 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 11 - 17 March 1999 Issue No. 420 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 11 - 17 March 1999 Issue No. 420
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Special Features Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Hillary 2000?
By James Zogby *Speculation that First Lady Hillary Clinton may run for a Senate seat in 2000 has dominated political news coverage here in recent days. It is a fascinating story. The Senate seat in New York State is coming vacant because of the retirement of Democrat Daniel Moynihan, who has served since 1976. Because you do not have to reside in a state to contest a Senate seat, the list of possible candidates is wide open. In 1964, for example, Robert F. Kennedy, ran for the New York senate seat, though he was not a New Yorker. Kennedy was able to ride in on the back of the family legacy, and win, and there is nothing to stop the First Lady emulating his example. Indeed, she appears to be seriously considering this option for a number of reasons.
One political analyst speculates that she may want, in effect, to declare her independence and establish herself as a political leader in her own right. Since she is still quite young, she may even wish to run for the Presidency at some point. Hillary Clinton is already respected as an outspoken and capable leader, but for more than 20 years her main role has been as a supporter of her husband's aspirations. Even when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, political observers who saw Hillary in action were soon convinced that she had proven political skills -- and ambitions --Êof her own.
True, she suffered a slight setback during her husband's first presidential term, due to the mishandling of the health care reform programme. But she has clearly since recovered, and established herself as one of the United States' most popular political figures.
Hillary Clinton's charisma is unquestionably one of the Democratic Party's strongest assets. In 1996, she was the party's "secret weapon". Her frequent visits to New York State were a major factor contributing to the Democratic victory over Republican Senator Al D'Amato. She has also been a prodigious fundraiser. A recent Democratic Party appeal issued in her name raised three times the expected amount. And last week, her visit to New York City for a party fundraiser was an overwhelming success: more than 900 donors filled the ballroom to capacity, while another 300 had to be turned away at the door. Hillary Clinton is a major star, and many believe she deserves to shine in her own right. But before she actually decides to run for office, she will have to weigh the pros and cons.
There are many reasons that might tempt her to stand: first and foremost, her popularity, both nationally and in New York. She has great name-recognition and is a proven campaigner and fundraiser. Furthermore, she is the right kind of Democrat for New York State: a liberal Democrat, known for her advocacy of women and minorities, of education and health care-issues, and of various constituencies that are strong in that state. There will be many Democrats in New York and nationally who will want her to run. Certainly, if the party is to have any chance of regaining control of the Senate, it cannot afford to lose the seats they currently hold. Polls show that the First Lady is the strongest potential Democratic candidate in New York state, giving her an easy victory over every possible Republican challenger.
Last week, two politically ambitious women met in the White House: United States First Lady Hillary Clinton may run for a New York Senate seat in 2000, and Ghana's First Lady Nana Konadu hopes to become Africa's first woman president, when her husband, Jerry John Rawlings, steps down next year
(photo:AP)
However, there also several reasons that might make her hesitate to put her name forward. New York politics can be dirty and rough. The New York press loves --Êeven expects -- a fight between candidates, and frequently goes out of its way to provoke personal conflict where there was none before. The expected Republican challenger for the Senate seat is New York City's popular Mayor Rudolph Guiliani. His poll ratings may have dropped recently, following the scandalous murder of an African immigrant who was a victim of excessive force on the part of the New York police -- Guiliani has often in the past encouraged the police to "get tough" --Êyet he remains popular, and is known to be a tough campaigner. The mayor will doubtless continue to treat Mrs. Clinton with respect, as long as she is the First Lady. But if she announces her candidacy, she can expect him to unleash a full-frontal attack.
Understandably, then, some political observers are suggesting that Hillary Clinton should not run because it is too risky a move. After all, she does not need to hold elected office in order to have a political platform from which to address and advocate the issues which matter to her. As a former First Lady, they say, she will remain a national spokesperson. If, on the other hand, she runs and loses, her stature would be seriously diminished.
John Zogby, a New York state pollster, points to another cause for concern. He suggests that the most important issue for the Clintons' is their legacy. He believes that to protect the image of the Clinton Administration in the eyes of posterity, the most crucial thing is to ensure Al Gore's victory in the 2000 presidential elections. If Hillary also runs for the Senate at the same time, then securing the Clinton legacy will require both a Gore victory and a victory in New York state -- in other words, the same army will be fighting on two fronts at the same time.
For some Democrats, this dual focus makes no sense. Hillary Clinton, they say, could be a significant national campaigner for the Democrats in 2000. She could help Al Gore nationally, as well as campaigning for Democratic candidates for House and Senate seats across the United States. If, however, she were to run for her own seat in New York, she would have to surrender her national role. She would, in effect, be competing with Gore for both money and attention.
If she does stand in New York state, however, then one thing seems certain: Republicans will try to use her support for a Palestinian state against her. However, this in itself is not a reason for her not to run. Recent polls show that New Yorkers support a Palestinian state by a two-to-one margin. Indeed, not only most New Yorkers, but most New York Jews also support this demand. In a recent meeting with New York Jewish leaders, the First Lady reaffirmed her personal belief that the Palestinians are entitled to an independent state. She added, however, that the issue must be resolved by negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians. The leaders left the meeting pleased with what they had heard.
Indeed, one could even go further, and suggest that should Hillary Clinton choose to run, and should she be attacked by the right wing for her advocacy of a Palestinian state, the most important consequence would probably be to legitimise this issue and spur further public debate on the subject. That would be a positive outcome -- for the Palestinians, for the US, and for peace in the Middle East.
So far, Hillary Clinton has not announced whether she will run or not. However, the very fact that she has allowed speculation to flourish about her possible candidacy, and has fuelled that discussion by frequent meetings on the subject with New York advisors, has led many observers to believe that she will, in the end, enter the race. What is certain, however, is that if she does run, the New York Senate race will be an election like no other. It will be the most closely-watched Senate race in history. In fact, it could well draw just as much attention as the race for the Presidency.
* The writer is president of the Washington-based Arab-American Institute.
