Hillary, in a Fix

With Sanders, could we be living through a “leftist revolution” in the Democratic camp like that of Corbyn within the British Labour Party?

At this initial stage of the long primary process, after the debate between the Democratic candidates, knowing the influence of the party machines, especially in the United States, and the president’s recommendation on who should be his successor, it is unlikely that over the next few weeks another Democratic candidate will become better placed than Hillary Rodham Clinton to replace Obama in the White House. However, the “Bernie Sanders phenomenon” around the “socialist anti-candidate,” representing the leftist wing of the Democratic Party, could have a better run than expected, based on the political and financial support he has raised, but above all because of the impression that voters may have of Clinton as a candidate.

With Sanders, could we be living through a “leftist revolution” in the Democrat camp like that of Corbyn within the British Labour Party?

Clinton’s candidacy – that of the establishment – has great strengths. Faced with a scandal for using private email servers as secretary of state, and current criticism calling her immature and fussy, it is obvious that as a personal and political figure she has been growing over time. She played a main role opposing “Reaganism,” one which classic, traditional U.S. society never liked. Even then, despite her great similarities with America’s “Camelot” couple, American society never found Jackie Kennedy’s sweetness and intelligence in Hillary.

Up until her current presidential candidacy, she had a very active legislative job in one of the most complicated districts, New York — she was the first first lady to be elected to public office — and she had extensive international experience, initially as President Clinton’s inseparable collaborator, and later as secretary of state under Obama. She could definitely be the presidential candidate who best knows the intricacies of U.S. foreign policy, and understands the added difficulty of managing the United States’ complicated adaptation to these multipolar times.

The many doubts about her candidacy, following the electoral show format which is so popular in this country, are reflected in a female character who is currently popular on television at the moment in the United States. Claire is the main character of the most watched series in the country, “House of Cards,” which is also hugely successful around the world. An ambitious Claire cannot resist the mere supporting role of first lady and goes about forming a ruthless team, first with the governor, then the senator and later the president. It is unfair to attribute this excessive, scheming ambition in the shadow of two presidents’ successes to Hillary. Nevertheless, such doubt has been successfully sown into the minds of American public opinion; it is making its mark and it could take its toll in the election.

The polls prior to the Democratic debate revealed that the reception to her candidacy was more influenced by the emotional insights she awakens among voters and sympathizers than by her merits, track record and experience. There are many who might consider that her political image has already plummeted, especially the youngest additions exploding onto the electoral scene — nearly 12 percent of potential voters — who are unfamiliar with her trajectory. Could Hillary ensure the support of more than 60 percent of those under 30 as Obama did in 2013?*

Not to mention the voters, both young and old, who think that the time has come to move on from the aristocratic dynasties of American politics like those of the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons.

Another key to past electoral victories has been Latino support, only a little above 71 percent. Could Hillary, who has not exactly had a fiercely supportive role in the current administration when making decisions on immigration — they say she has deliberately remained silent — maintain this percentage, and even present this decision as a party success in order to foster support among the more than 9 million regularized immigrants? A complicated aim, bearing in mind the list of Latino candidates among the Republican ranks, especially Jeb Bush.

In the last presidential elections the vote was more concentrated in a certain feeling among the electorate, especially among the middle class — which installs and unseats presidents in this country — that it was necessary, faced with the destructive effects of the economic crisis and a rising poverty threshold, to maintain some key points on the Democratic ticket, like those of facilitating assistance and/or state protection for basic rights such as health care access or access to education at all levels. Clinton’s calculated silences or ambiguous positions on areas such as health care reform, education reform and the new immigration policy will not only be unsustainable as the campaign goes forward, but will inspire little confidence, especially among young people and the popular core of the Democratic vote, about whether she really wants to continue and drive essential social change into centrist politics in the United States. And it is here where Sanders can make a niche for himself, with electoral support both within and outside the Democrat ranks.

* Editor’s note: The year 2013 is correctly translated from the original, but may refer to 2012, the year Barack Obama was re-elected president.