The conventional wisdom insists that Hillary Clinton is not only a favorite of Dem primary voters, but a virtual certainty among possible Dem presidential candidates in 2008. Yet, there’s a growing body of evidence that the senator may not run for president after all.
Is there any other name that creates the political buzz that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s does? Maybe not, but some friends and allies advise against placing bets that the former first lady will be the nation’s 44th president. They report that the New York Democrat isn’t so sure about a run for the White House. “She’s not running,” says one supporter.
The thinking in the “don’t run” campaign is that Clinton is well aware of the partisan feelings she generates. “People love her or they hate her,” says an adviser. “There’s very little gray area to gain voters in.” Friends also worry that a GOP attack machine would turn the race into a bitter replay of Clinton’s cattle futures profits, the Whitewater scandal, and her failed healthcare plan…. “She loves the Senate,” says a friend, “and she can be a kingmaker there if she wants.”
U.S. News & World Report goes on to explain that Hillary allows presidential speculation to circle around her because it helps “attract donations for her 2006 Senate re-election campaign and for the re-election efforts of other Democrats.” If I were a betting man, I’d guess Hillary doesn’t run for president, but enjoys the gossip in the interim.
On a similar note, Jonathan Chait made an important point about Hillary’s prospects in a great op-ed last week.
Clinton’s supporters like to note that she’s not as liberal as people think. That’s exactly the problem. I can see the logic behind nominating a liberal whom voters see as moderate. Nominating a moderate whom voters see as liberal is kind of backward, isn’t it?
Chait’s broader argument is that Dean and Kerry are the Dems’ two worst possible candidates for 2008, but his point about public perceptions of Hillary is worth remembering.