On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bill Clinton has taken a larger role in his wife's campaign, and is now serving as a de facto chief strategist. For Hillary and much of the media, such a move makes quite a bit of sense. For more than a decade, the press has taken to describing Bill as the greatest political strategist in the party. Through much of 2007, the Clinton campaign was constantly lauded, not just for its commanding style, but for having Bill on the team, the kind of asset that would make Hillary an unstoppable juggernaut.
But Bill Clinton is not now, nor has he ever been, a particularly impressive political strategist. Few would dispute the depth of his skills as a politician; but the chasm between politician and political strategist is wide, and one he has consistently failed to bridge. Isiah Thomas was an extraordinarily gifted basketball player, and has gone on to be one of the worst basketball coaches the NBA has ever seen. Bill Clinton is to politics what Isiah Thomas is to basketball. He can hit the political jumper, but he cannot call the plays.
Still, the Clinton campaign has allowed Bill to make decision after decision and long ago lost the ability to prevent him from straying off message. So much of what has plagued the Clinton campaign has been the direct result of Bill's actions. In the run-up to the South Carolina primary, Bill injected race into the campaign, trying to marginalize Obama by making an unprompted comparison to Jesse Jackson's presidential runs. That decision solidified the black vote behind Obama, who usually enjoys as much of 90% of their support. Even more damaging, a new Newsweek poll has Hillary winning a mere 59% of the black vote against John McCain, a number that would make Hillary's ascension to the presidency impossible.
While in South Carolina, Bill also introduced the notion that he could not be controlled, that Hillary was either willing to have him campaign as an equal, or powerless to stop him. Bill Clinton as senior counselor was one thing; Bill Clinton as co-president was quite another.
He has also demonstrated, on more than one occasion, that the brand of politics he mastered is far different than the technologically driven political landscape that now exists. He has repeatedly contradicted himself on the campaign trail, seemingly unaware of the impact of YouTube. Just last week, he was recorded saying that Obama had played the race card against him, only to deny having said it the following day.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that it is Bill that is and has been pushing Hillary to step up her attacks against Obama, attacks that have done little to derail the Obama campaign; they have instead driven Hillary's negatives up and her trustworthiness down. And as Bill continues to be Hillary's most aggressive attack dog, he has shed the statesman persona that he worked so hard to cultivate in the years of his post-presidency, permanently scarring his legacy.
Perhaps worst of all, it was Bill Clinton who suggested Mark Penn, one of his closest advisors, to head up his wife's campaign. That Bill viewed the 2008 contest as a microtrend race, and that he suspected an unsavory pollster with no experience running a presidential campaign should be in charge, is evidence enough that Bill's grasp on political strategy is tentative at best.
At this point, the Clinton campaign is long over, existing now only on fumes and denial. To that end, whether Bill takes a more central role in the campaign or not will have little impact on the outcome of the race. It is, however, yet another example of poor decision-making by a woman who is vying to be the chief decision maker.
Bill Clinton does not deserve a promotion. He deserves to be fired.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I hate those damn Clintons!....trying to appear as though they really care about the poor. The Clintons care about themselves, but they've managed to fool people that are too blind to see them for what they are.
So much for honest dialogue.
There is one other obvious point of comparison between Bill Clinton and Isiah Thomas....
They both like to touch women that they're not supposed to touch. Both have found themselves in some trouble for such behavior.
Just for the record Monday is Do not drive day in support of the trucking industry! Everything comes by truck, we need to show our support, its only 24 hours, otherwise don't complain and shut up!
To bolster the Isiah Thomas analogy, let's talk Phil Jackson. He was a below average to mediocre player, but is regarded by many as the *best* NBA coach. Ever. David Axelrod is Phil Jackson to Bill Clinton's Isiah.
The only people left reading, is the choir you have been directing. The anti-Clinton vitriole is an exercise in creative writing. Bill Clinton is not running for President. If you don't think Hillary has the chops to be the next President of the United States, then maybe you should enumerate the reasons why. Apparently this is very difficult for you, so that you have resorted to the type of yellow journalism that creates false premises then shoots them down.
