The big winner - WHY AND WHY NOT by Nelson A. Navarro

New York– Anyway you look at it, Hillary Rodham Clinton sticks out as the biggest winner of the Nov. 7th US presidential elections that remains disputed by Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

Hillary may have been running for the lesser position of US senator from New York, but she was without doubt subjected to savage scrutiny and brickbats as cruel as those running for the highest office of the land.

By scoring such an unexpectedly large victory against her Republican opponent, Rick Lazio, she sent off unmistakable signals – and alarm bells – that a future presidential aspirant has been born.

Unlike all other first ladies before her except Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary was not regarded as a decorative element but a full partner in her husband’s presidency. But Eleanor never sought public office, confined herself to appointed positions and never risked being rebuffed by the fickle electorate.

In seeking office from one of the most sophisticated and exacting states, she, in effect, raised the stakes of an election that, whether she liked it or not, would be regarded as a referendum on the Clinton presidency.

Her defeat would have been a most crushing personal and political debacle not only for her but for a president anxious about departing from office under less than felicitous circumstances. Although he had presided over the longest period of economic expansion in US history, Bill Clinton’s legacy has been placed under serious doubt because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hillary’s rejection at the polls, especially with her husband playing such an active role in her campaign, would have been the unkindest cut of all.

Hillary’s strong showing (12 percent margin instead of the "too close to call" poll estimates) becomes even sweeter because of what may or may not turn out to be an electoral loss for Gore. At least, in so far as his two political surrogates are concerned, Hillary and the Vice President, the President appears to have scored a clear, if somewhat indirect, victory.

Never expected to carry New York by the equivalent of a storm, the tireless Hillary won by a mile in New York City and kept down the Republican majorities in Upstate New York and the suburbs that have long been regarded as safe Republican bastions.

Not only was Hillary able to fire up the Democratic constituencies – Black, Hispanic and Asian minorities, plus labor, the Jews and the teachers – she also showed tremendous savvy in making inroads to white, protestant Upstate communities which responded to her "It’s the economy, stupid" approach to that part of the state’s choleric economic situation.

In sharp contrast, Lazio hammered away with his ABC campaign (Anybody But Clinton) and his incessant claim of being a "real New Yorker" (born and bred in the state) as opposed to Hillary’s carpetbagger status (born in Illinois, resident of Arkansas and Washington, DC).

Some say Lazio, a Long Island congressman and 10 years younger than Hillary (53), was too immature and lightweight to give Hillary a real run for the Senate seat that Daniel Patrick Moynihan is giving up after four terms. The original Republican candidate, New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, was regarded as a far more serious threat, but he had to give up his campaign after being diagnosed with prostrate cancer.

With or without Guiliani, the Clinton-Lazio fight could not help but turn into a classic face-up between Clinton haters and the other, some say better, half of the Clinton team. Millions of dollars were raised across the country, with Lazio seeming to match his opponent’s fund-raising successes.

What lies in store for Hillary?

One of the first questions she had to field in her morning-after press conference was the inevitable one about her plans for 2004. Would she run for president in the next presidential elections?

Nobody expected this very astute politician to fall so easily into an obvious trap. No, she said, she wants to serve out her full six-year term as New York’s "junior" senator.

The flat-out denial was expected, but that thing about playing "junior" to the state’s other senator, made a lot of people laugh. "Hillary playing second fiddle to anybody? Give me a break," wrote one commentator.

A lot hinges on what happens with the Gore-Bush cliffhanger in Florida. If Gore prevails, Hillary would have to tow the party line and accord him the right of first refusal in 2004 when, presumably, he too would ask for another term.

If Bush becomes president, Hillary would be the party’s biggest star and potential frontrunner for the White House race.

As for Bill Clinton, my friend Loida Nicolas-Lewis, a big contributor and active leader of the Asian-Americans for Hillary, says that he’s too young to be retired (53) and play golf like all his predecessors. One possible political goal would be to run for New York governor in 2002.

But then again, wouldn’t that put the Clintons on rather competing tracks for the White House. Will it be another crack for Bill or Hillary’s turn?

Luckily for the couple, arguably the most brilliant and controversial husband-and-wife team in American political history, they have the luxury of having time to ponder that ticklish question and to make the proper moves when the time comes. Retirement, forced or not, for fiftysomethings who’re in the prime of their lives isn’t an option but a most cruel and unusual punishment.

* * *

Nelson A. Navarro’s e-mail address: <[email protected]>