Prematurity

One of the best experiences of my life was working in Sen. Fred Harris' underfunded and all-too-brief presidential campaign in 1975-76. (This page isn't called the The Old New Englander for nothing.) It was a heady time of working for and with a man who preached a "New Populism" that would unite people across racial and economic divides. Fred was a great speaker; I used to say that everyone who actually heard him supported him--the problem was that we never got the money or exposure to get enough people to hear him.

In 1975, Newsweek, for one, had pegged Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington (sometimes known as The Senator From Boeing) as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Jackson's campaign, despite having lots of money, name recognition, endorsements, etc., went through a curve approximating what happens when you throw a rock. For most of the time that Fred Harris was in the race, we in viewed Mo Udall as our chief competition. He lasted a bit longer than Fred, who ran out of money and energy well before the California primary in June 1976. As you may recall, it was a former one-term former governor of Georgia who sneaked through on the inside and took the prize.

In 1972, the odds-on frontrunner was said to be Ed Muskie, a tremendously decent man who might have given Nixon a real tussle. Muskie's campaign self-destructed; that result was aided, but not caused by Nixonian dirty tricks. I can give an example, because I'm old enough to have worked in that campaign, too. Muskie's greatest asset was the tremendous personal credibility he gained as Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee in 1968. One day, I walked into the local campaign headquarters to find a carton of bumper stickers that said "Trust Muskie." I suggested we push them into the closet and cover them up so no one would see them. The Muskie campaign forgot the old saying that Fred Harris would sometimes quote, "When a man tells you how honest he is, keep your hand on your billfold." That wasn't the only error we made, but it told a lot.

Presidential campaigns are some sort of simulacrum for governing; if a candidate can't run a campaign, he or she probably can't be a very good president. And for all that some may disparage the voters' acuity, they seem to get that point. (George W and Reagan are exhibits A and B for proving that running a campaign well is no guaranty that you won't be a terrible President. But the campaign is something, and--together with the candidate's record and manner of presenting him- or herself--is pretty much all that voters have to go on.)

Now Matt Bai, in The New York Times Magazine, has anointed Hillary Clinton as the prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic candidate in 2008. Huh? Hillary Clinton is a figure of great divisiveness in the party--divisions that do not run solely across ideological lines. Even among women, she is polarizing. Many of those who like her politics--or at least are not put off by her frequent pandering--nonetheless say that she probably cannot win. It's also twenty-two months before the Iowa caucuses. Neither Sen. Clinton or anyone else has shown whether she or he has the organizing and political skills to manage a long campaign. At this point, being named the front-runner is more like being set up to be shot down.