Hillary Clinton is still nowhere to be found, and in her absence some are beginning to question her inevitability. Others, including VOX DOT COMÂ fashion editor Matthew Yglesias, are starting to worry that Clinton may waltz to the Democratic nomination without any serious opposition. That would be a big problem, Yglesias writes, because it would leave Clinton "dangerously unprepared" for the general election against whoever emerges from a deep field of GOP contenders:
A vigorous primary campaign is a means through which, among other things, the key potential vulnerabilities in a candidate's biography get aired. Was Clinton lying about her opposition to gay marriage the way David Axelrod says Obama was? Have too many years at the pinnacle of American politics left her out of touch with middle class struggles? Can she distance herself from Obama administration foreign policy initiatives that didn't work out (settlement freeze? Russia reset?) without sounding disloyal or ineffectual? Can she answer questions about the complicated finances underlying her husband's foundation?
As long as she's "not running" we just don't know. And the closer she gets to obtaining the nomination without answering the questions, the more vulnerable the position she leaves herself in for the general election.
Yglesias attempts to reassure liberals that, yes, of course Hillary will be a great candidate (again). Her "considerable political skills shouldn’t be discounted," he writes. The examples he provides, however, are less than reassuring [emphasis added]:
Her ability to secure the Senate nomination in a state where she'd never lived, her 2008 reconstitution of her husband's political operation, and her dominating position in 2016 are all testament to those skills. But in terms of dealing with the media, speaking extemporaneously, and wooing the voters she's had at best a mixed record of success. When she popped her head up for a quasi-campaign book tour, she immediately fumbled and interview claiming to have been "dead broke" when she left office. At the end of the day, presidential campaign gaffes rarely seem to matter much. But they surely don't help. And one reason they don't matter is that nobody makes it through the nominating process without showing they can take the heat.
Okay, so lets break down Hillary's strengths and weakness, as outlined above:
Strengths
- Successful carpetbagging, capitalizing on political clout/name recognition of being First Lady
- Having rich, loyal friends (See also: #1)
- Being her party's only viable candidate (See also: #2)
- Really, that's the best you could come up with?
Weaknesses
- Disdains journalists, deals poorly with criticism
- Gaffe-prone, robotic speaker
- Inability to make normal people like her
- Lost to Barack Obama
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?