The Hillary Clinton paradox


Call it the Clinton contradiction. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a political trailblazer, pursuing the precedent-setting achievement of becoming the first female candidate to win the presidency. How, then, did she also become the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment — a title historically attached to less-than-scintillating contenders like John Kerry, Al Gore and Walter Mondale?

It’s a curious paradox for Clinton, a presidential hopeful who calls herself a feminist and touts her experience as a woman and a “mom.” But her long career in Washington, army of political consultants and marriage to a former president have all cast her as a political insider rather than a pioneer.

And then there’s the Obama factor. With his newcomer’s appeal and quest to be the first black president, the Illinois senator has managed to dilute the significance of Clinton’s history-making run.

Obama’s grassroots allure was manifest this week, when the candidates disclosed their first quarter fundraising totals.

Clinton raised a record-setting $26 million from a network of donors developed through her two Senate races and Bill Clinton’s vast connections. But Obama’s $25 million almost matched her total and came from twice the number of contributors and a much more robust Internet presence.

The sense of inevitability Clinton has tried to project may have robbed her campaign of some of the freshness and excitement that is luring many party activists to Obama, analysts say. But his strong fundraising numbers have shaken the idea that Clinton is unbeatable, perhaps freeing her to engage more spontaneously on the campaign trail.

“Clinton has to conform to stereotypes and defy them, and she has to run as both the insider and the outsider,” said Marie Wilson, founder of the White House Project, which promotes women running for high office. “She has to show she’s not entrenched in a system that has not been friendly to women, but also that she really knows it and is good at it.”

Clinton advisers insist her conflicting identities are a sign of strength. They believe her powerful organization and long career in public life have helped her to be taken seriously as a groundbreaking presidential candidate.

“I don’t think people would see her as able to break the barriers as a woman if she was not such a strong candidate with so many advantages,” Clinton senior adviser Mark Penn said. “She’s not saying ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman.’ She’s saying ‘Vote for me because I’m the best candidate, with the greatest ability to beat the Republicans.’ ”

Like the campaigns of other so-called establishment candidates in the past, Clinton’s has been steady, centrist, and relatively risk-free.

She’s collected endorsements from a string of prominent public officials, racked up miles on trips to early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and prevailed in the first quarter fundraising race. Her speeches have revealed an enviable mastery of the details of public policy, but she’s avoided committing to specifics on contentious topics, like how to fund universal health care.

Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing military action in Iraq in 2002 has been her only real political risk so far. She’s angered many anti-war Democrats and opened a window of opportunity for Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, both outspoken critics of the war.

Her advisers acknowledge her position has cost her the support of many activists, but they believe most voters now care more about how to end the war than how it was started.

Her pattern of caution has also generated some controversy. After the nation’s top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, made headlines by declaring homosexual acts “immoral,” Clinton was asked whether she agreed with Pace’s views.

“I’ll leave that to others to conclude,” Clinton replied, setting off a wave of criticism from gay supporters. She later issued a statement insisting she did not believe homosexuality was immoral, and acknowledged that her initial answer “sounded evasive.”

Joe Trippi, who managed Howard Dean’s insurgent anti-war presidential bid in 2004, said Clinton’s unique position as both the establishment favorite and first serious woman candidate make her a powerful contender in both the primary and general election.

“There’s a lot of women, particularly younger women, who really look at her as a trailblazer breaking the impossible glass ceiling,” he said, adding that she is a much stronger insider candidate than was John Kerry, whom Dean nearly toppled four years ago.

But, Trippi added, Clinton should resist the overly cautious approach that has bedeviled so many front-runners in the past.

“She really has the power to push some bold ideas, because she can grab the ‘I’m making history’ part of her candidacy and combine it with the insider, establishment, ‘I’ve been tested’ part of her candidacy. The combination would be formidable,” he said.

