Virgin: The Case Against Hillary Clinton

by Sheahan Virgin
To the Barack Obama and John Edwards supporters out there, who had been adamantly and intently waiting for that time when Hillary Clinton would stumble, look no further, for your hopes have been realized. Or at least that was the general ‘spin’ coming out of the Democratic debate a few weeks ago when, towards the end, Clinton attempted to take two different positions on the same issue during the same answer. Edwards, Obama, and the press immediately pounced, and that night, Hillary Clinton was caught attempting to straddle the fence and looked like a fool.

And speaking of fools, it would be foolish of Democrats to nominate the New York senator, though there is, despite Clinton’s recent missteps, a very real chance that her machine of a campaign will continue to roll to victory. With Clinton being such a poor candidate and having developed the reputation of being insincere and overly polished (indeed, one need not look further than polls showing that most Americans believe Hillary will say anything to get elected and generally avoids answering difficult questions), some Democrats are beginning to seriously worry they’ve been backing the wrong horse.

The case against Clinton is strong: nominating Hillary, while it would make history by selecting a woman to head a major party ticket, is plane and simple, bad politics and poor strategy. Running for political office places a premium on money, organization, and name recognition, and while Clinton may have the money and resources to win a general election campaign, it is her name which, in the end, will bring her down no matter how many millions she spends.

Next to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton has the highest unfavorability ratings of any politician, with estimates ranging from forty to fifty percent depending on which poll one consults. Such numbers not only undermine Clinton’s claim that she will be a “uniter in a divided America,” they hit right at the heart of her electability and her ability, come November, to deliver the percentage of votes necessary to shape a mandate for which Democrats have long craved. If there is one rule in politics, it is that you never run a candidate whom a majority of the nation already detests.

The bottom line: too many Republicans came to loathe the Clintons in the 1990s and as a result, many (even ones considering voting Democratic in 2008) will refuse to vote for Hillary under any circumstances in November. They fear that by allowing another Clinton in the White House, Bill will (behind the scenes) privately influence American policy. And nothing makes conservatives balk more than the thought of another four years of Bill Clinton calling the shots in Washington.

Understandably, in the last debate, Clinton attempted to put a positive spin on the question as to why Republicans continually mention her on the campaign trail. Her answer: that Republicans are afraid of running against a woman who has already shown that she can “beat the right-wing attack machine.” Clinton’s spin is so absurd that it is almost laughable.

It is true that Republicans fear Hillary, but not because they worry that she would beat them, but because they fear the “debauchery and drama” to which a new Clinton administration would give rise. The last thing Democrats need, therefore, is a weak nominee capable of scaring a fractured Republican Party into uniting, which is exactly what Hillary, despite her massive amounts of campaign money and perfectly rehearsed debate responses, would do—energize and galvanize conservatives whose hatred of the Clintons is just as potent today as it was in the 1990s.

At a time in our nation’s history when elections are extremely close, a battle between “Red America” and “Blue America,” it is absolutely essential to nominate a candidate who will appeal to more than just the party faithful. Nothing scares Democrats more than the thought of swing-voters passing on their candidate. The Democratic nominee in 2008 must poll well among independents and disillusioned Republicans, something that Clinton would do remarkably poorly. Nominating Clinton is like starting a marathon with a broken leg. Sure, there is a chance that you could win the race—by luck or by the unlikely event that your competitors founder. But nevertheless, if I were a betting man, I would bet against the athlete hobbling down the track and whose very presence would make her opponent’s supporters turn out en masse.

Democrats have reached the fork-in-the-Y in the nomination process; one branch leads to the nomination of Senator Clinton—it means disingenuous answers, hollow rhetoric about change, and planted questions at public events. It means shame. It means Washington-politics-as-usual. It means a loss in the general election. The other branch leads to the nomination of another candidate, in whom, although he may certainly not have the resources of Clinton, we can honestly believe. It means hope and pride. It means a great discussion of the issues. It means renewal and a system that works again for Americans. Democrats have a choice in this primary campaign. Let us hope they take the right decision.