| The Outside World |

February, 2007

Hillary Clinton: Has-Been?
POLITICAL COMMENTARY by Howard Megdal

While the coronation of Hillary Clinton has already begun, a more accurate question might be: Could Hillary Clinton possibly win the Democratic nomination?

The Senator from New York is supposed to be the elephant in the room for the Democrats. And while it is true that she has shown an uncanny ability to raise money, what other advantages does she have going into 2008?

She has a huge advantage in name recognition. But what edge does that give her exactly? Generally speaking, the polls early on are little more than name-recognition questions. Yet the most recent Zogby polls, released January 19, showed the following results:

Iowa:
Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%

New Hampshire
Obama 23%
Clinton 19%
Edwards 19%

What's clear from these two early states, which have set the path for both party nominations in every election since 1976, is that Hillary has no real advantage from being well-known -- indeed, with so many people having already made up their minds about Senator Clinton, it is safe to wonder just how much she can move her numbers, regardless of how much money she spends.

Let's check name recognition to get a sense of how remarkable Barack Obama's standing in the polls is right now. A CBS News poll from January 18-21 showed 41% of all registered voters, including 38% of Democrats haven't heard of the Illinois senator. Contrast that with a mark of 18% for John Edwards, who was, after all, the 2004 VP nominee, and 4% for Senator Clinton.

Generally speaking, the task ahead would be a simple one for Clinton -- she'd need to do her best to bloody Obama, and define him before he defines himself.

However, unlike any election in this generation, 2008 looks to be defined by a single issue: Iraq. Both a CBS poll from January 18-21 and a similar poll from ABC News last month show that Americans have prioritized the war in Iraq ahead of all other listed issues COMBINED. Here's the CBS data:

"What do you think is the most important issue facing this country today?"
War in Iraq 33
Economy/Jobs 8
Health care 7
Terrorism (general) 5
Education 4
Immigration 4
Other 34
Unsure 5

To give you a sense of how dominant the issue of Iraq has become, in October 2001, just a month after 9/11, terrorism was only mentioned by 17% of those asked in a Keystone poll about important issues -- just below "economy" among priorities.

Now while America as a whole has turned against the war, Democrats have been ahead of the pack in this regard, voting against Joe Lieberman, for instance, over the issue. While John Edwards has been vocally critical of the war, he also has the baggage of having voted for it in 2002.

That is nothing compared to the baggage Hillary carries with her on the war alone -- she voted for it, she's made so many statements in support of it, and any and all of them can be used against her by a candidate on record as opposed to the war from the beginning: Barack Obama.

Think of it this way: Short of the war in Iraq getting better, which no serious policy expert predicts, how much of a political handicap is it to have voted for and supported a war that most polls show more than 80 PERCENT of Democrats are now against?

For comparison, no one would seriously entertain the idea of a pro-life candidate receiving the Democratic nomination, regardless of financial backing. A Newsweek poll on that issue showed 69% of Democrats described themselves as pro-choice, 25% as pro-life. Yet that issue, which fails to register on most "important issues" surveys, would be considered a non-starter for a Democratic candidate -- and rightfully so. Within the party, Iraq is exponentially more important, and the Democrats are more unified on it.

The question is this: Hillary already trails in the polls in both of the early primary states. While she can raise money, Obama's evident star power and Edwards' institutional support (especially among unions) are likely to make any financial advantage relatively insignificant. And what exactly will her answer be when Barack Obama, who has already shown an ability to connect to voters beyond that of Senator Clinton, turns to the camera and simply states: "You voted for this war, and I have always been against it"?

There are other reasons to question the Hillary candidacy, from John Edwards' carefully cultivated organization in Iowa, to his early labor support:

"He has done more than any elected official or public persona to support our union efforts to organize ... since he left office," Chris Chafe, chief of staff for labor umbrella organization UNITE HERE told the Washington Post last May.

Barack Obama will draw plenty of support from the critical African-American base within the party, which is roughly a quarter of the vote. Jesse Jackson is already on board, and while both Clintons have ties to the community, it is hard to imagine that Obama won't make at least significant inroads into what had historically been a strong base of support for both Bill and Hillary.

So the unstoppable Hillary Clinton juggernaut has a voting record on the wrong side of the dominant political issue of the day, of the generation really. Other candidates are better positioned with the two most important key voting blocs in the party. Only an inability to raise a decent amount of money will hurt Obama and Edwards- we'll know soon enough how well they do, though early indications are that Obama especially is finding a receptive audience among the biggest party fundraisers.

And why not? The so-called frontrunner doesn't lead in the polls, doesn't have a particular base of support, doesn't have a group of voters that don't know her and could be drawn to her camp, carries all that Iraq baggage. Many have concluded, with good reason, that Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has peaked. And many are asking, with equally good reason: does Hillary Clinton really have a chance?