Hillary's potential path to 2016

This blog backed Hillary Clinton during the last US Presidential election campaign, even though Barack Obama was the clear favourite among many liberals here and in the US. There is no doubt that Obama's election was a remarkable historic occasion. He has also - after some flapping - delivered on some key policy objectives like health care. He has also made imaginative appointments to some top jobs, including the Supreme Court (and the Secretary of State). But what is remarkable is that he has also managed - not entirely due to the combined wackos of Fox News and the Tea Party movement - to lose so much of the goodwill that greeted his election.

Obama lacks the emotion expected of US commanders in chief - which may endear him to many in Europe, but doesn't work in domestic crises - and has a surprising unsureness of touch whether it is in handling the BP crisis where he has gained no credit for forcing them to establish a £20bn fund to help victims of the oil leak or on selling his health or banking reforms to a wider electorate. He has been better on policy delivery than might have been anticipated - but far worse at presentation and selling his policies. And that matters in politics.

Despite being a largely disorganised affair with Sarah Palin their only recognisable figurehead, the Republicans are averaging a six-point lead in November's midterm elections. They are on course to make a net gain of six state governorships, could regain the House (despite a slight Democrat lead in generic polls) and reduce the Democrats' Senate majority considerably. And it has to be said that a big reason for their ability to do so is the inability of Obama to reach out to the electorate: the very criticisms that were made of him in states like Pennsylvania in the primaries now appear writ large on a national stage.

At the same time, Obama's decision to appoint Hillary Clinton has proved, despite her initial misgivings about accepting the post, to be a boon to her reputation. Her personal popularity is much higher than his, in excess of 60% and sometimes as high as 70% approval ratings. She has been loyal to a fault, and largely successful on the international stage. She is highly respected in the military: even today, with General McChrystal ranting to Rolling Stone about her White House colleagues, he gives Hillary a pass. Now there is serious talk of replacing the hapless Joe Biden as VP with Hillary, either after the midterms or for as an Obama running mate in 2012, allowing her to run for the top job in 2016. While such talk may be fanciful and speculative for now, the evidence is growing that it isn't just Bill who knows how to be the Comeback Kid.

Change we can believe in from Obama

Today's confirmation by Barack Obama of his national security team, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates continuing in Defence and Eric Holder as the first African American attorney general, is further confirmation of the mature and thoughtful approach that the president-elect has been taking to the transition.

Where previous presidents struggled in their first 100 days, let alone their cabinet picks, Obama looks set to hit the ground running in the New Year when he takes over from Bush. By picking not only strong former opponents like Clinton from his own side, but also strong Republicans, he is showing every sign of being a strong and confident leader. His Treasury picks have all seemed equally inspired.

That some of his supporters are dismayed that he didn't pick radicals suggests they misunderstood the nature of the change Obama promised: it was not a revival of the 1972 George McGovern campaign but a return to responsible intelligent government, where people are appointed more for their ability than their politics. And that is change that we can all believe in.

Obama is showing early wisdom in his likely cabinet choices

The Clinton-haters are having a seizure. Liberals who convinced themselves that Fox News was right - and Obama would be a red-blooded socialist - feel betrayed. Meanwhile the President-elect is proving himself to be a shrewd seeker of real talent, as he makes his cabinet picks; a process, incidentally, at which careful planning has left him well advanced on his predecessors including Bill Clinton.

Of course, we don't yet know some of the key picks, such as whether Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State or whether Bush's Defence Secretary Robert Gates will stay in post. And Obama has already announced top jobs for team loyalists in his picks of Eric Holder as the first African-American Attorney General, Tom Daschle at health and Gov Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security.

So, why pick Hillary? Gerard Baker in The Times, no fan of Hillary, makes the case eloquently (even if he draws a different conclusion in the end):

First, few doubt that she is qualified to do it. She demonstrated on the campaign trail the breadth of her intellectual reach, a genuine depth of knowledge on global affairs and the sort of energy needed for someone who might fly half a million miles in the course of a year. What's more, it is not as though there was a great range of alternatives. John Kerry, first mooted for the job a while back, famously aloof and arrogant, might have proved a diplomatic disaster. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Governor with the colourful past, was too risky for the global stage. Richard Holbrooke, the self-appointed dean of Democratic diplomacy, had alienated too many of the Obama foreign policy team through his disdainful dismissal of their inexperience during the primary campaign. Tony Lake, Senator Obama's principal foreign policy adviser in the campaign, said he didn't want the job. Tom Daschle, the former leader of the Senate Democrats and an early adopter of the Obama brand, seemed to lack the global heft to be the public face of the new president. So why not go with the best qualified candidate?

Baker thinks that there would be too much drama if Hillary is selected, and that she would be running a permanent 2012 Presidential campaign as the most prominent member of Obama's team. But Time magazine points out here that selecting her could have the opposite effect, and be as much raw politics in Obama's case as the politics of change.

