Hillary Clinton Rolls Out the "World's Toughest Job" Canard On The Letterman Show; How Difficult Is It To Be The Top Banana, Really?

"It's the toughest job in the world." That's how Hillary Clinton repeatedly described the top spot she's in avid pursuit of, on the David Letterman Show last night. She made the remark as part of a tightly scripted performance that bounced between seriousness (the war in Iraq), sanctimony (her sadness about Senator Craig's lavatory crisis) and humor (much self-deprecating pants-suit shtick). All of it, of course, was delivered from the couch, creating an illusion of intimacy, the faux-spontaneity that talk shows peddle as authenticity.

It was only this morning when it struck me that the tired bromide of the presidency being the toughest job in the world is actually a complete falsehood. (Senator Clinton's constant use of the line, by the way, was a savvy smack at the Senator Obama, whose lack of experience is a perceived weakness).

I can, in fact, think of hundreds of jobs that are harder than the presidency. And I think you can, too. There are soldiers in Iraq, coal miners, single moms saddled with subprime mortgages, hospice workers, first responders and grief counselors. Not to mention Lindsay Lohan's PR advisor and anyone who needs to compete with Google.

What Senator Clinton was really talking about was responsibility. That might make the presidency the most important job in the world - with all the America-centrism that encodes - but that's very different than degree of difficulty.

Being president, in fact, is one of the easiest jobs in the world. Forget the obvious perks like never having to go through airport security, never having to ask twice to get sauce on the side, and never hanging on for an hour to talk to someone in India about your hard drive.

Honestly, what is so hard about the gig? You can hire the smartest, wisest people in the country at below market rate. (Very few people turn down a job in the White House). At the very least, if they don't point you to success and brilliance, they should at least stop you from doing dumb, self-destructive things.

You also have access to the best information in the world; if you choose not to listen, or if you're too dumb to ask the right questions because you don't understand (or don't want to understand) institutional defensiveness, that's your problem. Then there's the clout of the most powerful office in the world.

When you think about recent presidential screw-ups, what reporters like to call domestic and foreign policy disasters, few if any of them came about because the job was "tough." Or because of external forces beyond the president's control. Most of them were simply stupid decisions, self-inflicted wounds created by usual toxic stew of bad judgment, faith in the wrong people, and the trap of feeling committed to standing behind - and then expanding -- some small, bad calls. And, of course, there's also that pesky narcissism that comes from life in the bubble.

Consider the escalation of the War in Viet Nam, Watergate , our continued support of the Shah of Iran, Iran contra, Senator Clinton's very own health care initiative, the War in Iraq, our response to Hurricane Katrina. If you were able to look objectively at the situation, synthesize diverse points of view, utilize some basic scenario-building and game theory, you would have avoided all of these messes.

Needless to say, the job of president can present some monumental challenges and extraordinary demands. But it's been more than fifty years since the last time when the "toughest job in the world" moniker was applicable. FDR had the simultaneous burden of coping with the depression, establishing the Lend Lease program in the face of an isolationist public, and leading us through World War II. (You can also toss in the one-week crescendo of the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Come to think of it, David Letterman has a harder job than the president. He's got to make the artificial seem real, and be funny while doing it. Now that's tough.

Comments

[Menemshasunset]

Those who hate Hillary because of her Iraq vote have not done their homework- Hillary Clinton was on the armed services committee- She was assured by Collin Powell (as were Biden & Dodd)the only sanity in the White House, that neither he nor the military had any intention of invading Iraq. If you will recall, Senator Wellstone et al were trying to lift sanctions against Iraq for humanitarian reasons- The only way the US could get Iraq to accept weapons inspectors was to have a big stick-and not one of those who voted (who knew how the government works) would not have wanted-had they been President-to have that power. Obama and every other so-called progressive can demonize Hillary Clinton all they want-but it was much more complicated than we are lead to believe. Clinton's floor speech cautioned the President to use the vote wisely and not to change our policy of pre-emption. You folks are blaming the wrong person and it's the only excuse most of you have for bashing her- Do not knee jerk right wing attacks- it's the least we can expect from those who say they care-

[Rowland]

This comment is proof positive that the obfuscation of the facts by the Clinton campaign is effective. The fact is however that not only did Mrs. Clinton vote yes on the resolution used to go to war, she did not read the classified report that caused Senator Graham of Florida and others to be outspokenly against the resolution.

