Careful What You Wish For
As I've noted here a few times before, I am not a huge Hillary Clinton fan. I don't trust her integrity and I substantially disagree with her politics. I voted for her in her 2000 Senate race because, one, I couldn't stand Rick Lazio and two, I liked the idea of the right-wingers who really hate Hillary waking up with stomach pain for the following six years thinking of her in high office. And I hope she's returned to the Senate for another term next year--and that she serves it out. My stance in the 2008 Democratic primary contest might well be Anyone But Hillary.

For that matter, I'm still hoping she won't run for the top job at all. The ideal outcome in 2006 would be a Hillary victory, but a close one--under 55 percent, running weak outside New York City in a strong Democratic year overall. Today's somewhat surprising development, that Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro will oppose Clinton next year, probably raises the likelihood of this scenario coming to pass--and Pirro is focusing on the Senator's vulnerability:

In an interview, Ms. Pirro made it clear that she would elevate the Senate race into a national political event, as she criticized Mrs. Clinton's rumored presidential ambitions as much as her Senate record for the last four and a half years.

"Hillary Clinton is not running to serve the people of New York," Ms. Pirro said. "We are just a way station in her run for the presidency."

She added: "I think voters will choose the only woman who really wants the job. My full-time is a whole lot better than her part-time."

What I'm not sure about is whether New Yorkers really mind that one of their representatives is considering higher office. Nelson Rockefeller and Mario Cuomo did just fine, despite opponents who raised some of those same questions; in fact, Cuomo only lost after it became clear he'd never run for the White House. Other state pols, like Robert F. Kennedy and John Lindsay, made presidential runs that were popular at home. There's certainly an art to finessing the question, and my political fantasy is that Hillary will somehow screw it up and only be able to save herself by pledging to serve out her term. But Clintons generally do okay finessing questions, and they'll be able to raise a host of other issues to deter the press from focusing exclusively on 2008: Pirro's tax-cheat husband, Bush's job performance, homeland security, Iraq.

I'm also not certain just how Pirro will differentiate herself from Clinton. Both, at this point, are social moderates with hawkish tendencies. That's how any New York pol has to play it, from Schumer to Pataki, which raises the question of what change Pirro can offer. The argument that Hillary has "moved to the center" to position herself for future campaigns might be true (I think it is, though I'd suggest that one can't abandon principles never really held), but it's also of much more interest to pundits than voters--as Bill Clinton himself spectacularly demonstrated. Republicans feared, with much justification, that he was "stealing their issues," but they weren't able to exact a political price for his doing so.

There are a lot of shoes left to drop. And part of me will always want to see Republicans just destroyed for their rotten policies and delusional tactical thinking: the notion that Bill Clinton's old transgressions, in a state where he's still overwhelmingly popular, somehow cancels out Albert Pirro's sleazy doings is wishful thinking and then some. Even so, if Pirro runs hard and loses, but does some damage to Hillary's presidential ambitions, both the state and the country will be better off for it.