Hillary Must Get Control of Bill
MORE
Joe Conason
The most likely motive for Bill Clinton’s reckless political performance in recent weeks, ironically and sadly, is to redress the terrible humiliations he inflicted on his wife in years past. But unless he quickly regains control of himself, the most likely result will be to inflict irreparable damage on the presidential aspirations of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Whether he has done that much harm already remains to be determined in the primaries ahead. At the very least, however, the former president has begun to change the polarity of his own presence in her campaign from positive to negative—and to raise real questions about the meaning of his return to the White House.
It is probably safe to say that when the Democratic primaries began, most Americans looked back on the Clinton administration with the nostalgia that the people of the Middle Ages probably felt about the years before the arrival of the plague. Regardless of Mr. Clinton’s flaws, the people perceived him as a competent, intelligent and compassionate president who left the nation in better condition than when he took office, a judgment that enraged his critics in the media and the Republican Party.
It also seems reasonable to assume that the memory of the Clinton years, as well as the good works that he has done around the world, shone a benign light on his wife’s candidacy. The same personalities that have long hated both Clintons nurtured their grudge, but her long lead in the polls showed that many voters simply dismissed all the old canards and suspicions, just as they did 10 years ago. She was marching steadily toward the Democratic nomination.
When the rise of Barack Obama threatened her progress, with his victory in Iowa and that close call in New Hampshire, Mr. Clinton lost his compass. The man who has been praised even by his enemies as the most talented politician of his generation committed gaffe after gaffe. Perhaps more important, he stooped from the dignity of his position, as ex-president and world statesman, to attack her rival. In his zeal to protect and advance his wife, he injured himself and her.
How could he not have understood that his blunt intrusion into the campaign would diminish her? Why would he not realize that stepping on a young, idealistic junior senator—who happens to be African-American—would look like bullying? What made him think that he should voice the most aggressive attacks on Mr. Obama, after the series of clumsy surrogates who had embarrassed his wife in New Hampshire?
And after years of bitter experience in coping with a largely hostile press corps, whose animus remains vividly on display in this primary campaign, why would Mr. Clinton speak without thinking very carefully about how his words might be interpreted—or misinterpreted?
Nobody who knows the Clintons believes that they would intentionally deploy racial stereotypes for political gain, let alone that they harbor racial prejudice. Listening to actual bigots like Rush Limbaugh gloat over the divisive debate in South Carolina is truly sickening.
But in the aftermath of the absurd argument over the civil rights contributions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon B. Johnson, and the stupid “cocaine” remarks of Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn, the former president’s remarks following the South Carolina primary were stunning. By comparing Mr. Obama’s huge win to earlier victories by Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, he was making a factual point that could hardly be denied. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Jackson are black men who benefited from the dominance of African-American voters in that state’s Democratic primary.
In some circumstances, Mr. Clinton’s statement would have been heard as harmless. After all, The Nation magazine dubbed South Carolina “the black primary” on its cover not long ago, and no one took offense. In the sensitive atmosphere of this primary season, however, when every utterance from either Clinton will be twisted and turned so easily, he should have realized that any such comparison would be heard as a “dog whistle” inviting white backlash.
Cynics have joked that Mr. Clinton was seeking to harm rather than help his wife’s campaign, while others have warned against his will to power (and the constitutional issues that might raise in a second Clinton administration). More likely he believes that his wife is the best candidate—and that he is deeply irritated by the press bias against her and for her current adversary. But if she doesn’t control him, then he will undo her, no matter what he intends.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
This column echoes others that have tried to paint Hillary Clinton as an "innocent" in Bill's behavior and comments, but their moves were obviously coordinated, as evidenced by Hillary's pointing out in one debate that it was not she who had referenced Ronald Reagan in criticizing Obama, but her husband. The role that Bill and other surrogates play gives her plausible deniability, but a smart columnist like Joe should see through that and point it out to his readers. Whose idea was it to suggest that students shouldn't be able to vote in Iowa (since they were for Obama), or to sue to prevent the Culinary Workers from caucusing in their workplaces in Nevada (because they were for Obama), or to leave her name on the ballot in Michigan and to essentially run in Florida, with an eye toward breaking party rules somewhere down the line? Were these accidents that were simply out of Hillary's hands as well, or are they further evidence that Hillary has not only torn several pages out of the Karl Rove playbook, but that she has seriously studied them? Time to buy stock in Kool Aid, 'cuz so many Democrats and pundits are still drinking it.