Recently, Clinton’s campaign has taken steps to generate greater excitement about her candidacy among women voters. Women for Hillary, a social networking organization aimed at encouraging women to talk up Clinton with their friends and co-workers, was launched earlier this month. The campaign has also rolled out endorsements from women famed for breaking barriers in their fields, including 1970s-era tennis star Billie Jean King and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

And while Clinton has promised toughness, pledging to “deck” opponents rather than fold to pressure, her campaign has also stressed the candidate’s softer side.

Recently, a group of her top female advisers took turns praising their boss in a Web chat aimed at women. Campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle told the audience that she tucks her two children, ages 9 and 5, into bed each night and that “Hillary is very conscious of not calling during bedtime hours.” Policy Director Leecia Eve, meanwhile, helped coach a Web chat participant on how to respond to concerns that Clinton is too aggressive or powerful.

“I for one am THANKFUL that she is both powerful and shares my values, including the need to work hard to improve the quality of life for so many Americans,” Eve wrote.

Clinton’s candidacy comes amid polling that suggests a majority of Americans believe the country is ready for a woman president. In a Gallup/USA Today poll taken in February 88 percent said they would vote for a well-qualifed candidate who was also a woman, while only 11 percent said they would not.

“She’s always going to be the insider, but we’ve got to lighten up and celebrate the fact we’ve got a woman in there who could actually be the president,” Wilson said. “I want the country to be fair with her.”

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press


  1. no name

    I don’t care what tripe comes out by writers seeking to sway voters to vote for Senator Clinton. She is a loser. If she is nominated, she will not have my vote. The reason–her approach to the misfortune of giving full power to an idiot to wage war in Iraq. Other reasons, her avoidance of discussing anything that is on the front table. She is manipulating the American people for the sake of winning and she thinks she is in it to win it because she can salt away millions upon millions of dollars from donors, many of them friends of Bill and THAT WILL MAKE HER WIN.

    Not for me. I have had enough of avoidance, spinning, obfuscation from the idiot in the WH. I have had enough of this.

  2. Wayne K Dolik

    Basically, I am seeing two groups of people that represent the soul of the American people. The First group is in the Republican camp. These are the folks that represent traditional Republicans. They want to save the Constitution, have limited Government, and return to fiscal responsibility. Herein, lies the fight for the soul of the Republican Party. Then there is the Neo-Cons. The outsiders are Paul and Hagel, if you want change.

    The second group is in the camp of the Democrats. These folks are known as the Progressive Democrats. The Progressives stand for individual freedom. They are against war. The Progressives are not big fans of Hillary. They prefer Obama and Edwards. The Progressives did not fare as well in the general election last November. The Democratic Party didn’t give the Progressives very much cash, as most of it was given to the establishment limousine liberals. Then there is the Limousine liberals like Hillary.

    So, where are we? The money interests support the Limousine Liberals if you are a Democrat. And, if you are a Republican the money interests support the Neo-Cons. So there we have it; two anointed established hand selected candidates by the money interests.

    So deal or no deal? Do you want coffee or tea? Hillary or Rudy? It is time Americans take their voting rights seriously. Vote none of the above. Wake up America, there is a choice and you must make it!

  3. Ealph Anderson

    It is basically a matter of trust, or mistrust in the case of Hilary Clinton. The Clinton machine has been an effective force in allowing the transnational corporations to continue their growth and accumulation of power over all people’s lives — both here and around the world, while at the same time convincing people that they really care about them and their common everyday problems — you know jobs and food and stuff like that. They are as effective at lying (maybe better) than the Chief Chimp. They may be better because the Chief is trying to lie from such an extreme position, while the Clintons only have to distract you a little bit while their rich and powerful friends rob you from behind.

    I do not trust her. It is that simple. She is plying the “woman” card because it sells — not because it means anything. Women can be mean, manipulative and lie through their bright teeth as well as anyone. What does she believe it and what does her actual behavior demonstrate? Power and the lust for power is what I have seen.