Hillary Clinton's second bid for the White House

It was possibly the most anticipated declaration in US electoral history. Yet, for all the waiting, Hillary Clinton's presidential launch was notably light on content. In her opening video, she said she would hit the road to "earn" America's vote. That struck the right note. The first rule of Mrs Clinton's second White House bid is that she must avoid giving any hint of entitlement. Beyond that, however, there is little sense of what Mrs Clinton would do if she won the presidency. Unless and until she sets this out, voters will be right to question her motives.

The challenge is least steep on foreign policy. A former US secretary of state, Mrs Clinton will be the most experienced potential nominee in either party. Detractors argue that she achieved little of note in her four years in the job. That is unfair. While there are no groundbreaking treaties to which she can point, she helped to put in place President Barack Obama's welcome course correction from George W Bush's aggressive unilateralism.

Moreover, it was Mrs Clinton who framed Mr Obama's "pivot to Asia". The logic of this manoeuvre is enduring. Although the turmoil in the Middle East continues, this should not undermine the enhanced US focus on Asia. Mrs Clinton can also claim some credit for the Iran nuclear framework hammered out by John Kerry, her successor, earlier this month. She helped to orchestrate the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table.

As the 2016 campaign heats up, Mrs Clinton will be called on to defend Mr Obama's legacy. She cannot repudiate its basic contours. For political reasons, she will be tempted to distance herself from the Iran deal in order to win the support of the more hawkish pro-Israel lobbyists. She should resist. Assuming it can be finalised, an Iran pact will be very much in America's national interest. But Mrs Clinton can, and should, signal a greater willingness than Mr Obama to engage the world in more sustained US diplomacy. If she is mildly more hawkish than Mr Obama, that is no sin. Her centrist instincts are broadly aligned with the American public's mood. As she has let it be known, Mr Obama's "don't' do stupid stuff" mantra does not amount to a foreign policy doctrine.

Mrs Clinton's bigger challenge is to convince voters that she will have more luck than Mr Obama in breaking Washington's gridlock. In terms of substance, there is little to differentiate Mrs Clinton's promise to revive the fortunes of the squeezed middle from the policies that Mr Obama has failed to push through Congress. Whether it is more infrastructure investment, better worker training, a corporate tax overhaul or early childhood learning, Mr Obama's priorities are broadly the right ones. Mrs Clinton's task is to convince voters she can create the "warm purple space" necessary for bipartisan action. The odds are not good. Fairly, or not, Mrs Clinton is just as polarising a figure as Mr Obama and the electoral map makes it very unlikely the Democrats will regain control of Congress in 2016. Mrs Clinton must somehow explain how she would better navigate a system that has all but broken down.

The big difference from 2008 is that Mrs Clinton is a strong favourite to win the Democratic nomination this time. That gives her the luxury of avoiding having to tack too far to the left in order to appeal to the liberal base. Mrs Clinton should use that leeway to prepare a solid general election campaign. Whether her Republican opponent is Jeb Bush, or someone else, the battle ahead is certain to be gruelling. Mrs Clinton is not destined to win. As she said on Sunday, the presidency is a job that must be earned.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation