After two years of speculation, Hillary Clinton’s announcement of her intention to seek the Democratic nomination for next year’s US presidential election was “hardly a surprise”, says The Daily Telegraph. And since she is so far ahead of her rivals, there seems little doubt that she will be the party’s candidate.
But while she is a “determined character, a doughty fighter and undeniably impressive woman”, she may not be the best choice, says Ian Birrell in The Independent on Sunday.
For all her fame, it’s still unclear what she stands for in domestic terms. She has “barely spoken” on economic matters, and when she has, it shifts according to her audience. The picture is “less fuzzy” on foreign policy – she is a hawk – but this “does not make her a more promising president”.
Worse, she symbolises how “dynastic” US politics is becoming. It is “shocking” that a nation of 320 million people may be about to be offered a choice between a second Clinton and a third Bush.
Yet Hillary’s experience – she has served as first lady for eight years, US senator for eight years and Secretary of State for four – is valuable, says James Rubin in The Sunday Times. She has endured “unparalleled” scrutiny and is a “master of the policy process”.
Given how “extraordinarily effective” the US political system has become at blocking progress, this is crucial. There is nobody in either party who has her “savvy when it comes to overcoming obstacles and political adversity”.
Ignore any personality-based analyses, says Paul Krugman in The New York Times. “There has never been a time in American history” when the candidates mattered less. Each party is quite unified on major policy issues and there is a gulf between their positions.
Indeed, the differences between the parties are “so clear and dramatic” that it’s hard to see how anyone could be “undecided even now, or be induced to change his or her mind between now and the election”.