I am struck your style that that mimics perfectly the GOP machine. They can't compete with ideas either, and can only find comfort in false dialogue and side shows. You may say you are progressive, but you don't think or comport yourselves as Democrats.
"If you don't think Hillary has the chops to be the next President of the United States, then maybe you should enumerate the reasons why."
Maybe he doesn't because the reasons why she doesn't have it are too numerous, and too obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, to waste his time stating them again.
She has what it takes to be president - the polls are in her favor. What's your problem?
Another great post. Watching Bill's interactions with the press, I have often wondered whether he was subconsciously trying to sink Hillary. Then I just thought about how much ego anyone must have to run for president (which requires believing that you are uniquely qualified to lead a nation of over 300 million). I don't think that the ego that drove Bill to run all those years ago is allowing him to sit back and play second fiddle to his wife now. Whenever, it looks like she is on top of things, he seems to be compelled to step into the limelight by making an ass of himself. If his actions weren't so destructive of the Democratic party's chances in November, they would merely be sad.
I think you fail to comprehend the beauty of what bill has done for his wife in this race. By south carolina it was apparent who the votes hillary and obama were going to fight over. White blue collar males.
The question then became how to win the blue collar whites. Heading into south carolina a race his wife was guaranteed to lose, Bill got to raise the race card. This mattered in terms of marginalizing the perception of her defeat, as well as allowed the campaign to enter the race card into the picture. Once entered into the picture it then became fair game conversation for pundits. But how to do that without looking like it was the Clinton Campaign and minimizing damage. You use the "First Black President" and you dissasscoiate him from the campaign so it looks like it isn't the campaigns position. You've swallowed that last part hook line and sinker. Now women offended by hillary's victimization in monicagate again feel Bill is victimizing her strenthening their support.
The campaign has now strengthened it's support with women, Set bill up to be a rogue attack dog, and marginalized perception of Obama's wins. Fast forward a bit and they succeed in casting him as both an ivory tower elitist and a black vote candidiate two things white males might not like.
Now, Hillary is no longer the establishment elite candidate. Sure they offended the college educated whites and blacks but they had already written that vote off.
I have a question, because I really don't know so much politics as all of you do on this blog. Can Hillary pick Bill as her VP?
She's more likely to give him a slot on the Surpreme Court or in her cabinet (e.g., Secretary of State). This will be his compensation for a Job Well Done in helping to destroy Sen. Obama. If Clinton II ever comes to pass, Democrats can rest assured that they will be doomed to four more years of the Bill Clinton Sleaze Fest that only he is uniquely capable of delivering.
I believe she can. I don't think that it would benefit her if she did. And the BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THAT HILLARY CAN'T WIN SHE'S LOSING SHE BEEN LOSING AND SHE HAS LOST. THE ONLY REASON SHE'S STILL IN THE RACE IS BECAUSE SHE'S OUT OF MONEY AND IN DEBT.
I believe this is very, very sad for billary.
Constitutional scholars generally believe the answer to be no, but it's up for some interpretation.
The 25th amendment governs the line of succession, and it's allowable to have someone in the line of succession who is not eligible for the presidency. (i.e. Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright).
However, the Vice Presidency is also governed by Article II of the Constitution, which requires that the Vice President have the capacity to take over the presidency in the event of the president's death.
So short answer.... probably, No. And in reality, she would never do that.
thankyou for explaining it.
The Clintons know how to win.
I still don't see anything negative about either of the Clintons.
If Dean doesn't screw up this election prosses further, I will thoroughly enjoy the Clintons in the White House, once again.
They are good people, and for you.
Try to see that. And enjoy them.
Look, Hillary on one hand---Valedictorian, PHd type, with 8 years experience as Vice Pres, also in Gov's Mansion for years, also two time Senator----aginst---on the other hand----Obama---a Freshman.
Come on! These are serious, complicated times! We can't have a freshman in there now!
Wasn't Lincoln a "freshman" one-term Congressman when he became President? Pretty "complicated times" back then, too.
