If the
polls are accurate, then for only the second time in 30 years are the
most loyal partisans in the Out-of-Power political party and their most
partisan opponents in the In-Power party backing the same candidate to
be the next presidential nominee of the Out-of-Power party.
Three decades ago, the first choice of then-out-of-office Republicans
was the conservative champion from California, Ronald Reagan. Democrats
of that era were nervous about Jimmy Carter, their embattled incumbent,
facing Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker or even former U.N. Ambassador George
H.W. Bush. But Democrats were positive that American voters would reject
a far-right, 69-year-old, ex-movie actor with, what former President Ford
had called, "prematurely orange hair." Reagan carried 44 states
in 1980.
Today, it is Republicans who are publicly salivating over the prospect
of running against the Democrats' front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary
Clinton. Some see her candidacy motivating conservatives to vote in record
numbers, guaranteeing GOP retention of the White House and Congress. Others
see themselves becoming wealthy tapping the nervous checkbooks of donors
who view the Clintons as proof of the impending Apocalypse. Very few even
see the remote possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Like 1978 Democrats, 2005 Republicans may be making the serious mistake
of talking only to people who agree with them. That is the warning sounded
by some wise, battle-scarred Republican veterans of GOP presidential politics,
who take a Hillary Clinton candidacy very seriously indeed.
Rick Davis, who managed the insurgent presidential campaign of Arizona
Sen. John McCain -- who came from single digits in the polls to nearly
upsetting the Party Establishment's favorite son in 2000 -- respectfully
calls the New York senator "a triple threat. She, like Reagan in
1980, has her own base of support locked up, which means she can take
different or more moderate positions on a controversial issue, like abortion,
and not risk her support."
In 1978, at the height of the anti-gay political movement -- when restrictive
measures won in Wichita, Kan., and Eugene, Ore., and after Anita Bryant's
crusade in Florida -- a California initiative to remove homosexual teachers
from the classroom looked like it might pass, until that support-your-local-police
conservative, Ronald Reagan, came out in opposition.
Clinton's other two advantages, according to Davis: "She has the
capacity to raise almost unlimited amounts of money and -- let's face
it -- she's smarter than the rest of the people running."
The last point is emphasized by Scott Reed, the onetime executive director
of the Republican National Committee and 1996 presidential campaign manager
for Sen. Bob Dole, who marvels at her deftness politically in the Senate,
where "such established Clinton-haters as Jeff Sessions of Alabama,
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire have prominently
co-authored legislation with Mrs. Clinton."
Reed says: "Clinton has quickly and methodically become a force to
be reckoned with in the Senate. Like Lyndon Johnson before her, she is
mastering the Senate to fit her agenda."
Critics of Sen. Clinton, who generally acknowledge her quick mastery of
subject matter, still question what difference she has made, what issue
she has made her own in her first six years. Her party has already turned,
and the country is not far behind, in increasing opposition to the U.S.
war in Iraq. Clinton voted to go to war, and her leadership on the issue
has not been notable.
The dilemma of the woman-as-commander-in-chief is evident: The Democratic
woman who voted to go to war can be seen as "tough," but not
as "right." While the Democratic woman who voted against war
could be judged to have been "right," but not "tough."
Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign manager in 1976 and early 1980,
John P. Sears, sees Clinton as both "strong" and "determined."
But she will not enjoy one major advantage the Gipper had: "Reagan
benefited greatly from the perception that he was not smart."
He does see one potential GOP candidate profiting from Clinton as the
front-runner: "If she looks like she is going to be the nominee,
then the highly electable John McCain could become dramatically more appealing
to Republican voters."
The message from these three GOP veterans is clear: Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it!
