Edward Siebert: Kerry defeat opens field for Hillary Clinton's ambition

COMMENT

The somewhat surprising defeat of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is bad news for 48 per cent of those who voted in the United States, if not many more around the world.

But there is one Democrat who is quietly more than happy - Hillary Clinton. Let's make that good news for two people, and count her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

If Senator Kerry had won the election, Hillary Clinton would probably not have had a chance to run for President herself until 2012, when she would be 65.

It is hard to imagine her successfully challenging a Democrat President for the party nomination if he ran for re-election in 2008. That has never happened.

If Mr Kerry had won this year, then won re-election in 2008 (only five times in the past century have incumbents lost a bid for re-election), Mrs Clinton would have then had a tough fight for the party nomination against Vice President John Edwards, who would almost certainly be running for President himself in 2012.

Incumbent Vice-Presidents have taken the nomination of their party for President every time they tried in the past 100 years.

So this is the best scenario Hillary Clinton could have hoped for. Some added luck, if a bit morbid and cynical, was the hospitalisation of her husband for quadruple bypass surgery in early September.

Mr Clinton is still hugely popular among Democrats, and he and his wife are the top two fundraisers for the party.

His being off the campaign trail probably hurt Mr Kerry. And Mrs Clinton could curtail her campaigning, citing the need to be with her husband while he recovered.

She was the most popular choice for President by Democrats this time around even though she did not run. She probably shrewdly calculated that Mr Bush was likely to win re-election, and that a Bush victory meant the country would be even more ready for a change of direction and party control next time.

History favours her on this point, too: since 1932, the party controlling the presidency when a non-incumbent was running has kept the White House just once, and lost control four times.

At the same time it allows her to add to her four years of Senate service and not be seen by New York state voters as opportunistically using her Senate seat as a platform to the White House. She will be up for Senate re-election herself in 2006 and should have an easy time of it.

With the nomination for President hers to lose in 2008, the other interesting question is who the Republicans will nominate to challenge her.

Bush's Vice-President would ordinarily be the heavy favourite to get the Republican nomination, but Dick Cheney has said he will not run. And for good reason, since he is older and health issues are a serious concern for him.

So if Mr Bush wants to give his party a fighting chance, he will have Mr Cheney step down in a year or two for health or personal reasons, and nominate a Vice-President who can carry the Republicans to a third straight victory. But does such a person exist?

Looking for present or future stars in the Republican Party, one comes up short on names. Senator John McCain? Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani? Some have mentioned Florida Governor Jeb Bush, George W's brother, but it is unlikely the country will be in the mood for that kind of dynastic nepotism.

Colin Powell, probably soon to be the former Secretary of State, was once hugely popular but has lost the support of vital swing, independent and moderate Republican voters.

Mr Bush went to war and one of the many casualties was Mr Powell's reputation and credibility at home and abroad. This makes him an unlikely, but not impossible, candidate.

The same goes for Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. And one of the most popular Republicans, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is ineligible to run for President because he is not a native-born American. While some are trying to change that constitutional requirement, it will not happen in time for the next election (if ever).

With four years to go until the next one, it may seem quite early to be speculating about the next presidential election, but an interesting and historic race is on the horizon: perhaps the first woman nominated for President by a major political party, not to mention the possibility of the first woman President, and a former President as "First Lady" (what would they call him?).

Who will replace Vice-President Cheney in a year or two? Will the Republicans continue the odd mix of right-wing yet big government of Mr Bush, or will they move towards the centre with a nominee like McCain, Giuliani or Powell?

Thanks to campaigns starting earlier and earlier because of the vast amounts of money required to run them credibly, we will not have to wait long to find out.

* Edward Siebert, who worked in Congress in Washington for several years, is a policy analyst for the Ministry of Education in Wellington.