Unless we young Democrats (or, at least, non-Republicans) are going to choose a president based on who is the freshest or does the best television, it might be helpful if we recognize that there are some hard facts and history to consider in making our choice.

The first hard fact is that, assuming your intention is to vote for a candidate who has any chance of winning the nomination and the general election after that, the Democratic field is already down to two, maybe three candidates. Of course, there are other ways of making your vote “count,” but don’t expect them to change the outcome of the election being held in 2008.

Furthermore, from a public policy standpoint, encompassing both international and domestic concerns, little separates the major Democratic candidates. This is especially true with respect to health care reform and Iraq. The few stated differences that do exist are rendered inconsequential by the question of whether or not the proposed policies are even politically feasible. Any notion of meaningful policy differences between the major candidates residing in voters’ minds are attributable to their prejudices against one or another candidate and politicians’ skills in making small or nonexistent distinctions appear important.

The real question to ask is which of the major candidates is best suited to serve at this particular moment in history. One unfortunate consideration about this particular moment in history is that a president’s success relies on his or her ability to operate within a rigid “system” that consists, in large part, of aggressive special interests representing everything from corporations and unions to environmental groups. Another hard truth: America will be red and blue, not purple, for the foreseeable future. Democrats will only make progress past red and blue when they actually accomplish something.

Historically, politicians who deceptively promise to bypass the system or bridge the partisan divide disappoint. Actually governing as a Washington “outsider” isn’t a successful strategy. Jimmy Carter’s presidency is a good example. When Bill and Hillary Clinton challenged the establishment early in his presidency, it only resulted in a reshuffling of the “system” in favor of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America (a mistake that the Clintons both learned from). Another president who liked to advertise himself as a Washington “outsider,” Ronald Reagan, turned K Street into the lobbyist boomtown it is today.

So what are the urgent challenges America faces at this particular moment in history? One is Iraq. Whoever the next president is, he or she will inherit whatever is left of the “stay the course” or “return on success” strategy, as well as heightened tensions with Iran.

At home, our problems include a defunct medical system whose costs and inequities are an international laughingstock, an ineffective immigration policy, gasoline consumption 50 percent above international standards, and, for the first time in American history, growing disparities not just in wealth but in opportunities for our citizens.

These issues are extremely complex, and even well-educated people sometimes lack an understanding of the political complexity and public sacrifices involved in their possible solutions. It’s important we not mistake the current hatred for President Bush as political will to make tough changes. If politicians today can’t even assemble the political will to end agricultural subsidies that give American farmers an unfair edge over farmers in developing countries, what prospect is there for real progress on global climate change, which will involve considerable lifestyle adjustments?

So which candidate is best suited to handle these challenges? I gave my opinion away in the title of this piece: Hillary Clinton, the best-prepared and experienced presidential candidate in our republic’s history. When someone so identified with the Democratic left is disparaged as a national security hawk by the Democratic left, something good is happening.

Who better to lead us out of Iraq, deal with events in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, respond to the emergence of China (where her novel, Living History, was a best-seller), and realign with our traditional allies (she is the preferred candidate in Britain, Germany, France and Canada)?

The other candidates are not without their strengths, but they will not be perceived as tough because they lack the steel that only comes with experience. They will not be the ones who will bring the Democrats full circle to the days of Truman and Kennedy. And Hillary will do so as a woman, as the supposed nightmare of every gun-toting, white, male NASCAR fan. She isn’t the be-all, end-all, but her presidency will be transformative, not only for the Democratic Party, but for the sexual and regional divides that have so characterized our recent political life.

And domestically, expect tough, realistic action on a number of our country’s most pressing problems. Compromise, “triangulation,” and fighting the good fight when that is what is required to get the job done. Only a person with the unmatched combination of executive and congressional experience of Hillary Clinton, on top of an entire career dedicated to the resolution of the major domestic issues of our time—medicine, education, poverty—is the whole package.

The Democrats have a unique opportunity to consolidate the political sea-change of the 2006 election by electing a Democratic President and then providing firm international leadership. The person that will be best able to accomplish these tasks and begin to address the country’s long list of neglected domestic challenges is Hillary.



Clay Dumas ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Lowell House.