Are you ready for Hillary?
Don’t worry if you’re not sure … We’re not too sure if we are either.
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy via the most blindingly diverse campaign video we’ve yet seen. The announcement itself was a surprise to no one. Indeed, to us and many others in the media, it’s more of a relief than anything. Finally, we can talk about her campaign in definite terms rather than qualifying it at every turn with words like “prospective,” “likely” and “my God, just say it already.”
Clinton’s very likely to be a shoo-in for 2016’s Democratic candidate; meaning, should the country vote Democrat, we’ll get our first woman president. That possibility alone is a powerful one in her favor. We, and millions of other Americans, are excited at the thought of voting for the first female president.
Of course, that’s not the only thing she’s got going for her. Clinton has served as a “first lady” at the state and the federal levels, as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state. During her husband’s presidency, she took on one of the most active first lady roles to date — and she’s been at work in Washington ever since.
As far as qualifications and experience, her career speaks for itself. The historic impact of her election alone, should she win, makes this one of the most significant campaigns in American history. But plenty remains about Clinton to be apprehensive about.
We’re not wild about the already-dynastic nature of the American presidency. Five of the last seven presidential terms have belonged to Bushes and Clintons; if she wins, someone from either family will have occupied the White House for 24 of the 31 years from 1989 to 2020.
There’s that, as well as the admittedly sketchy vibe the Clintons tend to give off. There’s the Whitewater real estate controversy investigation from the ‘90s and the more recent email scandal. Plus, they give off the most Underwood-y vibe of all the top players in Washington today.
The final issue that worries us and other would-be enthusiastic supporters is the rigid, dogmatic attitude hardcore Clinton campaigners give off. There’s a definite ambience of “shut up, fall in line and vote for Hillary” that erupts whenever a whiff of discontent is detected on the left, which bothers us.
But, these things in mind, she remains the best choice available. It’s a liberal corollary to the Buckley Rule — go with the leftward-most viable candidate. Besides, a second Clinton is preferable to a third Bush; the Clintons don’t have a monopoly on sketchy stuff.
But, the most important reason to back Clinton has to do with the Supreme Court: Four of its justices are pushing 80 and 85. In other words, a bunch of the people who get to decide what the Constitution means are fixing to retire or croak during the next presidential term. That’s the biggest thing at stake here: Whoever’s elected in 2016 gets to pick the new justices and so determine the body of constitutional law for the extent of those nominees’ lives. It makes a presidential decision have effects that could last decades instead of four or eight years. This could lead to something like, say, a repeal of Roe v. Wade. Reservations aside, we’d rather have Clinton pick those people than Sen. Ted Cruz.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 4/13/2015 under the headline “A reluctant getting ready to get ready for Hillary”]