Further, the poster of this comment buys into the administration"s position that Iraq ejected the weapons inspectors. Readers are well advised to consider Scot Ritter"s views on what really happened. The fact is the administration was using the United Nations inspectors as spies on Iraq to further the invasion. It was the Bush administration that pulled the inspectors so they could bomb.

Further still, Mrs. Clinton has seen bombing as the thing to do as far back as 1997 and consistently through to the present.

There were many, many people who saw through the administration"s intel claims and Mrs. Clinton, in her desire to seem tough enough to be commander in chief, chose to not be one of them. Now she has to live with that. It is not a knee jerk right wing attack to point out that the hawks were and are in both parties and to paper over that is to ask for more of the same. Mrs. Clinton"s present view is to lead with "we must start now to bring our troops home." But if you listen to what she is really saying, she plans to use the "enduring bases" just like Bush.

[Desiderata]

I'm for Edwards, but not because I want to fit in with the the popular anti-Hillary crowd.

[klondiker]

What an inane post!

Of course she was talking about the responsibility that comes with the job. Everybody knows that in this case "tough" wasn't referring to physical labour.

Considering the fact that decisions made on that job have the ability to influence billions of people around the world, yeah I would say that it's the toughest job in the world.

What's surprising is that you were able to squeeze out an entire post based on that one line. Remarkable!

[PixelMarx]

If the presidency of the United States is the world's toughest job, then we should all be a bit more easy on George W Bush, considering the resources he has at his personal disposal for dealing with this difficult position.

The truth is, it's not the most difficult job, or the most important job, is just the most desired job by people who seek visible power. And it's a power only given by the people that elect them.

[Rowland]

Mrs. Clinton"s voice on Letterman never came down off the platform delivery level to the one-on-one that the setting implied. It cast her remarks as staged phoniness that the content corroborated. She's a consistent person on "the campaign trail", is always on and projects a persona of being larger than life.

What is implicit in the Clinton campaign is the undercurrent of the feminist agenda that plays off the opposition to her from those who see red at the very thought of her as president. One would be remiss if this lurking issue were not taken into consideration. In the heat of the upcoming battle, it will take very little to prod a Clinton Democratic campaign into asserting that this year is a referendum on gender politics.

There was an interesting take on this proposition the evening before on Charlie Rose who interviewed Connie Schultz, a handsome, talented woman who is a Cleveland columnist for The Plain Dealer newspaper for which she won the 2005 Pulitzer. She"s married to an equally handsome and talented Sherrod Brown, the new darling Democratic Senator of Ohio, newest presidential crowning state.

Ms Schultz combines an informed mind, a sense of humor and an unremitting feminism in her new book, "And His Lovely Wife: A Memoir from the Woman Beside the Man". The title tells it all. The Google Book Search calls her, "every political consultant"s nightmare." She sees the inevitable election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency as God"s belated acceptance of the plain fact that only a woman can solve the problems of the hour.

If the Democratic Party puts to sea with this agenda, its hidden weapon, still unspoken, it risks, more studied issues aside, having feminism as its only real passionate answer to the maelstrom ahead. Gender rights are of fundamental importance to our country"s future but if we fail to turn away immediately from the iceberg of corporate/government fascism, feminism will be as effective as those who served sandwiches on the upper decks of the Titanic as the lower decks slipped under the waves.

[altohone]

I too objected to the feminist argument as espoused by Schultz on Charlie Rose.

"It's our turn" is hardly just cause to vote in a woman as president.

