With nervous Democrats wondering if Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost her presidential mojo, alternatives are getting a second look and a new name has emerged as a potential party savior, John Kerry, who replaced Clinton as secretary of State.
“If she were to suddenly exit the race there would be a chaotic vacuum where the Democratic establishment would cast about for a tested alternative, and Kerry could fill that void,” according to analyst Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
The Wilson Center
Co-writing the Center’s weekly political “Crystal Ball” with regulars Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley, Sabato said that Kerry is at least as good as Mitt Romney, who almost took a third try at the White House before bowing out, and proven himself an able diplomat at a time when world affairs seem to be crashing.
The trio put Kerry on their “third tier” of candidates, behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden and note that Kerry has sworn off another run.
But they point out that Kerry did better against George W. Bush in 2004 than Romney against President Obama in 2014. “Nobody ever says never,” they said.
“Kerry can’t be positioned ahead of Vice President Biden or progressive favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but there’s little question that he would be a serious candidate,” they explained.
“First, he’s obviously been there before and is incredibly well-vetted, having been both a presidential nominee and now secretary of State. And while he lost in 2004, Kerry only fell short to incumbent George W. Bush by 2.5 points, putting him a bit ahead of Mitt Romney — a four-point loser in 2012 — who for a moment looked likely to run again in 2016,” they added.
From their Crystal Ball:
Another Democratic alternative?
If Clinton does begin to truly falter — or if she shocks everyone and ultimately passes on a run — who else is there on the Democratic side? This week, we have another new but old name to add to the list: Secretary of State John Kerry. While claiming in February that there was “no scenario whatsoever” where he could see himself running in 2016, the 2004 party nominee didn’t completely rule out another eventual presidential bid, saying “nobody ever says never.”
Kerry can’t be positioned ahead of Vice President Biden or progressive favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but there’s little question that he would be a serious candidate. First, he’s obviously been there before and is incredibly well-vetted, having been both a presidential nominee and now Secretary of State. And while he lost in 2004, Kerry only fell short to incumbent George W. Bush by 2.5 points, putting him a bit ahead of Mitt Romney — a four-point loser in 2012 — who for a moment looked likely to run again in 2016.
Second, given recent international events, Kerry’s foreign policy gravitas could be timely. In many ways, this could be the principal rationale for his candidacy should the situation in the Middle East continue to deteriorate, although he might also receive blame for Obama administration missteps in foreign affairs. It’s nigh impossible to imagine Kerry running if Clinton remains in the field, but if she were to suddenly exit the race there would be a chaotic vacuum where the Democratic establishment would cast about for a tested alternative, and Kerry could fill that void.
The main problems for Kerry? He’s a retread who lost over a decade ago, he’ll be 73 years old by the 2017 inauguration (making him about the same age as Biden), and he’s still a patrician Northeasterner, which caused him plenty of grief in 2004. It’s also hard to see Kerry inspiring the Democratic faithful to rally; he’s too ponderous for that. Even if he were to win the nomination again, a non-Bush nominee on the Republican side would present the same problem for Kerry as it does for Clinton or Biden: a future-versus-past election dichotomy. As with Hillary, it may be Jeb Bush to the rescue for the Democrats.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at [email protected].
