. Lewis, for example, have each committed to giving $10 million in soft money to these front groups, far beyond any of the contributions Republicans have been getting. At the core of these new Democratic Party front groups is Harold Ickes, Hillary's former campaign director and chief political advisor. With one of Ickes's hands on the throttle and the other on the steering wheel, these new campaign financing vehicles are, effectively, under Hillary's control.

This combination of a dramatically improved image, proven fund-raising ability, a long trail of supporters owing her favors in virtually every state, and control of the national party apparatus gives Hillary a giant head start toward the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Meanwhile, public opinion polls indicate that no other Democrat can catch Hillary. Had she decided to run in 2004, she would have won the nomination in a walk. An NBC poll in December 2003 showed that Hillary would have won 43 percent of the Democratic primary votes, with only 12 percent for the next leading candidate.

Then again, Hillary might still run for vice president in 2004. As the most popular Democrat in the nation, she would undoubtedly strengthen the Democratic ticket. The prospect of a genuinely electable female vice presidential candidate - particularly Hillary - would transform a campaign into a crusade, electrifying the Democratic base and guaranteeing a huge turnout.

Would Hillary run for VP? She might. Here's why: - It's a free shot on goal. She doesn't have to give up her Senate seat to run. If she wins, she becomes the vice president. If she loses, she's still the United States Senator from New York, until she has to run for re-election in 2006.

- If Kerry wins in 2004 - and runs for re-election in 2008 - Hillary will have to keep fresh until 2012, a long time in politics. In the Senate, she would be at best an onlooker as the action moves to a Democratic White House. But as vice president, she would be the presumptive nominee when Kerry leaves.

- If Hillary doesn't run for vice president, somebody else will - and win or lose, he'll be tough compet.i.tion when Hillary decides to run for president.

- Should Bush be re-elected, it won't be by much. There would be no shame for Hillary in running for vice president on a ticket that narrowly lost.

- If Hillary stays in the Senate, she may have to battle Rudy Giuliani in 2006 when she runs for re-election. Wouldn't it be the better part of valor to step aside for the hero of 9/11 and run for national office instead?

Besides, Hillary has already served as a kind of vice president and found it both enjoyable and rewarding. During the first two years of Bill's first term, she was a de facto chief of staff. Then, for the remainder of his White House tenure, she effectively became a second vice president, roaming the world, speaking out on issues she cared about, and raising money for the party. It's not a bad job.

The weather patterns - the wind, tides, waves, and clouds - all indicate, though, that 2008 may be the Perfect Storm for Hillary Clinton.

But what kind of storm will it be? It's impossible not to turn once more to those devil-or-angel symbols of the 1960s, Bobby Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

As we've seen, Hillary Clinton's past carries disturbing echoes of Nixon's. Like him, she has proven susceptible to temptation, paranoia, and scandal; like him, she has allowed her fierce political instincts to darken her perspective, and contrived a deceivingly positive public face behind which to hide. If her behavior as president is much like her performance as first lady - in Arkansas or Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C. - then her supporters and critics alike have much to fear.

But the image of Bobby Kennedy reminds us that things needn't be that way - not even for Hillary Clinton. - In the years after his brother's a.s.sa.s.sination, Robert F. Kennedy grew. He saw how his tactics in hunting mobsters and communists - and wiretapping civil rights leaders like King - undermined our const.i.tutional rights, and he repented. He came to realize that his hawkish, primitive 1950s anti-communism had helped to lead America into the swamp of Vietnam, and to a ma.s.sive neglect of our domestic problems. Civil rights and the needs of the poor, once distractions from his brother's legislative agenda, became the core of his own message, and grew into deeply rooted principles.

Robert Kennedy became a very good person.

So can Hillary. To do so, she would first have to admit her errors, if only to herself. Perfect people never change. Those who look in a mirror and see only the most insignificant of errors never grow.

Granted, a best-selling memoir by a sitting politician may not have been the place to begin a candid, introspective self-examination. It's hard to think of any such memoir that has been completely forthcoming, and for any number of reasons Hillary's Living History is filled with predictable ellipses, cover stories, and creative embroidery of the truth.

But as the decade unfolds, in the quiet of her Senate seat, apart from the daily duels of political dialogue, Hillary will have the chance to become the person she still can become. She will have a chance to marry her sincerely generous goals to her means. She can look back over her career and see how a minor lie - like Whitewater - can almost bring down an entire presidency. And we can hope that this time she decides the solution is not to perfect her talent for stonewalling, but not to lie in the first place.

Our current political landscape badly needs Hillary's perspective, her pa.s.sionate idealism. Her willingness to fight for the underdog and her compa.s.s for issues are rare indeed in our male-dominated, profit-obsessed society. She is, as we've seen, a flawed instrument. If she continues to hide behind the HILLARY brand, a second Clinton presidency would do vastly more harm than good. But the question lingers: Will she grow?