The news stories, pundits and even some of her longtime political critics are noting the seemingly inexorable political advance of Senator Hillary Clinton towards the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination — but behind the scenes there is growing Democratic nervousness, the AP reports:
Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
Not a good omen. And:
“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag” on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton’s political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator’s campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
There’s a lot more of the same in the article, which also notes that Ms. Clinton’s campaign works hard to share all info suggesting that she is the inevitable nominee and a strong candidate. But then there’s this:
“All the negatives on her are out,” said Clinton’s pollster and strategist Mark Penn. “There is a phenomena with Hillary, because she is the front-runner and because she’s been battling Republicans for so long, her unfavorability (rating) looks higher than what they will eventually be after the nomination and through the general election.”
What the Clinton campaign doesn’t say is that her edge over potential Republican candidates is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democratic Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.
And that’s the crux of it.
Clinton may be the candidate who seems to be building national support. Of all the Democratic candidates, she may be the one in terms of performance in debates who is showing the most “growth” in terms of her ability as a candidate. But she may be the one who could prove to the biggest drag on other Democrats who are running for office.
Her campaign clearly is aware of this perception — and the AP article now shoves it into the public spotlight — so look for it to start to try and address this issue and soothe Democrats’ fears.
But Republicans are clearly salivating when it comes to a Clinton candidacy and this story suggests it isn’t all a matter of being locked into old preceptions.
A cautionary note comes from Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb:
The current RealClearPolitics.com rolling average of the major public polls shows Clinton slightly ahead of both Giuliani and McCain. In fact, RCP shows all major Democratic candidates (Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards) beating all major Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson).
The public’s assessment of Clinton does not appear to have changed. According to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 44 percent of the electorate has a positive view of her, while 39 percent has a negative one. That’s not much different from the assessment in January 2000, which was 43 percent positive to 37 percent negative.
However, the country appears warming, at least slightly, to the idea of her as president, at least compared with the Republican alternatives.
The bet here remains that the country will vote to end the U.S. military engagement in Iraq, even if that means returning the Clintons to the White House.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.