She’s more status quo than change-maker

This week’s Democratic convention has highlighted Hillary Clinton’s conundrum. At a time when many Americans want something new, she is anything but.

The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee is competent. She is tough — steely even.

When U.S. President Barack Obama called the former senator and secretary of state the most qualified presidential candidate ever, he wasn’t far off.

When he noted on Wednesday night she was more qualified than both he and former president Bill Clinton had been when they first took office, he was absolutely correct. Compared to Hillary Clinton today, both men then were callow newcomers.

But it’s worth noting that both Obama and Bill Clinton won. And they won in large part because they were new.

If Americans had wanted the most experienced leader in 1992, they would not have picked Bill Clinton, the boyish governor of a minor state. They would have re-elected incumbent president George H.W. Bush.

Similarly, if Democrats had wanted the most qualified presidential nominee in 2008, they would have chosen Hillary Clinton.

But they didn’t. Instead they chose Obama, an obscure senator from Illinois whom few had ever heard of.

And they chose him precisely because he promised something new.

Hillary Clinton is not new. For better or worse, she promises more of the same. She would continue Obama’s campaign for gun control at home. She would continue his air war against terrorists abroad.

Her only disagreement with the incumbent president is over trade. Obama would implement the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade and investment deal as is. Clinton says she would not.

Otherwise, she is his heir. Obama himself made reference to that in his speech Wednesday when he called on Democrats to throw their support behind Clinton so she could finish the job he had started.

This could be a winning formula if Americans were satisfied with Obama’s record. But it seems that they are not. Recent polls suggest that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of Americans think their country is on the wrong track.

Bill Clinton understands the problem, which is why in his speech to the convention Tuesday night he insisted on referring to his wife as a “change-maker.”

In particular, he cited her role in passing a law to provide health insurance to poor children and her ability to winkle out federal funds for New York City after 9/11. He pointedly didn’t talk about her failure to get a more generalized health insurance reform though Congress.

Still, his overall point was well-taken. Hillary Clinton is a skilled politician. She can get things done. In particular, she seems to have the knack of making the kinds of deals that allow incremental reforms to take place.

And if enough U.S. voters are satisfied with the promise of incremental change, she may well win in November. But if they are not . . . If they are not, then hard as it might be for many Canadians to believe, Republican Donald Trump will be on his way to the presidency of the U.S. That he is a bloviating self-promoter and serial bankrupt doesn’t seem to matter.

This week, Trump came under attack for suggesting Russian intelligence agencies should use their hacking prowess to find and publicize emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server. Liberal commentators were scandalized that he promoted something so blatantly illegal. Even Republicans were taken aback.

But we shall see if the American public cares. So far Trump’s deliberately outrageous behaviour has made him only more popular.

Trump may not specify how he would change the United States. But then neither did Obama in 2008 when he successfully campaigned on “change we can believe in.” When the voters want change, they are not always picky about the details.

So, yes. Clinton is eminently qualified to become president. But it’s worth remembering that she’s not the first. The official White House website talks of one former president who brought to the office “an unparalleled reputation as an engineer, administrator and humanitarian.” This particular president had earned that reputation for his role in providing food to millions of starving Europeans after the First World War.

His name was Herbert Hoover and he lost his 1932 re-election bid to a well-heeled radical named Franklin Roosevelt.

Why? The country was hurting. Voters just wanted something different. Thomas Walkom’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.