What? Obama is BLACK? OMG!!!
Former President Bill Clintons' "blunders" (which Karl Roves would never have let happen) stems from over confidence on Bill Clintons part. As a "Southern" politician he should have known better than anyone that the title "first black president" was an honorary one.
Many sincere civil rights white Southern politicians enjoyed the support of black voters...until up against a Black canidate..
Dear Eric....The "race baiters" as you put it come from FOX New Networks and their strangle hold on nearly ALL the news and talk radio in the country...for years the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have blammed everything bad especially,the economy on Black people!
Gee, they never even mentioned "illegals" until they had been here long enough to raise kids to reach the voting age!
I've been listening to the main stream and right wing media's (hard to tell the difference sometimes) breathless and hysterical reactions to Bill Clintons statements about senator Obama for the last few weeks. Can anyone give me an actual example of anything Clinton has said that can be demonstrated to be false or even misleading? I love Joe Conason but I think he's wrong to hold Bill Clinton responsible for the behaviour of the Clinton-hating media.
Obama lost his cool in the South Carolina debate and was as responsible as anyone for the contentious tone that the debate and the primary campain have taken. If Obama thinks anything the Clintons have said is unfair or misleading, just wait 'till the right wing slime machine gets him in their crosshairs should he become the Democratic nomanee.
I'll just be glad when the primaries are over, so we can get on to running the GOP out of the White House. I admire John McCain, but if he runs against Hillary then there will be two flawed candidates on the ballot, and liberals are more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt than there is that the talk radio wing of the GOP will give HIM the benefit of the doubt. I deplore the Clintons' efforts to muddy up Obama, and anyone who doesn't think that's exactly what the Clinton campaign has attempted to do has never been to Arkansas. If Obama overcomes Hillary's lead, then he'll have been blooded and will be able to handle whatever the GOP sloshes his way. And, man, it's gonna be a long muddy way to November.
The only slime machine at play in this primary season is the Clinton slime machine and their brand of politics aka "personal destruction"
Mr. Conason: Your analysis is succinct with your article's facts, and you have provided well for the truth those facts bring forth to the light of day: I as just a man in this democratic-republic refuse to base my opinion on who shall best serve as President on an acceptance of rumor and lies, things circulated among the people by the press and so-called political operatives or pundits. But this man, Barack Obama, does he say that I am stupid! I should answer those Kennedys and that Kerry thus, "The man is a man, but is he not a bit young for all this? Already, he has started on the road of falsity, as you have so just now demonstrated. No, that woman's innocence I so do prefer in this our democratic-republic."
ME
frediefit...More accusations with no examples. Just like the main stream and right wing media.
What nobody is mentioning is the undeniable slap at Jessee Jackson.
"Don't you DARE compare Obama to Jesse," as though Jesse was another Willie Horton.
How ashamed is the Black community of Jackson, anyway?
And who was the last Democrat to WIN back to back presidential elections? Kerry? Gore? Oh, that's right, it was the Clintons.
How in the world can we deny Bill 8 more years of his choice of White House interns. Please, we the people owe then that after all the hell we put them thru because of Monica. Come on guys let's give them 8 years with carte blanche for Bill & Hill.
I've never understood the apparent thrall that Bill Clinton has among...the enthralled. I mean, we've all known guys like him in high school or college, guys who “get ahead” for no apparent reason other than their ability to schmooze and glad-hand. They're often smart, verbally adroit, but disappointingly shallow, and, as in Bill’s case, increasingly arrogant with age and wealth.
After these recent confirmations of the real Bill Clinton since his perjurious fall, is anyone of sound mind really proposing that we allow this rooster back into the White House?
Joe, you're free to disagree with or dislike Rush Limbaugh, but calling him a bigot is something you should either refrain from or back up with facts-- which you don't have.
I've seen a few clips of Bill's recent campaigning-- regardless of the accuracy of his statements, it's undeniable that he has learned nothing about the costs of his selfish behavior-- can't help himself from hogging the limelight, that he's losing his post-presidential stature by doing so, and that by her refusal to tell him to sit down, he's already made Hillary look like she can't lead her own campaign, let alone the country.
This will be an Obama vs. McCain election and the country will be better for it. Time for the Clintons to retire.
The Clintons, as with the Bushes, see what is supposed to be Government Service as a business opportunity for the "two-fer" setup. In Arkansas, Bill was Governor and Hill joined a major lawfirm as partner, joined the Walmart Board and participated in all kinds of speculative deals...as First Lady of Arkansas. During the Clinton Administration the Lincoln Bedroom became an ATM for post Clinton Admin. deals that never have been tolerated by a former President by Al Gore. Today's NYTimes front page details how Bill has been using his time, commoditizing the Presidency while his wife was Senator/President-in-Waiting in NY. The desperation exhibited post Iowa and in SC, replete w/self-serving businessmen like BOB JOHNSON, indicated another agenda is on the horizon that (as w/the Bushes) has NOTHING to do with the needs of the American people. The NYT, who endorsed the FUSED 3rd Term to commoditize the Presidency and exploit the interests of the American people, finally returned to their journalistic roots today w/the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?hp - After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity
More should have been done to investigate the last 7 years of seemy business deals under the guise of the Library and Charitable Foundation. More needs to be ASKED about how profitable this "two-fer" setup, leveraging POWER for business deals that interfere with our foreign policy, etc. It should have been done BEFORE now. We have 6 days and the DONOR lists should be made public NOW...before the debate tonight...and certainly before they wag their fingers in our faces again. Saying she can't control Bill, while he is amassing a fortune -- and visa versa -- is TIRED and DECEITFUL. It is a sweet setup and the victims are the American people. Turn the page.
I agree! Those eight years of PEACE and PROSPERITY were truly unbearable, weren't they?
"Anonymous (not verified) says:
Joe, you're free to disagree with or dislike Rush Limbaugh, but calling him a bigot is something you should either refrain from or back up with facts-- which you don't have"
HEY JOE:
How does it feel when someone tells YOU to watch what you're saying?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
"Nobody who knows the Clintons believes that they would intentionally deploy racial stereotypes for political gain.."
Oh Please, stop it, my sides!
8 years of peace and prosperity-- please. this was produced not by Billy and Hilly but by 8 years of DC gridlock with D's and R's who viewed govt as lifetime employment cancelling each other out. Wall Street loves a divided government, which is why Main Street keeps electing one. voters may do nutty things, but that giant hand of enlightened self-interest generally works.
So according to your divided-congress 'theory' we are experiencing peace and prosperity at the pesent time?
I heard somewhere that stupid people are a lot happier than smart people-is that true?
The main problem I have with the Democratic party is their lack of fight. They will not fight for what they believe. The refreshing quality of the Clinton's is their fight. They will fight and win. Would only that they rest of the Democratic party learn from them. GO BILL AND HILL!
"I don’t read anything negative into Clinton’s observation.
Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion,
I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."
-- Jesse Jackson, asking "What the f*ck?" when the Black community went bat-shit crazy when Clinton dared to mention his name in Carolina.
Thanks, Ohio Don. Now I don't have to say it. It is a false premise to say that Bill needs to tone it down when he hasn't said anything that merits the criticism. What doesn't seem to get through to some people is that anything he says will be distorted anyway. Conason admits is as well.
Bill wouldn't need to say mucy if the media were giving fair treatment to both sides.