Yesterday’s fun discussion focused on whether Hillary Clinton would want Barack Obama to lose in November if he’s the Democratic nominee. I said no, Yglesias said yes, Drum said no, and Chait said the question itself is missing the more important point, but he seems to lean towards yes.
Today’s question is an off-shoot of yesterday’s: is Clinton eyeing 2012 if/when things don’t work out this year? Michael Tomasky takes a look:
Clinton will be 64 in 2012. That’s clearly not too old to seek the presidency. I also don’t see any obvious heavyweight competitors on the horizon, although of course predicting something like that is dicey at this juncture. […]
If she were seen by a significant portion of Democrats as not having done all she could for Obama in 2008, she’d face massive hostility in 2010 when she started making noises about running again. So she has to be active in helping him, which of course creates a sort of double paradox: she has to work hard for the very outcome that works against her own future interests, knowing that said work is the only thing that will in fact help her future interests! Got it?
Those are all good points, but I’m not sure if it resolves the question or not.
I’m going with no, she isn’t eyeing a 2012 campaign.
First, history certainly isn’t on her side. In the post-WWII era, the only Democrat to run, come up short, and come back again to win the nomination was Adlai Stevenson six decades ago. Since then, Democratic candidates tend to get one shot at the ring. I’m fairly sure the campaign is aware of that.
Second, Clinton already faces tacit questions about the “past vs. future” dynamic, and four years from now, it will be much worse. (Talk of “Clinton fatigue” will be ubiquitous in the media.)
Third, Chait notes that Clinton’s “fanbase will remain intact,” but I’m not entirely convinced. If there’s another wide open primary, can Clinton count on keeping her activists together? Again, no matter who else runs? It would be a challenge.
And finally, the Clinton “brand” probably won’t be perceived quite the same way in future campaigns, and she has to realize this. People can debate whether or not it’s fair, but I suspect if were to poll on the Clinton “brand” among Democrats in, say, late 2006, the numbers would be extremely high (mid to high 80s? higher?). If were to take the same test now, invariably the number would be much lower, maybe cut in half. This isn’t especially surprising — the campaign has taken on too negative a tone for the name to remain intact.
This matters quite a bit. Looking back at polls from 2003, once Hillary Clinton’s name was added to the mix of 2004 candidates, she was instantly the frontrunner, by a wide margin. Some of this had to do with affection for her personally in Democratic circles, but most of this was the name. It’s also why she started the 2008 race way out in front in practically every state and national poll. By 2012, that advantage will be gone.
Whether or not she sufficiently helps Obama, or becomes a more progressive senator, is almost besides the point. I think this is Clinton’s one and only shot — and I think Clinton believes it, too.