Having repeatedly denied, downplayed or laughed at suggestions that she might take a second run at the presidency, Clinton finally announced her candidacy on the 12
th
of April 2015. At the time of writing, we're only a few weeks beyond the start of Clinton's second presidential campaign and we've already endured tens of thousands of words of "journalism" about her decision to eat at
Chipotle
. As always, today’s media is focused on the issues of utmost importance.
It had been a long time coming: The
Ready for Hillary
Super PAC was founded in January 2013 and has raised $15 million from around 4 million donors – note that this happened during a time when Clinton was emphatically not interested in the job. Possibly it was this very enthusiasm that encouraged her to make another attempt. While this was the first Super PAC to come out in support of Clinton's candidacy, a further two have already started raising funds on her behalf.
Correct the Record
is a Super PAC that focuses on rebutting claims made by right-wing politicians that attempt to smear any Democratic candidate for President. They have already released videos, infographics and press releases attempting to 'correct' stories in the press regarding Clinton's track record, and also that of current vice-president and Clinton's former rival for the presidential nomination, Joe Biden.
There's also the oddly-named
Priorities USA Action
, which helped fund the 2012 re-election of President Obama, and is pushing a strong line on foreign policy and the needs of middle-class Americans, something that dovetails nicely with Clinton's own track record in this area.
Between these three Super PACs, it seems that as with her previous senatorial and presidential bids, which broke records for funds raised and spent, Clinton does not look likely to be short on cash as she takes another run at the presidency.
Nor will she be short of supporters: Along with the 4 million donors to
Ready for Hillary
, Clinton has also received endorsements from Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayors, celebrities and international political figures, several charities and (unsurprisingly) one former US President (hint: He plays the saxophone).
All this is deeply unsurprising: Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination before she even announced her candidacy, and is already perceived by many to the president-in-waiting, with still-high approval ratings among the American public. It's hard to see, at this stage, what could possibly prevent her from reaching the Oval Office.
Indeed, some have criticised this inevitability, feeling that Clinton should not be elected simple because 'it's her turn'. Clinton wouldn't simply be a symbol: She would, unlike some female 'firsts' (the UK's Margaret Thatcher springs to mind) be a genuine advocate for the rights of all women. Critics who focus on the symbolic nature of her candidacy make the same mistake John McCain did when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. And we all know how that turned out.
It's worth pausing for a moment to think about the history of women in US politics. Women were given the right to vote in 1920, roughly in line with most Western nations. In 1932 Hattie Carraway became the first woman to be elected to the US Senate. Yet despite the fact that twenty-five women have run for President (compared with literally hundreds of men), it was not until the 1984 presidential election that a woman – Geraldine Ferraro – was nominated as candidate for the vice-presidency; nor has any major American political party ever nominated a woman for presidential candidate. Despite high-profile women in other areas of the US Government (obviously, as Secretary of State, Hillary was one of them), the US legislature remains one of the most gender-unequal in the developed world (it is ranked 78th in the world overall).
So a Clinton win would be a truly historic moment, but not if it stops there. Unless the gender imbalance in Congress and other areas of American life is addressed, the US, for all that it may elect a woman to its highest office, will remain deeply divided along gender lines. Just as Obama's presidency did not end racism, Clinton's will not end sexism. But with her strong track record on campaigning on women's rights, Clinton will hopefully be able to move the US and the world in the right direction. She may even actually deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, if she can restrain her hawkish side.
By now, we have already addressed many aspects of Clinton's political beliefs in passing. Her track record on foreign policy, women's rights and LGBT issues largely speaks for itself. She is very much considered a part of the political establishment in the US, firmly on the liberal side of politics, and frequently draws criticism from conservatives for her stances on tax, LGBT issues and climate change. Of course, these attacks only reinforce her supporters' fondness for her.
As a Democratic Senator, Clinton warned of the dangers of the Bush tax cuts, voting against them and proposing the use of the budget surplus left by her husband to pay down the national debt and fund social security and Medicare. Her willingness to intervene in the economy, in contrast with the obsessively small-state approach of the Republicans, resulted in the 2008 economic stimulus package that she announced and championed, and is widely credited with helping create jobs and pull the US out of one of the worst recessions in its – and the world's – history. It's notable that while the move was criticised at the time, the economy of the US has subsequently grown much more strongly than that of comparable nations that failed to stimulate their economies and attempted to 'cut their way to growth' with devastating economic austerity.
She has offset her support for these occasionally interventionist approaches with full-throated support for free market capitalism and the global extension of free trade. She made this stance clear during her tenure as Secretary of State, where she advocated for the extension of trade as a means of diplomacy, encouraging US ambassadors to operate almost as trade envoys in opening up foreign markets for specific US businesses. For some on the American left, this is indicative of an all-too-cosy relationship with big business and particularly with the eternally unpopular financial firms on Wall Street. For others, however, the embrace of business-as-diplomacy is a welcome move away from war-as-diplomacy, or simply an unalloyed good in its own right, creating jobs in America and investment abroad.
For all her advocacy of trade, Clinton has been able to take a nuanced approach, criticising both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the similar Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) as not doing enough to support jobs or protect the environment. Clearly, her support for free trade is somewhat tempered by a realistic appraisal of some of its potential negative consequences.