Maureen, I admire your passion and commitment to your candidate. None of the current presidential hopefuls are perfect. That said, how can you possibly see nothing at all negative about either of the Clintons? It makes me suspect you haven't taken a very close look .....
You're not my mother, my pastor, my doctor or my psychiatrist, so you have no right or basis on which to tell me what's good for me.
You may be a psychic or a fortune teller but you haven't proved it, so you have no way of knowing who will or will not make a good President, apart from the same subjective criteria that I'm quite capable of judging for myself.
In short, I have no need to, "try to see," your biased opinion as though it were fact.
P.S. We're always in, "serious, complicated times." I don't think the Revolutionary War, institutionalized slavery, the Civil War, the First, Second or Cold Wars or Vietnam, etcetera were an uncomplicated cakewalk.
As much as she'd like it otherwise the First Lady is not VP. (Al Gore had that job.) What is a PhD type? She's not a PhD. She was also First Lady of Arkansas. So in reality her experience advantage comes down to having a few more years in the U.S. Senate. And Obama at least held elective state office for years before his Senate run.
Either of these people would do a better job than McBush. But the race is over. Obama won.
You better take another look at the polls. She is favored over McCain to win - McCain is favored over Obama to win.
We have serious problems in the United States with our economy and Bill Clinton had a proven track record. He ran on the campaign slogan "its the economy stupid" and when he got in office he fixed the economy.
Hillary's campaign has only two planks: Bill's record and her gender. Of course he's going to insist on being up front in it.
If we can't have Mark "Mr. Microtrends" Penn steering the good ship Hillary, then who better than Bill "I don't have to put up with this shit" Clinton.
Besides, if anyone thinks the Republicans will hesitate to bring up Bill's sex life where the Obama campaign and surrogates have resisted, they are crazy. Obama is being attacked for being the member of a church where the pastor said some unsavory things. Do you think Hillary won't be asked why she didn't get up and leave a man who not only humiliated and betrayed her but but also the Oval Office and the presidency. Do you think she agreed any more with what Bill did than Obama agreed with his pastor? Bill hasn't even begun to be an issue in this race if Hillary is given the nomination. What about possible relationships Bill has had since the White House? Doesn't matter if they're real or not. Keep in mind, he's been proven guilty once so all it takes is the accusation. Then comes the questions, did Hillary know? How long has she known? Why did she stay with him? Was it for her own personal gain in running for the White House? These things only scratch the surface and they will do far worse than what could be done to Obama. Are you kidding, this is like the entire right being given a second chance to really do the Clintons in. All the things they've thought in the years since, "Oh, you know what we should have done..." They'll all be there.
I have never understood why Bill Clinton Is considered such a great politician. Consider...
1. If it wasn't for Ross Perot entering and re-entering the race, He would have lost to a guy who had the economy severely tank on his watch.
2. People make so much of "Bittergate" we forget about Geniffer Flowers and the "I didn't inhale" comment.
3. He entered the presidency with his office and both houses of congress controlled by the democratic party, he left office with the Repups controlling it all
If that is the record of a brilliant politician what would a failure look like?
The Clintons are indeed a pair. Bill puts an abysmally uninformed, unqualified Hillary in charge of health-care, who recently said of that 'event' that she is still scarred by it. She's scarred by it? How about the other 300 million of us, Hillary.
Now Hillary puts Bill in charge of her campaign. She'll lose. Bill will have managed to scar Obama to the point where McCain will walk away with the election. And the other 300 million of us after 8 more years of Republican rape and pillage? Probably in the third world, but hey, Hillary and Bill will be up and running in 2016. Mission accomplished.
Democrats are wallowing in disiveness because the race issue has been purposely elevated.
Many Democrats respect the 90:10 support that Barack is receiving from African Americans. However, Party leaders James Clyburn and Donna Brazile are doing Democrats a disservice by calling Bill Clinton out with timely and somewhat misleading assertions about his comments. The recklessness is shared by both campaigns.
Clinton didn't "inject" race into the campaign. It was already there. The Obama crowd will see to that.
