The recent kerfuffle over the affaire de Benghazi has been widely seen by those on the American left as an attempt by Congressional Republicans to force President Obama’s hand in his choice to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, who is widely believed to be leaving at the conclusion of Obama’s first term at the end of the year, is in turn expected, despite her protestations to the contrary, to begin laying the groundwork for another run at the White House in 2016.
Hillary’s run, if she makes it, would make her one of the oldest persons to run for president and the putative front runner for the Democratic nomination. Given the ongoing demographic changes at work in the country and the likelihood of an improving economy heading into 2016, the winner of the Democratic nomination in 2016 could very well be president in 2017. While of course it is much too soon to say with any certainty, the presidency could very well be Hillary’s for the taking, if she wants it.
Or, if not Hillary, then perhaps another woman will find herself the Democratic nominee in 2016. Certainly, the party at present has a huge store of tough, credible female candidates for the highest office in the land.
Consider, for instance, Sen. Claire McCaskill – the Democratic senator from Missouri – who won a tough electoral fight in a traditionally red state not just once, but twice. Sen. McCaskill, who was elected over Republican incumbent Jim Talent in 2006, has proven to be a skilled and canny politician willing to take risks. She was, for example, an early endorser of President Obama in 2008 and, in 2012, when she was thought sure to not be returned to the Senate, she ran ads for the most extreme of her Republican opponents fighting for the state’s GOP Senate nomination, Todd Akin, helping him, the weakest general election candidate, to win. Anyone willing to engage in such a Machiavellian gambit as that is surely tough enough to fight and win a presidential contest.
McCaskill, however, does not have executive experience – having lost a campaign for the Missouri governor’s office in 2004 – and generally voters have preferred to send governors to the White House, not senators. This provides an opening for other Democratic women, such as Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of deep-red Kansas and President Obama’s current Secretary of Health and Human Services, or Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan from 2003–2011, to potentially step into the presidential limelight. Likewise, Janet Napolitano, former governor of Arizona and the current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, might also make a strong showing.
Beyond these governors, the Democrats could fill whole binders with other potential female presidential nominees from the U.S. Senate, having 15 in addition to McCaskill who could theoretically make a run. Women like Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein of California, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Patty Murray of Washington or Kirsten Gillibrand of New York could all conceivably be viable candidates for the presidency. Indeed, aside from Bernie Sanders of Vermont, could progressives imagine a better candidate for the White House than newly-elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts?
Minorities in politics
In short, Democrats find themselves in the enviable position of having scads of credible female candidates for the White House at a time when it seems that the country has become more than comfortable with the idea of women, from either party, in high political office. Indeed, the 2012 election might in hindsight be seen as something of a pivot point in the way women are perceived politically. Rather than being seen as one-off curiosities or Hail-Mary plays, like Shirley Chisholm’s Quixotic run in 1972 or Geraldine Ferraro’s and Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nods in 1984 and 2012, the sheer number of women now holding power in significant places in national politics across all three branches of government is surely a signal that the time is ripe for the White House to be won by a woman.
This is especially so if Barack Obama’s presidency continues to be successful. Indeed, it demonstrates to the electorate that “non-traditional” candidates – like a black guy with a funny name that sounds like that of two of America’s greatest enemies – can not only win elections, but can successfully govern a country as vast, rich, diverse and powerful as the United States. Having risked – and not only survived, but prospered by doing so – electing one non-white male, how about another? Why not consider anyone with the intelligence, talent, charisma and toughness necessary to be the leader of the free world?
This is what is truly revolutionary about the era we are living in. The United States, to be sure, is divided by class, race, religion, region and much else. Our political system is polarized and dysfunctional. Economic inequality has reached heights in this country not seen since the Gilded Age. But, despite these problems, we are at long last beginning to really stand for the ideals set forth in our founding documents. No matter your background, no intrinsic aspect of your nature can now prevent you from participating in America’s political life. Black, white, male, female, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight; increasingly these markers of identity are becoming less and less important in determining one’s fate. We are, as Dr. Martin Luther King once hoped, seeing in each other the content of our character, not just gender or skin color.
For many on the conservative right this is disconcerting. Like a desert in a sandstorm, America’s culture and politics are being speedily transformed in a dramatically egalitarian fashion. Overnight, it seems, long-held norms of just who counts in American politics has changed. After the current storm passes, as it must, hundreds of years of blood, sweat, toil and tears will finally reveal what we all know now to be true – that everybody does.
Which is why, what Hillary ultimately decides doesn’t matter. She or somebody like her will inevitably win the White House, whether in the next election or the one after that. You can count on it.