Below The Beltway

It comes today, in the Washington Post, in the form of an Op-Ed by James Carville and Mark Penn listing the reasons why Hillary Clinton can be elected President.

Over the past several months, there has been much discussion about whether Hillary could win the White House if she won the nomination. More than one Democrat has mentioned, albeit quietly, her natrue as a polarizing figure and, recent stories have citied her high negative ratings among potentional voters. Carville and Penn cite a number of reasons why Hillary Clinton can win the White House

First, because strength matters. Our problems as a party are less ideological than anatomical: Our candidates have been made to look like they have no backbone. But the latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 68 percent of Americans describe Hillary Clinton as a strong leader. That comes after years of her being in the national crossfire. People know that Hillary has strong convictions, even if they don’t always agree with her. They also know that she’s tough enough to handle the viciousness of a national campaign and the challenges of the presidency itself.

Well, as Peggy Noonan noted recently, I don’t think there’s any question that people regard Hillary Clinton as strong. In some sense, as Noonan points out, that may be what her problem really is

LBJ felt anguish; there are pictures of him, head in hands, suffering. Bush the Elder wept as he talked, with Paula Zahn, about what it was to send men to war. Bush the Younger would breastfeed the military if he could. Hillary is like someone who would know she should be moved but wouldn’t be because she couldn’t be because . . . well, why? That is the question. Maybe a lifetime in politics has bled some of the human element out of her. Maybe there wasn’t that much to begin with. Maybe she thinks that if she wept, the wires that hold her together would short.

So strength, which Carville and Penn see as a positive, could really be a negative for Hillary given public perception.

The next factor that Carville and Penn cite in favor of a Clinton `08 candidacy, is the fact that she’s a woman:

The X factor for 2008 — and we do mean X — is the power of women in the electorate. Fifty-four percent of voters are female. George Bush increased his vote with only two groups between 2000 and 2004: women and Hispanics. Bush got 49 percent of white female voters in 2000 and 55 percent in 2004. Of his 3.5-percentage-point margin over John Kerry, Bush’s increase with women accounted for 2.5 percentage points. The rest came from a nine-point increase among Hispanic voters: from 35 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2004. We believe that Hillary is uniquely capable of getting those swing voters back to the Democratic column.

Basically Carville and Penn argue that there are women out there who will vote for her just because she’s a woman, and not because of what she believes in or advocates. Do such people exist ? Perhaps. But, I think its clear that a 2008 race in which Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee would become, in close order, the most ideological race in recent American history. Republicans who have been gathering briefing books on her since 1993 would bring everything they have to bear against her. And her current facade as a moderate Democrat, which Carville and Penn also cite as a reason she can win the General Election, may crumble around her.

Given the fact that both Clinton and Penn have long-standing ties to the Clinton’s and their many campaigns, I don’t think that its beyond reason to assume that this is more than just reasons political analysis. This is the begnning of the campaign for the Democratic nomination.