A peculiar race for the White House

A peculiar race for the White House
By Clive Crook
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: July 4 2007 18:36 | Last updated: July 4 2007 18:36


With a year and a half still to go, the race for the US presidency is already one of the oddest that anyone can recall. To call it wide open hardly does it justice. Although the contest is joined, plausible heavyweights have yet to announce; the incumbent is a liability to his party; for Democrats and Republicans alike, the front-runner divides rather than unites; the eventual winner may be a woman, a black man, a Mormon or conceivably even an independent.

Emphasising this fluidity, some of the candidates have just announced how much money they raised in the second quarter.

John McCain’s showing was so poor that it prompted instant speculation that he would withdraw. His campaign has had to sack a third of its staff. His strategy will have to be discarded, and devised afresh. Not long ago, Mr McCain was regarded as the strong front-runner for the Republican nomination. Since then, his unflinching support for the war in Iraq has unsettled even Republican supporters – but more than that, he has paid the price for sponsoring the Senate’s recently abandoned immigration reform. On both issues, whether he liked it or not, he was aligned with the president.

A lesson that will not be lost on other Republican contenders is that closeness to President George W. Bush is worth less than zero in party support. In light of that, it will be interesting to see the rivals struggle to calculate the optimum distance. The air is already thick with semi-coded disavowals.

Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, implicitly contrasts his ruthless competence with the administration’s lack of it. But he splits his party, just as Hillary Clinton divides hers. This is the dynamic that mght make a space in either primary for a lower-ranked contender, or even a complete outsider.

Fred Thompson is as good as running and will give Mr Giuliani a fight. Mitt Romney lags in national polls but has a ton of money and is strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, which vote early. Barack Obama is a credible challenger to Mrs Clinton, and John Edwards’s faltering campaign may give Mr Obama another tranche of anti-Clinton support. As those battles drag on, Al Gore might see an opportunity and so might Michael Bloomberg.

Pending the official arrival of Mr Thompson, the contest between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama is the most intriguing. Mr Obama’s fundraising in the second quarter was extraordinary. Again, he out-raised Mrs Clinton’s supposedly unstoppable machine in raising money for the primary battle – this time by more than $10m. He is tapping hundreds of thousands of individuals, each of them making a relatively modest donation. This devoted following ensures that he remains a potent force.

The peculiar thing, though, is that just as Mr Obama is outperforming Mrs Clinton in what was supposed to be her strongest event (fundraising), she is outperforming him in what was supposed to be his. In each of the Democratic debates so far, Mrs Clinton has outshone Mr Obama. I would like to see the United States elect a black man as president, and the idea of a Clinton dynasty does not appeal, so I lean towards preferring Mr Obama as the Democratic nominee. Having declared that prejudice, I give victory in the debates up to now to Mrs Clinton, hands down.

Mr Obama’s performance in those events has been treated very kindly by many commentators. The problem is not that he is vague. I stand by what I argued here in April: he should stay vague as long as possible, to avoid splitting his centrist supporters from his leftist supporters. The problem is that he is awkward, tentative, defensive, unconfident and over-complicated. It is fine to be vague, I insist, as long as you convey an easy mastery of the material. He does not. He is an extremely able man, with real intellectual depth. If you doubt it, read his books. I dare say he has in fact mastered the issues. He just does not look as though he has.

Mrs Clinton, in fact, is following my advice much more effectively. She is vague, all right. There has been no word of a detailed healthcare plan, for instance, just a shrewd admission that she bears scars from the fiasco of Hillarycare in her husband’s first term. For the most part, she is letting other people say that Hillarycare was not as disastrous as it has been made out to be.

Despite being vague for now about her healthcare intentions, she has come over in the debates as the master of that issue and of every other issue. She leaves people certain that she understands it all, and has considered every proposal and every objection to every proposal. Her expertise is assured, but also carried lightly: no lecturing, no show of arrogance. This is something that few expected her to pull off.

But can she be liked? She may not have to be. (Margaret Thatcher was not much liked; the British elected her because they thought she was necessary.) Still, it would help if those high negative ratings subsided. If she can keep this up, my guess is they will. At least, give her credit for trying. All that winning charm, all those relaxed smiles: it is exhausting to contemplate the hours in rehearsal. The effort seems to be paying off.