The Inevitable?
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
It is inevitable, apparently, that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic presidential candidate. And it is inevitable, some go on to say, that Mrs. Clinton will therefore become president.
It is not just dyed-in the-wool Democrats who say such things. It is President Bush’s view, too, that a Clinton candidacy is an inevitability, though party loyalty ensures that he cannot bring himself to say that it is inevitable she will win the White House. He says, as well he might, he thinks the Republican candidate also stands a chance.
And it is not just politicians and pundits who say Mrs. Clinton’s accession is inevitable. All the polling and other evidence, both national and local, suggests that Mrs. Clinton is a shoo-in.
Inevitably, perhaps, the only people who are not saying that Mrs. Clinton’s success is inevitable are Mrs. Clinton’s campaign staff. Drawing attention to the ease with which Mrs. Clinton has closed in on the nomination is not good politics; voters, particularly free thinking, troublesome, uppity Democratic voters, do not like to be taken for granted.
Mrs. Clinton, too, keeps mum. While she presides over the Democratic Television debates like a prim middle-school teacher indulging her all male class, she concentrates her fire firmly upon the president and the Republicans. The subliminal message is simple: I am the inevitable candidate. I am the one Republicans dread. Do not waste your money or your breath on anyone else.
The problem with the notion of inevitability is that sometimes the inevitable does not happen. History is littered with names who are only remembered because at one time they used to have a lock upon the inevitable.
The election of Thomas Dewey as president in 1948 was thought so inevitable that the night editor of the Chicago Tribune, in his hurry to beat his rivals, went to press early with the headline “Dewey Beats Truman.” How Harry Truman laughed.
A week ago you could not find anyone in Britain who did not believe that an election next month was inevitable. Why, all the pundits had told them so. The papers were full of it. Will he? Won’t he? Why, yes, he will. It is a dead certainty.
Though Gordon Brown repeatedly told reporters he had yet to make up his mind, the prime minister issued no denial, so election fever spread across the nation like hoof and mouth disease. One frightening set of poll figures later, showing that Mr. Brown’s party would be hurled from office if the voters had their way, and Mr. Brown sounded the all clear. There will be no election this year, nor the next.
Four years ago it seemed inevitable that Howard Dean would be the Democratic nominee. He was far ahead in the polls, boosted by his popularity among the young radical net roots crowd, and the lofty John Kerry was way down the list.
But things change in politics, and often they change very quickly. One brief, crazy night of hollering out the names of the states later, the excitable Dr. Dean was dead in the water, and the aristocratic Mr. Kerry was the new “inevitable” champion of the people’s party.
So, if there is no true inevitability about Mrs. Clinton’s nomination, what might happen to upset her relentless rise? Her Democratic opponents might offer a more plausible alternative and prize her out of her defensive position. Mrs. Clinton is so buttoned up and scripted, she hasn’t said anything spontaneous in public since some time in 1978 when Bill Clinton was campaigning to be the governor of Arkansas and the couple set off on their double helix ambition to become the first husband and wife team to win the presidency.
But who would do it? Who dares take on the “inevitable” winner? Well, not those who believe she will win the nomination and hope to be employed by her as either vice president or secretary of state. That takes out Messrs. Obama, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd.
Each in turn has conspicuously pulled their punches in debates against Mrs. Clinton. Only if someone else fires the first salvo against Mrs. Clinton and draws blood will they feel emboldened enough to add to her discomfort.
Assuming that Mike Gavel and Dennis Kucinich are running for personal reasons not obvious to the rest of us, that leaves just John Edwards, the only candidate who has persistently found it difficult, through clenched teeth, to disguise his dislike of Mrs. Clinton. His antipathy towards her presence at the podium during debates is palpable.
For Mr. Edwards it is either the top slot or nothing. He has made it plain that he has little patience for the constant compromises and triangulation that serving the second Clinton White House from the Naval Observatory would entail. Stuck in third place, short of money and staff, he has little to lose. So why does Mr. Edwards not pull the trigger? As in comedy, politics is all about timing. And in this peculiarly attenuated election, it is easy to forget that we are still a full three months before the first vote is cast.
Had Mr. Edwards made a move weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton would have had time to recover. But leave it much later and Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability will turn to invulnerability.
Will he have the courage to make a move? It is far from certain. But if he cannot bring himself to set about Mrs. Clinton now, he would never make much of a president.
nwapshott@nysun.com