Some people, on hearing that Clinton's opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA was rooted in her support for American workers might wonder exactly how this is consistent with her former position on the board of Wal-Mart, a company that has been accused of, among other things, violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with its assault on the rights of its workers to organise. Clinton has trodden a fine line this area, voting for an increase in the minimum wage while a Senator (she also supported her husband's minimum wage increase during his presidency). However, the perception of Clinton as anti-union caused the opposition of the New York fire and police departments to her candidacy for Senator. Her supporters will presumably describe her decision to take up a seat on the board of Wal-Mart as another example of her willingness to compromise, while pointing to her more positive track record on the environment and women's rights at that time, and on workers' rights during her time as Senator.
When speaking out more recently in support of a higher minimum wage, Clinton called time on the notion of trickle-down economics, putting her on the same page as other progressive politicians the world over who have begun to put the falling living standards of the middle-classes and the increase in social inequality and attendant stagnation of social mobility at the heart of their legislative agendas. This is just one of the ways in which the 'symbolism' of a Clinton presidency may have a positive effect on the global scene
beyond
the gender issue: With a progressive American President willing to argue against the stale, outdated, disproved notion of trickle-down economics, other leaders across the world may find the confidence to follow her lead.
As expected from a high profile member of the Clinton administration supporting the expansion and adoption of the World Wide Web, Clinton is a defender of net neutrality, which prevents internet service providers from favouring or discriminating against some websites or some types of content. She has repeatedly defended the existence of a free and open internet, castigating China and other countries that attempt to restrict internet access, and has supported the use of the internet by dissidents in other countries. However, she has also criticised websites such as WikiLeaks for using the internet to distribute information such as the US Diplomatic Cables. Again, this suggests a smart and nuanced approach, siding neither with those who see the web as a re-run of the Wild West, where anything goes, and those who would see it destroyed in the name of corporate freedom.
Unsurprisingly, Clinton is rated highly by the American Civil Liberties Union. Although she initially supported the USA Patriot Act, she subsequently regretted its restrictions of civil liberties, proposing and voting for a compromise renewal which reeled in some of the worst restrictions the original act allowed for. She has voted and argued in favour of the retention of
habeas corpus
. However, in other areas she has been less clear, arguing in favour of making it illegal to desecrate the American flag, while opposing a constitutional amendment do so.
When it comes to democracy, Clinton's actions, for example, regarding large donations, have occasionally been at odds with her rhetoric. She is one of the best-funded candidates in American history, yet supports introducing state funding for presidential candidates in place of large donations. As with many of her stances, depending on your personal level of sympathy for her, this may be either cynical hypocrisy or cynical realpolitik.
Hillary's politics have always been driven by a belief in liberal values and a dedication to reform rather than revolution. This may be rooted in her early Republicanism and conservatism. While at Wellesley College, her fellow students advocated for far-reaching political change, while she adopted a gradualist, consensus-building approach. Her greatest achievements have been in line with this latter way of doing things. Critics that note her lack of headline achievements as Secretary of State therefore miss the point: She pointed in the right directions, allowing her successors to take steps that would have been impossible without her earlier intervention.
Like Obama, Clinton is far more popular overseas than at home. Many commentators at the time of Obama's first election noted that if the election were held internationally, Obama would have won by a colossal landslide. The same seems likely for his successor as Democratic candidate: The left-of-centre British newspaper,
The Guardian
ran two days of headlines when Clinton officially announced her candidacy, despite the fact that the UK itself is just weeks away from a General Election of its own. Like Obama, the reason for this international support may well have as much to do with the symbolism of a historically discriminated-against group finally having a representative in the Oval Office.
Clinton seems wise to this symbolism. Her biography on her official Twitter feed reads: 'Wife, mom, grandma, women+kids advocate, FLOTUS, Senator, SecState, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, 2016 presidential candidate. Tweets from Hillary signed –H', reminding everyone of her down-home femininity while gently poking fun at the focus women's appearance receives the moment they step into the public eye (do any of her rivals have jokes about their hair or clothes on their Twitter profile?).
The focus on her family connections may also appeal to more conservative voters, particularly to the USA's large Latin American population who, while mainly Democratic-voting, have an attitude to religion and family more normally associated with the American right. Unsurprisingly, hillaryclinton.com prominently displays the option to read the site 'En Español', showing a relaxed attitude to the fact of an increasingly bilingual America.
Her personal website at hillaryclinton.com is now completely dedicated to her presidential run, with a biography full of facts clearly handpicked to shore up her appeal: Her father is presented as a 'rock-ribbed Republican, a pay-as-you-go kind of guy', for example. Unsurprisingly, Hillary’s own youthful Republicanism, perhaps inevitably, receives no mention. However, there are early and welcome commitments to fight for women's rights and LGBT rights, showing that she's willing to take on, not just placate, her conservative and Republican opponents, whose conception of 'freedom' extends as far as their weapons and wallets – but rarely any further. This kind of narrative paints with a broad brush, turning deeply-held political positions with intellectual roots into simplistic, unfortunate, 'just-so' stories.
Does Hillary support social justice for all Americans of any race, and target her appeal to the American middle classes because of a firm intellectual understanding of the fact that when the middle class does well, America does well? No, according to the narrative, it's because she heard Dr Martin Luther King speak, once, giving her a 'life-long passion for social justice'. Can we give her a little more credit?
Does she fight for the rights of children because she understands that by helping the younger generation today, they'll be able to build their own, better future tomorrow? No, it's because her mother had a rough childhood and hearing about it 'sparked in Hillary a lifelong commitment to championing the needs of children'. Perhaps it's inevitable that this kind of appeal to the heart triumphs over appeals to the brain, but it will be interesting to see how this somewhat gendered view of Hillary affects her second presidential campaign.