Also, who is surprised that a bunch of voters that are only voting for Obama because of his skin color aren't interested in voting for anyone else?
That's Bill Clinton's fault? Please.
Don't you find it odd that this same "bunch of voters that are only voting for Obama because of his skin color" voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton? Was that because of his skin color? Or perhaps that "bunch of voters" actually has the capacity to make an informed and rational decision when it comes to elections. I, for one, am getting a little tired of being called so stupid that I can't see past a persons skin tone when deciding the future for my country and my children. I vote for Obama because he demonstrates a capacity for treating me like an adult. He has run a campaign that has demonstrated a management style and ability that we need in this country. I don't want a President that can't pay her bills, can't control her staff, keeps people around that are obviously unqualified and spends her time trying to find a scapegoat for her shortcomings. Been there, done that. Bush in a pantsuit holds no appeal to me.
Too bad that this Obama supporter who will NEVER vote for Mrs. Clinton is white as whipped cream. My respect for Mr. Obama has everything to do with him being an insightful orator who is perfectly consistent about who he is and who delivers political analysis about the state of this nation that are spot on.
And my absolute disrespect for Mrs. Clinton has obviously something to do with the fact that this country does not need a president who remembers running over a flight field under sniper fire while a videotape shows how she is actually chatting with little girls. A US president has to have the mental ability to keep his or her own experiences straight. At this point I don't think one can say that about Mrs. Clinton.
Bill would be Hillary's Dick Cheney (shudder).
And yet she's considered a tough, independent-minded woman, a role model for women and girls. Right.
I am SO SO SO over Bill Clinton, who was not a great president. A good president, a thousand times more human that what we see today, but by no means great.
Even though the Clinton's were sharp as a tack getting elected in Arkansas and later to the white house, their endlessly vaunted savvy has failed.
They are now showing themselves to be more of the same old same in a desperate, clawing bid for power that only a fool would think is motivated by altruism.
Senator Clinton would be better than what we have, but I don't believe they (yes THEY) will lead the country in a new direction.
I do believe that hanging with Papa Bush gave Bill new insight on power and obscene wealth.
Bill and hill have shown themselves to be neocons. As rove got an unimpressive, intellectually challenged alcholic , substance abusing sociopath elected twice by using morally questionable tactics, the clinton's have embraced with fervor, these same dispicable tactics. As bush purposely divided our country with these tactics, the Clinton's are purposely dividing the party for the same ends. The really vile and disgusting fact is that it works. We don't elect people who can govern, we elect people that can campaign. The dream left with the lack of education. Wish that we had some intelligent newspeople.
I just found out that Hillary was a Republican- Now everything makes sense. She's taking pages from the Republican handbook because she knows it well. I think it's disgusting that the Billary think that those tactics we will work. I agree with Bronceye and it's seems that they plan on completely dividing the Democratic party. It's obvious that they are wolves in sheep's clothing. BILLARY CAN'T WIN- OBAMA HAS WON ON EVERY MEASURE THAT COUNTS AND SOME THAT DON'T LIKE POPULAR VOTE( IT DOESN'T COUNT) BILLARY CAN'T MAKE THEIR OWN RULES THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH BUSH.
Obama has won 28 states to hillary's 14 states (twice as many for those of you who can't count.
Obama has more delegates and more popular votes by 500,000 americans of all colors/creeds.
Obama has run an amazing campaign. He's not in debt and he raised the money from small donors not large companies that will expect favors later/ or lobby with lots of money for legislature that only benefits them. That's the problem that we'll in now.
I hope that America can still believe in the possibilities of a greater America. Please our children and our children's children won't survive if we don't make a stand.
He's done the Democratic party more harm than good -- and the ratio is gettng much worse every day.
Everyone seems to have forgotten how he embarrassed our party and drug us through the mud with his shenanigans. I knew Hillary to be divisive and now she is showing us all how polarizing she can actually be. She has no regard for our party by continuing on with this farce. I question the ethics of those that are continuing to vote and support her.
Posted April 28, 2008 | 08:29 AM (EST)