January 22, 2008

Hillary's Bill Problem

Political spouses have traditionally filled the role of supporting player in a candidacy. They are not usually the focus, and when they are (Jackie Kennedy) it is not as a policy figure. But as usual, Bill Clinton is breaking all the rules.

Maureen Dowd makes a good point here, one made by many others recently.

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.

The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

Now given that Clinton's legacy can best be summed up with the phrases "blue dress", "semen stain", "impeachment" and "perjury", I don't know how much lower seamier and damaged his legacy can get -- but he certainly is trying. And in doing so, I believe he harms his wife's candidacy for office.

Indeed, that phrase I used above is precisely the source of the harm. -- "his wife".

Hillary Clinton wants to be President of the United States. She is running for the office. She needs to be out front, and HER spouse needs to be in the background, even if he is the immediate past president. If elected, this will be her administration, not his, and she will have to be making the tough calls and being the public face. Unfortunately, Bill has taken center stage much of the time, serving as hatchet man. And it is an unbecoming role. More importantly, it makes Hillary look weak, as if she has to hide behind her husband when the going gets tough. that may not actually be the case, but it is the perception.

I think Peggy Noonan made an interesting related point over the weekend on Meet the Press.

MS. NOONAN: Can I say, on the campaign trail, one of the things I find jarring the past few weeks is that Hillary Clinton is the first major party woman running for president of the United States. She is a woman. She's running for president. She's running for head of the United States, chief executive officer. And she has to send her husband out to yell at the neighbors? It's like she's, she's saying, "You go out there, you fight for me. My husband's going to tell you off!" There's something strange, jarring, unbecoming and even unfeminist about it.

MS. GOODWIN: I doubt that she's sending him out. I think he's going out on his own.

MS. NOONAN: You think he's just on his own. Oh, my goodness, it's her campaign. If she didn't want him out there wagging his finger, turning red and arguing with reporters and bringing a level of temper and heat to the proceedings, if she did not want that, I'm sure she would stop it. And if she cannot, we should all just stop and take a breath.

If Hillary is hiding behind Bill, she is showing a level of weakness that is unbecoming in a president. But if, as some are saying (and Maureen Dowd is implying) Bill is in control here, then Hillary is equally unfit for the Oval Office, having shown an inability to control her own campaign and set her own message. Until and unless she can make her finger-wagging, purple-raging spouse fade into the background, she is showing why she is really not the best choice for the White House.

For Hillary Clinton to succeed, she must eclipse Bill Clinton, because his status as former president has the ability to do great damage to her administration on a policy level if she is not front and center and the clear voice of that administration. She needs to demonstrate that as a candidate if she is to prove herself worthy of victory in the primaries and the general election.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 729 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I would like to thank Maureen Dowd for focusing on the unseemly spectacle of Bill Clinton's expedient disregard for his stature as a past president. For all her virtues, Hillary Clinton brings way too much baggage with her. Not the least of which is the tacit approval that America would be giving to dynastic politics by electing her. Obama and McCain are capable people and either would serve the country as well and better than the Clintons. Dynasties weaken institutions. America has never needed its institutions more than now as it loses its lingering post-WWII lustre and faces intense competition from Europe, Russia and Asia. For that reason, this is an important election and I hope for the sake of the country that it rejects the expedient choice.

Posted by: concerned at Wed Jan 23 04:43:33 2008 (fUWPH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0052, elapsed 0.0127 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0087 seconds, 30 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]