While I would love to see a woman elected, electing the wrong woman, or ignoring policy in favor of gender is not the right approach and may actually damage the chances of future (worthy) female candidates.

Other than her reasoning for Hillary, Schultz came across as a cool woman with interesting ideas.

[iluvsam]

I think the Republicans and half of the American people agreed with Hanft at one time, i.e. when the Republicans ran and people voted for GWB. They thought the only qualification needed for the position was for the person to be "likeable" and to be someone "they want to have a beer with". Well that theory put into practice turned out to be a fiasco for the ENTIRE WORLD. It IS the hardest job in the world, and not everyone has the qualifications needed to be SUCCESSFUL at it.

[xrayman]

Senator Clinton was warm, funny and intelligent in her interview with Letterman. Certainly she seemed very comfortable in her own skin, unlike Obama with Stewart.

As far as the presidency, responsibility is what makes any job difficult. The stress level must be tremendous. Thinking that surrounding yourself with supposed experts and eggheads is going to make your job easier is ridiculous. Talk about sanctimony. I saw none of it from Clinton.

[altohone]

The job is tough if you're if you have to pretend to be a Democrat while voting for and supporting Bush policies.

I don't like what Hillary says, but her body language on Letterman last night was downright creepy.

Her head was nodding constantly as if to convince people that they should agree with her... it was constant while she was talking and continued while Dave was speaking too... I felt it was a bobblehead smirk/expression of entitlement to the presidency.

Her explanation about formerly being a Republican was a clear warning to all that consider her a Democrat too.

The toughest job was listening to her cackling laugh at weak jokes though.

[mengwise36]

I am sure you will be all over her if she actually said "It's the most important job in the world." If you don't like her, stop blogging about her. Picking at her words is just so juvenile. A tough job is not always hard to do, like making a joke. A tough job can surely mean there are dire consequences if you screw it up. If Letterman screw up a joke, no one laugh. If the president screw up, people DIE. You can argue that a soldier's job is tough. But a soldier can only kill so many people before he run out of bullets. A president, on the other hand, can put 140,000 soldiers out there and make sure they will never ever run out of bullets.

[Grandmother]

Thanks for your post mengwise36. I get so tired of all the Hillary bashing that goes on this blog. It is very tiring. There is not one word she can utter that is not parsed by everyone. I don't see the same type of scrutiny or hateful comments about any other candidate whether they are a Democrat or a Republican.
I am convinced that the so called Democrats and Progressives that write and comment on this blog really do want to see another republican in the White House so they can spend the next eight years complaining rather than doing something useful.
I've been voting for Democrats since George McGovern and while I haven't been happy with all of them and some where not my first choice, it never occurred to me that I would not vote for that person, not vote at all or go to an independent or republican. It just doesn't make any sense if you believe in the values of the Democratic Party. And by the way all of you that hate her for her vote in the runup to war should be blasting your Democratic leadership right now for their sorry attempts to end this war. The weakness of the Democratic Party is not Hillary Clinton, it is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I'll vote for her in the primary if I get a chance and the general election if she is the candidate. And if she is not, I will support the candidate that is - but that is probably too sensible for most of you.

[altohone]

Lumping all who oppose Hillary into the pro-GOP category is THE tiring argument.

Labelling us "so called Democrats and Progressives" ignores that the Primaries are all about making differentiations among the candidates, and any individuals opposition to a candidates position is their right. Pointing out their objections isn't "bashing".

Every word by every candidate is heavily scrutinized here at HuffPo... you aren't paying attention if you don't see it.

Hillary may be trying to argue that her vote for the war was a small matter, but many of us see it differently. As for Pelosi and Reid, there are plenty of hours in the day for us to oppose their weak positions too, and we do regularly. Inferring we aren't sensible if we fail to automatically support the nominee is rather offensive. Our vote, our decision.

[ADunafraid]

I'm with you. How can it be difficult when there is no accountability for poor results?

From this most recent moron in the white house has shown us traveling abroad prior to taking position isn't even a prerequisite.