If you've spent any time studying the history of presidential politics and campaigns you might be, like me, struck by the similarities between Hillary Rodham Clinton and an equally prominent and polarizing figure from the past.

The similarities are stunning -- their strengths and weaknesses, their character shortcomings and campaign styles, the fierce loyalty and hostility they attract, and the scope of experience and incredible longevity each enjoyed atop the national scene.

I'm sure you've guessed by now that I'm talking about Richard Nixon. Hillary, by many measures but especially as a candidate, is the Democratic Party's Richard Nixon.

Take experience and longevity for openers. By the time of his election as president in 1968, Nixon had spent two decades in the national limelight - from his election in 1946 as a California congressman, Senator in 1950, and Vice President for two terms beginning in 1953.

Hillary matches up pretty closely, beginning in 1993 as first lady where she was a hands-on policy driver in her husband's administration, especially in health care policy, then as Senator from New York and finally Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

They also share another experience each would rather have missed - a losing run for president, Nixon in 1960, Clinton in 2008. In short, if she's to win the White House, it'll take a mulligan, a do-over, as it did for Nixon.

As campaigners, their shared strengths and weaknesses are eerily similar; likewise how the public perceives them.

Hillary gets and Nixon got high marks for competency, toughness and a keen, first-hand knowledge of how Washington and the federal establishment works that no competitor could match. Each could boast a matchless been-there, done-that record.

But offsetting those assets was an unflattering public perception of each. Hillary is widely seen as less than truthful, maybe not an outright liar but a too-frequent trimmer of the truth. She works it at the edges. And Nixon was acknowledged even among Republicans as more than a tad devious. He wasn't "Tricky Dick" for no reason.

Such unfavorable perceptions, while containing more than a grain of truth, are not necessarily fatal in our rough-and-tumble politics, at least they weren't a campaign killer in Nixon in 1968. They got scary close, though.

In Hillary's case, the jury's out and she's still got a rough road ahead.

As campaign stylists, Clinton now and Nixon then, offer little to recommend them. The word you heard about Nixon then and hear about Hillary now is "programmed"; "too publicly calculating" also comes into the mix.

There's not much spontaneity in politics today; most campaigns in this outrageously expensive era are minutely managed and "spontaneity" is something to be feared.

But Clinton, as Nixon did in his time, seems to suffer from a more of a want of spontaneity than most.

Her laughter always seems a bit forced, just as Nixon eyes never seemed to join the rest of his face in a smile. There was a rigid, plastic quality about Nixon on the stump - he never seemed quite comfortable before an audience. It's a flaw she shares.

Poor platform performers both - lousy candidates, if you like - but better and more widely known than any rivals, and damn good debaters.

Personal shortcomings notwithstanding, both began their second bids for the White House as runaway favorites for one overriding reason: the crippled state of their opposition.

The Democratic Party that faced Nixon in 1968 was busy tearing itself apart over Vietnam, Civil Rights, and urban unrest, and had just gone through a ruinous national convention. In winning its nomination, Hubert Humphrey, as one national correspondent put it, "could have gotten a better deal in bankruptcy court." He seemed a made-to-order loser.

The GOP opposing Hillary (assuming she's the Democratic nominee) is almost as badly divided and dispirited as the '68 Democrats. Moreover, its frontrunner, the winner in three of the first four state tests, is widely believed by the punditry and the party establishment to be a sure-enough loser in November.

All things considered, Hillary Clinton, should she survive Sen. Bernie Sanders' challenge, can expect to enter the November election as much a top-heavy favorite as Nixon was in 1968, which should scare the daylights out of Democrats.

Nixon faded in the stretch and blew most of his long lead, winning by less than one percent in the popular vote while carrying the Electoral College. Not the kind of victory likely to give comfort to any early heavy favorite this November.

More John Farmer columns

John Farmer may be reached at jfarmer@starledger.com. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.