At the same time, Obama is reaching out to Republicans including John McCain and Gates to show just how inclusive - and imaginative - his administration will be. Of course, there are the leaks and the briefings. But the process is still in better shape than the media lets on: Obama is not only well advanced, he is showing real imagination in the transition.

Hillary's legacy speech

Barack Obama has a tough job regaining the initiative in Denver. But he has been given some great intros. His wife, Michelle, did him proud on Monday. And Hillary secured her legacy with a humdinger of a speech last night, showing just how great a speaker she has become since setting out on the Presidential campaign. She struck the right balance between policy and attack; she was clear that Obama should be supported; and she did herself no harm at all should Obama lose. Here's how it's done:

Hillary's tour de force

Watching Hillary's gracious and decisive endorsement of Barrack Obama was also a sign of what might have been. Her speaking is far more assured that when she started her campaign. And she delivered a speech of enormous statesmanship and skill which was right for her campaign and right for the occasion. Today's Independent on Sunday is absolutely right to see it as a tour de force. Let's hope her supporters do throw their weight behind Obama now.

Obama's chances in November

Bill Clinton was right about one thing. The media has been hopelessly biased in favour of Obama and against Hillary. The coverage of her was mysogynistic, boarding on the hysterical, and the glee with which BBC and Channel 4 correspondents recorded Hillary's final defeat over the last 24 hours confirmed their extraordinary lack of objectivity.

Yes, Hillary made some mistakes; and Bill sometimes misspoke. But where Obama did the same, with a few days' exception, he was given a pass. His people could trash her and her supporters with impunity; if she attempted to draw attention to his flaws and flawed supporters, she was the one at fault. Despite all this, Hillary remained - though the media haven't shared this - the stronger candidate against Obama with a stronger chance of winning more crucial electoral college votes. She beat him marginally on the popular vote when Michigan is included, or came within 0.1% of him without it. She won South Dakota last night, which polls said would go to Obama. So, even though the bizarre weighting of the Democratic primaries and caucuses meant she lost, she was hardly the sure-fire loser that our media would have us believe.

Nevertheless, Obama is clearly now the candidate, and it is vital that Hillary does all she can to bring her supporters behind him, particularly in crucial swing states. He has shown a graciousness of late that had hitherto eluded him, which is a good sign. And he is clearly a much stronger candidate than either the woeful John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000.

But both Obama and McCain now face some real testing on issues of the economy and international policy, with McCain weaker on the former and Obama on the latter. Rhetorical flourish will get Obama far but he will need to become stronger in longer TV interviews and dealing in details; he will need to show a ruthlessness about his team and 'advisers' over the coming months that has previously been lacking. The fact that far more of his support has come from liberal caucuses in the Democrat contest should not deceive him into imagining that such positions will propel him to victory in the autumn, not least in those same states.

Obama will need to appeal to the centre-ground now - and that will require a change of tune and a clearer understanding of the issues that matter to middle America. Obama may be (just) the favourite now; but he has had an extraordinarily fair wind behind him up to this point. His challenge now is to anticipate the next phase of the campaign - and the changes needed by him to win it - with the same skill that he used to appeal to liberals to win the Democratic nomination. I hope he succeeds in doing so.

The media campaign against Hillary

This blog has accepted that Obama will be the Democratic candidate. But, once again, Andrew Stephen is brilliant at explaining why.

Time for Howard Dean to show leadership

Regular readers will know that this blog has been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton from the start. And last night's 2:1 victory in Kentucky shows again why she would be the stronger candidate to run against McCain in the autumn. It is also the case that had the Democrats not adopted a mad system of primaries and caucuses, which are weighted in favour of liberal rather than mainstream opinion, she probably would be the candidate.

But the reality is that Hillary cannot now win this contest under its current rules, whatever her popular vote or strength in key states. However, she is not going to step down until there is some justice from the pig-headed leadership of the Democratic Party, and that means counting delegates from the populous states of Florida and Michigan.

Florida's delegates should be seated proportionately, as all the candidates were on the ballot paper, and none actively campaigned in the state. Michigan's case is more difficult, as Hillary was the only main candidate on the paper, so their delegates should symbolically be seated 50-50. Once that happens and remaining superdelegates make up their minds, Hillary will likely still be behind, and should gracefully concede; the issue of whether she should be the VP candidate can then be considered.

But to ensure such smooth sequencing requires some leadership from the party chairman Howard Dean. He must ensure a deal is brokered so that the Democrats go to the convention united. Dean has been utterly useless to date - which is no surprise given that he served to make John Kerry appear statesmanlike in the 2004 campaign. He now has a chance to redeem himself - and give his party with Obama as candidate a clean run for the White House.

Hillary's latest win is another reminder why this isn't over yet

A 67-26 victory in West Virginia by the woman whom the media has been declaring a lame duck is a reminder why this contest is not over yet. The maths of the Democratic race may dictate that Obama is the likely candidate, but the maths of the Presidential election are rather more complicated, and suggest Hillary is more likely to beat McCain. For the presumptive president only to score a quarter of Democratic votes in a vital state at a time when the media has anointed him as the candidate tells you all you need to know about why his party - and its superdelegates - need to think carefully about whether they want to win in November or exercise their liberal consciences in August.

UPDATE: John Edwards's endorsement of Barack Obama is obviously an important boost for his campaign, and a blow the Hillary. It is, of course, probable that Obama will win the nomination (though it would be very odd for Hillary to step down before the rules committee decides what happens to Florida and Michigan delegates). But it is hardly bizarre as Stephen Pollard suggests to point out that Obama is not good at winning in crucial swing states. His victory owes as much to the odd weighting that the Democrats give to liberal caucuses in unwinnable states as it does to his overall strength. Hillary has won far more Democrat-voting and swing states than he has. And that may make it much harder for Obama to beat McCain in November. Which is something even his most dedicated supporters recognise.

The Democrats should not be bullied by the media into making the wrong decision

The media have now decided (again, though with an air of weary finality this time) that Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination. With some, like the Guardian and the BBC's North American editor, the sense is that, in their not so humble opinions, she should never have tried to do so either. So what do the American public think? A new poll for Bloomberg and the LA Times shows that Hillary would beat McCain by nine points, compared with Obama's six-point margin. Add to that the fact that Hillary beats McCain by significant margins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, whereas Obama barely squeaks Pennsylvania, and loses the other two. Perhaps then one can understand why the remaining superdelegates are not rushing to ditch a potential winner for one who is by no means certain of defeating McCain in the autumn (and most of whose victories come from liberal caucuses in Republican states) - however impatient the media may be with them for their defiant impertinence.

It is harder for Hillary now, but she shouldn't quit yet

The tightness of the Indiana result and the failure to dent Obama's significant North Carolina lead have certainly made it harder for Hillary to continue, not least because she allowed expectations to be raised in the last week. But her basic arguments about the disenfranchisement of millions of Florida and Michigan Democrats remain. And, if anything, Obama is a far less winnable choice today than a month ago, which has as much to do with his ability as a politician as it has to do with her tough campaigning. The man who should be doing more to sort all this out is Howard Dean, the party chairman whose main claim to fame was his losing scream in the 2004 primaries. Dean needs to resolve the Florida/Michigan issue fairly, and set the scene for a sensible resolution of the contest once all the votes have been cast in early June. Until then, there is no reason why Hillary should bow out.

Three more reasons why Hillary can win

John Rentoul pays too much attention to Dick Morris, the embittered former Clintons' adviser. There are three reasons in the real world why Hillary still has a good chance of winning.

1. The latest Indiana poll puts her well ahead.

2. Obama's outspoken minister has chosen to speak out again.

3. North Carolina's governor has endorsed her.

Hillary's Pennsylvania victory shows again why Obama is not a winner

Last night's victory for Hillary Clinton in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania is further proof that she is the candidate most capable of beating John McCain in the Presidential election. With a convincing 10-point lead, she has managed even to move the commentators to acknowledge that she has a chance. She has shown how well she can win the Reagan Democrats whose votes help to decide whether or not a Democrat will go to the White House. Obama greatly outspent Hillary in TV advertising, to little avail; since last week's TV debate, the first time he has faced real pressure in the campaign, he has started to lose his lustre with the voters. The general election will be won or lost in the big states and the swing states: Obama has won few of either. The question now is not when will Hillary drop out, but when the super delegates will realise that they need to elect a candidate who can win a general election rather than one who simply makes them feel good?

For Hillary v Obama read Lincoln v Lee

Tim Hames sets out with his usual erudition exactly why Hillary should be the Democrats' candidate this autumn. The polls in Pennsylvania are moving in her direction ahead of tomorrow's primary and there is every chance Hillary will get the decent margin she needs not only to stay in the race but to win over the necessary superdelegates. For the sake of a Democratic victory against McCain, it is vital that she does.

Could Obama really win Reagan Democrats?

The media has been so resolutely pro-Obama in recent months that it affects surprise that Hillary Clinton is still running (even though she is still very much in the running, depending on what happens in Pennsylvania and Indiana, let alone the votes of Florida and Michigan Democrats). Yet this weekend's revelations of Obama's views about the sort of conservative Democrat voters whose votes are essential to put a Democrat in the White House served merely to highlight what will become the Obama problem should he become the Democratic nominee. Despite a lot of tosh in the British media about how Obama has been reaching out to independent voters in ways that Clinton doesn't, in the swing states the votes that matter are those of the so-called Reagan Democrats (not uncommitted liberal college kids); Hillary has been winning their support and continues to do so. Contrary to popular mythology, the Clinton-Obama battle has been one of the mildest such contests in recent years. But do read The Politico for some of the real - and completely unsayable - reasons why Obama is not streets ahead of Clinton among leading Democrats.

