Editorial: Hillary Clinton should consider 2004 presidency

In a speech to a group of Connecticut Democrats on Monday,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, former first lady and New York senator,
called President George W. Bush’s economic policies the worst
the country has seen since Herbert Hoover was president. She
pointed out that with huge tax cuts come cutbacks in government
programs and services. And, for emphasis, she added that
she’s fed up with people being called unpatriotic for
challenging the administration’s policies ““ a
declaration that drew a standing ovation.

Clinton has frequented the news of late, outgrowing her junior
senator status and emerging as the national Democratic leader. No
other prominent Democrat has lambasted Bush’s poor economic
philosophy and reactionary foreign policy with the same zeal or
candidness ““ not even those who seek to replace Bush in next
year’s election. This is a problem.

The Democratic Party is a timid, thoroughly disorganized
organization. None of its proclaimed leaders pose a prominent
counterweight to Bush in the same way that House Speaker Newt
Gingrich served as a check during his prime on Bill Clinton, also a
popular president. Clinton’s remarks offer a small ray of
hope for a those who place faith in the Democratic Party ““
unfortunately, as of now, she is not an option for the
Democrat’s 2004 presidential candidate.

Clinton should rethink her decision not to run for president
next year. Given what Democrats have to work with now, she’s
the best option to try to defeat Bush’s administration. Most
credible polls show that while Bush’s popularity has wavered,
he handily defeats all of his contenders.

Clinton’s record is not at all unblemished. Besides
various skeletons in her closet left over from her husband’s
presidency, Clinton let down millions of progressive thinkers by
helping write the president a blank check on Iraq, giving away
Congress’ war declaration powers this past fall. She’s
an in-the-box politician, skilled at working with big donors and
business leaders; she is willing to compromise to get things done
and to bolster her popularity.

But she’s also a compelling figure who will draw
people’s attention and get them to consider whether Bush
administration policies are best for them. She could turn on
millions of voters, who otherwise would be withdrawn. If Hilary
Clinton had come to Westwood Plaza this past week, the turn out
would have been much larger than it was for another democratic
presidential hopeful, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton offers a clearer vision than Edwards, the waffling Sen.
John Kerry, D-Mass., or Congressman Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., whose
lack of leadership helped the Democrats utter failure in last
November’s elections. Meanwhile, Howard Dean, the former
Vermont governor whose ideas, particularly his strong anti-war
stances, appeal to the left-wing of the Democratic faithful, is too
unknown. Sen. Joe Leiberman, D-Conn., is one of the most
conservative Democrats in Congress and does not offer what the
party needs now ““ a distinct break from Republicans.

But Clinton is more than the “least bad” option.
While she isn’t great on some issues, she’s
dead-on-target on the big issue: the economy. Clinton demonstrated
a fiery unwillingness to let Bush use his popularity gained through
invading Iraq to push his domestic agenda, an agenda headed by a
huge tax cut designed to line the pockets of the richest Americans.
She firmly rejects the inevitable cuts to education, environmental
protection, prescription drug coverage and child care that will
come with a ballooning military budget and hundreds of billions in
tax cuts. Clinton shouldn’t be intimidated by Bush’s
popularity. Everyone thought her husband couldn’t beat the
first Bush.