Romney: ¿la Hillary de 2012?

The Hill:

Mitt Romney could be the Hillary Clinton of 2012.

That may seem an ill portent, given that Clinton lost the nomination. But being Clinton in 2012 might be better than being Clinton in 2008.

Ideologically disparate though the two politicians are, Romney’s candidacy this year shares many of the vulnerabilities exhibited by then-Sen. Clinton four years ago. That is enough to give pause to anyone who sees him as the inevitable Republican nominee.

Clinton entered the campaign having upset the Democratic grassroots with her October 2002 Senate vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.

She never neutralized that problem. It put her on the wrong side of the defining issue of the campaign’s early stages. It also pulled her into alignment, however inexactly, with an incumbent president who was viewed with outright loathing by many members of the Democratic base.

The same thing can be said of the healthcare reforms Romney enacted while governor of Massachusetts. These, particularly the individual mandate to buy health insurance, foreshadowed President Obama’s 2010 federal reform — something that Obama advisers such as David Axelrod have mischievously emphasized.

Many conservatives question how effective Romney could be against Obama next year on this key issue, given his past position — the same line of concern that liberals voiced about Clinton on Iraq in 2007 and 2008.

There is also a larger problem in both cases. These positions reinforce a pre-existing perception that both Romney and Clinton have malleable principles.

(...) “Voters are so skeptical of all things political these days that they put a huge premium on authenticity,” said Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. “Hillary Clinton had an authenticity problem and so does Mitt Romney.”

But, McKinnon added, “Clinton has evolved and her perception now as a competent leader makes up for any other perceived deficiencies. Romney should take notes.”

(...) Romney loyalists can take heart from one of the most enduring patterns in American politics. The GOP has been less likely than the Democratic Party to throw an establishment candidate overboard in favor of someone who tugs at their heart strings.

Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics argues that the past half-century furnishes only one example of a real outsider winning the GOP nomination — Sen. Barry Goldwater’s vanquishing of the northeastern establishment forces surrounding New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in 1964.

“Republicans have been fairly hierarchical in their presidential nominations,” Kondik said. “The last 50 years of Republican nominations argues in favor of Romney, because he lost last time and is a top-line contender back for another shot.”

Others suggest that the current climate, with its distaste for Washington in general and the rise of the Tea Party in particular, might mean that these long-term historical precedents have little bearing.

“This is not a year when being the ‘next guy in line’ helps as much as it has in the past,” Appell said. “In all the polls, the total support among conservative/Tea Party candidates has been far more than that of the GOP establishment candidates. Romney has never closed the sale with these voters, and he needs to hope their support remains divided.”

He needs to hope, in other words, that none of his rivals has the potential to be a Republican Obama.

So far, he seems a strong bet. [But] this time four years ago, so did Clinton.