'Condi vs. Hillary': Morris Meows

Let me be honest: I am probably not the intended audience of Dick Morris’s latest political issue “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.” I like Hillary Clinton.

But I love political trash, and Dick Morris embodies the genre. He has worked as a political strategist and pollster for a variety of colorful characters, including Bill Clinton, Trent Lott and, currently, FOX News—along the way showing he has no philosophical core. And even though tabloids alleged in 1996 that Morris sucked a high-priced call girl’s toes, he nonetheless collaborated with his wife, lawyer and former lobbyist Eileen McGann, on this book.

As expected, Morris and McGann deliver another know-no-bounds personal attack on Hillary Clinton’s credentials for office and worth as a person. (Their prior volume, “Rewriting History,” a rebuttal to the former First Lady’s autobiography, was released in May 2004).

But much of the book is consumed by a comparison of “these two forces, two vectors”–even though the authors don’t have much substantive to say about the secretary of state. And their diatribe against the junior senator from New York mostly reveals Morris’ personal antipathies and paranoias.

Morris is most interesting when he sticks to what he does best—political strategy. Unfortunately, his bits of incisive analysis are only needles in a haystack of hate.

Morris begins from the assumption that Hillary Clinton will seek, and receive, the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, pointing to her strength as a fundraiser and her ability to appeal to the traditional Democratic base: minority voters, liberals, and women. And women—especially single women—Morris notes with some alarm, are the key to winning American elections. Their move to the Republican Party in the 2004 election, he believes, gave Bush the critical edge over Kerry. Their traditional allegiance to the Democrats is the only thing keeping the donkey from falling on its ass.

Hillary’s appeal to such a constituency as a “female/feminist” candidate is such that, according to Morris, only the selection of Condoleezza Rice for the Republican nomination can combat “the Hillary juggernaut” in 2008.

Rice’s candidacy, Morris contends, would divide the African-American and female vote, transferring critical support to the Republican Party and resulting in another win in 2008. The independence and social moderation of other candidates with the potential to win the national election—like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani—would prevent them from securing the nomination, with primary voters tilted so far to the right.

But while Morris is persuasive when explaining Rice’s appeal to moderates, he perhaps underestimates how the Republican Party’s base—white men—would respond to the nomination of an African-American woman.

Indeed, Morris’s naiveté goes so far as to prompt the declaration that Rice’s election would sound the death knell for racism in America, much as John F. Kennedy’s assumption of office (ostensibly) marked the end of anti-Catholicism. His analysis of Rice’s potential win seems to overestimate its effect on a prejudice that was little more than 40 years ago a legally-sanctioned feature of American life—and underestimate the lingering force of Jim Crow in American life.

Morris also, mystifyingly, suggests that single women will vote for Rice because they identify with her marital status and are jealous of Clinton’s. (He doesn’t recognize the possibility that single women may identify with Hillary’s experience of being perpetually humiliated by her faithless husband.)

Morris’ analysis of the 2008 race is—to say the least—interesting. But unfortunately, the bulk of the book is spent obsessing about Senator Clinton’s shrill liberalism, ruthless ambition, and emotional instability. (Even at 57, Hillary hasn’t “found herself,” Morris writes impatiently).

With sweeping assertions like, “Hillary Clinton has always wanted to be the first woman president of the United States,” Morris paints a picture of a power-hungry automaton with few scruples and no heart.

In contrast, “Condi Clubs,” harnessing the grassroots power of the Internet, will draft our disinterested and morally immaculate secretary of state for the job. “In the end,” Morris writes, “it is not Condoleezza Rice who will come to the voters asking for the nomination, but they who will come to her, imploring her to run.”

Morris attacks Clinton’s record and its focus on “traditional women’s issues”—like education—seeking to reveal her incompetence and dishonest acceptance of credit for other’s efforts. Clinton’s “substantive” accomplishments, he suggest, come only with help from her husband—or from Morris himself. (Her recent politically-savvy move to the right, he suspects, is a nod toward his own “triangulation” strategy, which he advocated during Bill’s 1996 presidential election. That was before Morris resigned amid charges of extramarital affairs and podiatric penchants.)

Nor is his account of Rice’s record compelling. There are too many variables besetting her viability as a candidate—including, Morris admits, her intimacy with the Bush administration and its (lack of) progress in the Iraq war.

It’s possible that the distinguished secretary of state and the accomplished New York senator would be too dignified to wage a catfight. But if they find themselves head-to-head in ’08, it looks like Morris will do enough eye gouging and hair pulling for the both of them.

—Staff Writer Natalie I. Sherman can be reached at nsherman@fas.harvard.edu.