OPINION:
Democrats need Hillary Clinton in 2016, but increasingly are asking if they want her. Democrats need someone who can take the focus off President Obama and smooth over their growing intraparty split and Hillary is their one candidate who potentially could do both. However, Mrs. Clinton’s penchant for unforced errors leaves Democrats wondering if the reward she could bring, is worth the risk she will bring.
Hillary’s current problem of having used a personal email account for official business at the State Department is just her latest self-inflicted wound. Before this, it was the question of foreign donors to the huge Clinton Foundation. Prior to that, it was her book tour — its many public miscues producing more unintentional questions than intended answers.
Mrs. Clinton has had such fumbles throughout her career — as witnessed by her pre-existing baggage. Seemingly, the only person who can impede Hillary’s progress is Hillary, but she has shown a persistent knack for doing so.
The problem for Democrats is not this current mistake — or her past predilection toward making them — it is that they need her so badly in 2016. If they did not, the answer would be simple. Because Democrats do, it is anything but easy.
Under the best of circumstances, for a party to hold the presidency for three consecutive elections is tough. Only twice in over a century has it happened — FDR and Harry Truman did it for five, and Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush for three.
Current circumstances are hardly the best for Democrats. Mr. Obama is consistently and broadly unpopular with voters, unless they are Democrats and liberals. His signature policy, Obamacare, is even more unpopular than he is.
In 2016, Democrats will be in the electoral place that has proved their weakest since Mr. Obama won the presidency — with him present in the public’s mind but absent on the election’s ballot. This is just the scenario that cost them the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. However in 2016, the presidency will be on the line too, offering Democrats a trifecta of trouble — losing the White House, along with both houses of Congress.
Democrats also have a growing split within their party. Less focused on by the media, Democrats’ left wing has been a mirror image of Republicans’ right wing. Flapping to its own cadence, Democrats’ left wing is ascendant in Congress and controls where the party goes. While the country has been moving more toward conservatives — as witnessed by Republicans’ control of Congress — Democrats are moving left.
Should this split manifest itself in 2016’s presidential primaries, it could inflict enormous damage on Democrats’ White House chances — ranging from outright nomination of an unabashed liberal, to forcing a more moderate nominee to tack left to win the nomination.
Mr. Obama, who will not run again, can afford to cater to the Democrats’ left, as he repeatedly has this year. However Democrats as a whole, who seek to retain the White House and regain Congress, cannot afford this luxury.
For both these reasons, Democrats need a candidate big enough to take America’s mind off Mr. Obama and not let him define the party in 2016, and simultaneously take the party’s mind off its left wing and not let it define the party, either. Hillary Clinton is the one candidate who could possibly do both.
Democrats’ problem is that Hillary on paper is not the same as Hillary in person. In reality, she is still a candidate who has not won a race since 2006, and only two in her life — both in deep blue New York.
Democrats’ dilemma now is whether they pursue their hopes or listen to their fears.
On what is already a thin Democratic bench, no one could do what Mrs. Clinton promises. In theory, she solves everything for Democrats and is their best case scenario.
However, in practice she is reproving an ability to create more problems than she solves. In that role, she is Democrats’ worst case scenario.
The longer Democrats stick with Mrs. Clinton, the less likely someone else is to emerge and develop as a candidate for them. That could leave them at the mercy of their liberal wing in a crunch later, or invite a liberal challenge sooner. Neither thought is comforting, but right now, both are possible with Hillary’s unsteady performance.
• J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.