Hillary's 'history' pitch

HILLARY CLINTON is counting on women -- liberals, especially -- to help her make history as the first female president.

But she can't count on every one of them in the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

Take Kate Michelman, a prominent feminist leader, who recently stepped down after nearly 20 years as president of the pro-abortion rights group now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. Michelman recently endorsed John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, and is working as a senior campaign adviser to organize women on his behalf.

Her endorsement of Edwards would be less interesting if all the Democrats running for president were male. But, with Clinton in the mix, said Michelman, "I have been asked over and over again: Why? Why John Edwards in the context of this historic run for the presidency?"

Her answer: "I believe that women must consider not only gender, even as exciting as this is . . . but also which candidacy will mean the most for women."

Michelman casts her decision as "pro-John" rather than "anti-Hillary." She said she strongly believes in Edwards' s commitment to women's rights and the elimination of poverty.

But Michelman also expresses frustration with Democratic candidates who vie for support from groups like NARAL and then pay "lip service to women's issues" once they get it. Of Edwards, she said, "He has never once retreated from his commitment to women's reproductive freedom and choice. He understands it's about dignity, self-determination, personal responsibility, and privacy."

Clinton famously tried to stake out a middle ground in the abortion rights debate in a January 2005 speech in which she said the right should be protected but exercised as little as possible. Michelman said she interpreted the speech not as "a retreat" -- she'd heard Clinton express similar sentiments before -- but as a calculation: "She was positioning herself politically to reach out beyond the issue of abortion to the issue of prevention."

Bill Clinton made a religion out of "positioning" -- sacrificing liberal ideology for centrist pabulum. Ever since her failed effort at health care reform during the first Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton became a partner in pursuit of that safe middle ground.

Sometimes the middle ground shifts. Clinton's hawkish stand on the Iraq war, which she edged away from only recently, is another reason for liberal disaffection with her candidacy. First, she followed the Bush administration's rationale for invading. Now she is following the polls that show the public is strongly rejecting the Bush war policy.

Her 2002 vote to authorize the president to invade Iraq is as troubling as John Kerry's. In both cases, the votes seemed calculated to distance the politicians from the liberal, antiwar label. In Clinton's case, the vote also seemed calculated to dispel the notion that a woman isn't tough enough to go to war. That might also explain why she clung to a hawkish position much longer than Kerry, who is now out of the 2008 race, or Edwards and Senator Joseph Biden, who are both in.

Her stance may not be fatal to her presidential bid. Barbara Lee, a major Clinton supporter in Massachusetts, says, "Iraq is going to be a challenge for every candidate. She is coming out very strongly against the way Bush is handling this war. She is taking a thoughtful, measured approach."

Lee runs the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, which supports women's issues and women candidates. She said there was never any question that when "a strong qualified woman ran for the presidency that was who I'd be supporting." Now, she said, "The pitch I am making is that Hillary is the best qualified person to run and win. . . . Truly, in my heart, she is the strongest candidate." Lee cites Clinton's presence on the world stage, experience in the US Senate, and ability to reach across the aisle.

That's the right pitch. However, no matter what the polls say now, Clinton is a tougher sell than she or her advisers acknowledge, especially to Democratic primary voters. They settled for a centrist with Kerry in 2004, and it didn't have a happy ending. With Clinton, gender says something about who the candidate is. But voters ultimately want to know what a candidate stands for -- or at least they should.

Making history is nice, but it's not all there is to electing the next president.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.