Clinton vs. Trump: Round 2?

For someone not in the running for the next presidential election, in the last few weeks Hillary Clinton certainly has been visible on the American political scene. Of course, the promotional campaign for “The Book of Gutsy Women,” the book she co-wrote with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, which details the lives of brave, resilient and inspiring women, does explain in part the renewed media interest in the candidate who lost to Donald Trump in 2016. But there is a bit more to it than that.

One year out from the next election, and a unifying candidate strong enough to eject the American billionaire in 2020 is struggling to emerge for the Democratic Party nomination. Meanwhile the former secretary of state is fueling, with some intensity, the fantasy of an official rematch between her and the current U.S. president. One final fight before the ballot box.

“She is running,” guaranteed Trump’s former adviser, Stephen Bannon, at the beginning of October. Speaking on the Fox Business network, he fanned the flames of an increasingly persistent rumor by saying “She’s just trying to decide how to fit her way in.”

At the time of reading, facts to confirm the theory seem to be accumulating, like Clinton’s increased appearances and the forceful statements that maintain her presence on the media’s agenda.

Just last Friday evening, while at a public presentation in New York of the Netflix documentary “The Great Hack,” about the Cambridge Analytica scandal that played out during the 2016 election, she inevitably drew attention by publicly criticizing Mark Zuckerberg. In effect, she believes that the Facebook boss “should pay a price” for the damage he is causing to democracy. He has been complicit in large-scale hacking,”* which used data manipulation to influence public opinion for Republican gain, probably costing the Democrats the presidency.

As if that wasn’t enough, last week Zuckerberg also drew ire from some insider circles for failing to forbid political advertising which uses lies and falsehoods from appearing to the 2.45 billion users of his network, so as to preserve the real revenue these petty, putrid communication campaigns bring him.

The former Democratic star gave the impression of being on the campaign trail last Thursday when she took part in a Halloween comedy number on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” There, in the style of a fireside horror story complete with flashlight under her chin, she recounted how the “orange man” had succeeded in getting into the “house” with the help of the naughty “Electoral College.” In 2016 Clinton picked up 3 million more votes than Trump, having knocked on the doors of America. However, the electoral configuration being what it is in the U.S., it was the former reality TV star who got the keys to the Oval Office.

The night before, during a talk at the University of Georgetown’s law faculty, her husband fed rumors by responding before her to rather a left field question from the public on whether the couple supported the Washington Nationals baseball team, who are currently in the World Series. “I guess I should go first,” the former American president said. “I’m the only one that’s not running for anything. Ever. She may or may not run for anything but I can’t legally run for president again.“

She’s coming back? She’s not coming back? “Given the person, the possibility can’t be dismissed out of hand,” summed up the political scientist Pierre Martin, chair of American political and economic studies at the University of Montreal, over the telephone. “Even if that seems remote and unlikely for 2020. To remain visible for the good of her public-speaking activities and as head of a foundation, and to sell books, she has a personal interest in encouraging uncertainty over her intentions, to mysteriously leave the door open, without overtly speaking about it.”

And incidentally she will not be the only one benefiting. “It’s Republicans and the American right who spread this type of rumor to increase the current unease that exists on the Democratic side,” suggests Jean-François Drolet, senior lecturer at the school of politics and international relations at Queen Mary University, London, U.K. A sometimes-nerve-wracking unease when faced with a race that is some distance from finding a candidate to oppose Trump, he explained.

After having last week unveiled a survey which put Elizabeth Warren at the top of the Iowa primaries, which take place on Feb. 3, and relegated Joe Biden to fourth place, on Monday The New York Times revealed another opinion poll. This suggested that neither a Biden, a Bernie Sanders nor a Warren could easily dislodge Trump in the key states of Michigan, Arizona, Florida or North Carolina. That’s despite the “affairs” which dog him.

“The rise of the left at the center of the Democrats is alarming for many moderate members of the party,” said Drolet. He believes that on paper Trump would be easy to beat, but to do that they will need a candidate capable of uniting the left and the right within the party. Clinton could be that person, more than Warren in any case.

“There are always worries about nominations,” said Martin, adding that the candidate who wins the Democratic primaries will have standing and support that, all the same, cannot seriously predict the result of the vote one year before the election. “In 2016, Hillary Clinton showed that a strong, obvious candidate does not assure victory. On the other hand, there were a lot of doubts about Bill Clinton’s candidacy against George Bush in 1992 whom he went on to beat.”

All of this is just supposition and behind-the-scenes intrigue that the American right has opportunistically landed on. “Hillary Clinton is up to something,” wrote the conservative columnist, Michael Goodwin, in the New York Post last July. “Five times in the last month alone, she sent emails touting her super PAC’s role in combating President Trump.”

Meanwhile in the huddle around the key player, pragmatism reigns. The rumor is “Bannon-created,” said Philippe Reines, Clinton’s long-standing communications adviser, in the political daily The Hill, on Oct. 23. “What his ratio is between honest belief and trouble-making is hard to know. Obviously though he doesn’t have any sources.”

And nor are there trustworthy sources in the Democratic Party where “the forces who would resist a Clinton candidacy are still very strong,” said Martin. “The conditions of her 2016 defeat have not disappeared. Not to mention that the American electorate would not be best pleased to be faced with the same proposition,” he concluded.

Clinton and the Rest

There is obvious unease in the Democratic camp about the 2020 election and the need to ensure that Trump is removed from the White House. But that does not mean Clinton’s name is being wielded as a potentially more dangerous weapon than those fighting it out in the ongoing Democratic primaries.

A few days ago, The New York Times told of a meeting of major party donors where the question of “another” [candidate] who would be capable of turning the forthcoming game to the Democrat’s advantage was raised. What are the other names?

1. Michelle Obama. The wife of the former president is undeniably popular and has obvious charisma that, with a late entry into the primaries, could change the tone of the race and galvanize voters, the newspaper claimed.

2. Michael Bloomberg. Like Clinton, in the last few weeks the former mayor of New York reportedly said privately that if his chances of winning the primaries look good, he would then consider the possibility of entering the race.

Something of an ambiguous remark that would, however, leave a door open for others to close.

3. John Kerry. The former secretary of state has always hesitated before getting into the race and would have been disappointed by ’s missteps in the current nominations. The party’s leading lights would have also approached him about a late candidacy. But, according to those close to him, he still believes that the former vice president is the best candidate to return power to the Democrats.

*Editor’s note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.