Hillary’s Extreme Makeover
Changing lanes from the left to the center
Back to the HRC Page

By Randall Fuller

November 16, 2004 - During campaign 2004, I found the ‘Clinton Family Acrobats’ “balancing-act” to be of particular interest. On one hand, the Clintons needed to appear to be team players, provide stump speeches, attack Bush (the fashionable Democratic thing, you know), offer advice, and when the original Kerry strategy people appeared to be failing, deploy the “Clintonistas” SWAT team of Carville and company.

On the other hand, assuming Bill Clinton really supports his wife’s presidential ambitions, the Clintons needed to keep a close watch on the thermostat. Help, but not too much. Appear an enthusiastic supporter of the Kerry/Edwards ticket, but hope they lose by 2-3 indisputable points.

When one considers the election results, they gloriously achieved their goal. A gymnastic act of balancing and dexterity worthy of an Olympic gold medal. In trying to predict the outcome of this election, while I had one eye on the polls, the other was on the Clintons. While John Kerry and his campaign had the strategic skills of a drunken pit bull fight in the back of a saloon, (new oxymoron, “Democratic Strategist”), the Clintons, by contrast, are very strategic players. In the case of Hillary Clinton, you can add extreme patience.

So what is achieved by sticking with the New York Senate seat, risking a 2006 reelection and taking a shot at 2008, vs. going for it in 2004? Let us count the ways:

? Hillary recognized that in a time of war, unseating an incumbent President is no easy task. If the Vice President were younger and healthier, he would be the 2008 heir apparent and could represent some formidable competition. But Dick Cheney will retire with the president in January of 2009. This provides Hillary with a clean slate. Whoever she would run against (either a Governor or a Senator, most likely) would not enjoy incumbent status.

? The Clintons, and especially Hillary now have the moral authority to take control of their party’s leadership. Terry McAuliffe, who’s failed, 100% tactical, attack-dog style presided over multiple election cycle disasters, is moving on. The Clintons can say, “We gave you your chance. We supported you. But you didn’t get the job done. We have lost the White House twice the midterms resulting in the loss of important senate and congressional seats not to mention the South. It is time to take the party back to the glory days”. And the Clintons are the personification of the “glory days” for the “new” Democratic Party.

So, let us assume the Clinton’s take control of the Democratic Party. Hillary is anointed the Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008. Bill begins his quest to head the United Nations when Kofi Annan’s second term ends in 2006. So what does Hillary need to do?

The 2004 election demonstrated that this nation would not elect a highly liberal president. When you have two extreme liberals on the ticket, even with a 15-point bump by the biased establishment media, Dan Rather, Hollywood, Bruce Springsteen, kiss-and-tell books by former administration officials, you lose.

Hillary is considered a liberal, cut from the same cloth as Patsy Schroeder and Barbara Boxer. A hero to the extreme liberal feminist population, Hillary can count on New York, California, Washington and those little states in the northeast. Expect the rest of the country to go for the Republican candidate. So, look for Hillary to do the following:

? Speaking on a very regular basis on national defense. Lots of photo opportunities with decorated Generals. Visits to the troops, wherever they may be. A voting record on defense and intelligence that will not come back to haunt her (can you say John Kerry?).

? Embracing “family values”. Expect to see Hillary strongly associating herself with churches, pastors, and positions on the family that have been recently off- limits to democratic candidates. She will work very hard to put Middle American at ease and to tone down any perception that she is hostile toward traditional families.

? Taking a very moderate position on gun ownership. Expect plenty of photo opportunities of Hillary firing at the sporting clays. She may even join a gun club. The sooner she does these things, the less they will appear “opportunistic” (can you say John Kerry in camos?).

By taking these steps, Hillary Clinton positions herself as a moderate that Middle America can feel comfortable with. By creating a paper trail by voting for traditionally centrist Republican issues and bills, she escapes having a liberal voting record that would come back to bite her in 2008. With these negatives out of the way, Hillary can work on defining the traditional Democratic strengths.

As the nation is cyclical in nature, after a two-term Republican administration and the return of the deficit, she will be on solid ground to point to her husband’s administration that eliminated the deficit and actually left office with a surplus. Assuming we are not at war in 2008 and the terrorism/security issue has been minimized, the nation will be back to thinking about health care and their grandchildren inheriting a zillion dollar deficit. This scenario plays strongly into a trademark Clinton strength.

The extreme makeover strategy: Minimize or eliminate those unsightly liberal bulges while enhancing the Democratic, and especially Clinton strengths. Finally, as the 2008 Democratic convention approaches, carefully access the results of the strategy and tap a Vice Presidential candidate who brings the finishing touches to the ticket. Probably a “blue dog” type conservative Democrat who the heartland will embrace, and there you go. Hillary’s extreme makeover is complete!