Why Hillary can win, where Obama can't

Despite the continued demonisation of Hillary Clinton in the European press, it is worth reminding ourselves why she is still in the race - and why only she is likely beat John McCain in the autumn. Since this is not the received wisdom in our liberal media, some facts may help. First, according to the most reliable latest polling, Hillary would defeat McCain by three points in a general election, whereas Barack Obama would merely score a tie (and even that is before the Republican smear machine gets to work). And the reason lies in states like Pennsylvania where Hillary is scooping up Reagan Democrats, as a fascinating article and poll in this week's Time magazine demonstrates:

Democrats rarely have to worry about the urban centers or the college towns falling into line. Clinton's core constituency, by contrast, is a group that Democrats must win but frequently don't. Working-class whites, despite their historical ties to the Democratic Party, have shown time and again that they will defect if they don't like the nominee.....Ever since he launched his campaign in Lincoln's hometown of Springfield, Obama has been happy to have himself compared with the original skinny outsider from Illinois. But as this race goes on, the image of another Illinois icon looms. The shape of the Pennsylvania electorate, and the prospect of a contentious convention, evokes 1952, when Adlai Stevenson--the darling of "every thinking person," as one woman later famously phrased it--captured a fiercely contested nomination by putting the urban and the urbane blocs together. But he never won over the white working class, and that's why there never was a President Stevenson.

Where the Democratic race stands now

Another excellent analysis of the US Democratic contest by Andrew Stephen in today's New Statesman. As he notes

....the next primary is on 22 April in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, demographically ideal Clinton country and where polls currently have her 16 points ahead. Should she falter in Pennsylvania, she will be finished - but a strong showing might have a significant effect on how the super-delegates view her ability to win the big, all-important states that matter so much in the general election in November. The alarming news for Obama, in fact, assuming Clinton takes Pennsylvania, is that no candidate in modern times has ever gone on to win the presidency without first being victorious in the primaries or caucuses of at least one of the nation's biggest seven states, which Obama will have failed to do.

Hillary's lead in the real world

Michael Barone has a fascinating piece on the US News and World Report website which shows that on a winner-takes-all basis, where all delegates were allocated to the winner of states in Democratic primaries, Hillary's lead over Obama would be the same as his over her now. Moreover, confirming the notion advanced here on 7 March that she is winning the electorally viable states, he notes that when the population of her winning states is added up

Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population.

So long as there are no more Bosnia-style gaffes, those are some more very good reasons for super-delegates to vote for Clinton. Do read it in full.

Obama's best speech of the campaign

Regular readers of this blog will know that we support Hillary here. But it has to be said that Barack Obama's speech yesterday was his best of the campaign; it had a sincerity that seemed absent from the rockstar gigs that have characterised his campaign to date, and as a result managed to evoke the freshness of his remarkable national debut at the 2004 Democratic Convention. But the question is whether it does enough to stem the criticism of his pastor's remarks or the growing doubts about Obama's broader judgment in his associates. And given that it seems unlikely that it will, the reality remains that Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain in 2008.

Why Hillary has Democratic electoral legitimacy

While Barack Obama may be licking his wounds at the moment - some of them self-inflicted - the Obama-maniacs continue to insist that he should be candidate because he has most of the 'popular vote' - that minority of people who take part in the Primaries, excluding those in Florida and Michigan. But here's another way to look at Hillary's position.

There are 19 states plus Washington DC that John Kerry won in 2004, when Bush beat him by 286-251 in the electoral college. To win, Hillary needs to add Ohio or Florida. There are three other fairly closely fought 2004 states, which the Democrats ought also to win this time: New Mexico, Iowa and Colorado (adding two of them helps Obama in what follows, so we are being fair). Let's look at the states that Clinton and Obama have won, and focus on those 24 states plus Washington DC (as people in Florida and Michigan will vote, their college votes are included).

Based on the electoral college for each of these states, Hillary has won 202 Electoral College votes to date, and Obama a mere 97 such votes. There are two of these states still to be contested - Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral college votes, where Hillary seems set to win, and Oregon, with seven votes. Even if we exclude Florida's 27 college votes and Michigan's 17, Hillary still beats Obama 158-97, or 179-104 if she takes Pennsylvania and he wins Oregon. So, if we're talking electability in the states that matter, then Hillary wins hands down. And that's also why the big state primaries are rather more important than the folksy caucuses or no-hope Democratic states where Obama has been doing especially well.

UPDATE: Michael Savage at the Independent Open House has been thinking along the same lines.