Over the Hill (and Bill)

I am a 53-year-old Southern woman. I live in Paris now, but come from Arkansas, the former land of Bill and Hillary Clinton. In the days before his first inauguration, which my husband and I merrily attended, we used to see Bill jogging down the street and Hillary browsing in our video store. My daughter went to nursery school with Chelsea. Hillary had investigated the schools, and a friend told me which one she'd chosen. We all knew Hillary would pick the best, and several of us followed her and Chelsea there. The Clintons were right up our progressive alley. We believed in them and thought they would change our country in the most positive ways.

That was then. This is now. Arkansas can still claim Bill since he's a native and his library is located in Little Rock, which has contributed to the city's successful downtown resurgence. But Hillary moved on to New York, where she had a good shot at a Senate seat that would quickly provide a stepping-stone. I could certainly understand why Hillary (and Bill) didn't want to return to Arkansas. They had outgrown our state.

She was now Hillary Clinton on a much grander stage -- the wife of the internationally popular ex-president -- and she had her own presidential fish to fry. Hillary was always impressively smart and well spoken, and before becoming U.S. First Lady, had actively pursued her own successful career as a lawyer. She had trudged through Bill's campaigns and wonked policies -- some successfully and some not -- and had great ideas about women. But she had never been elected to anything in the public realm. He was the political star. He was the great connector with the effortless charisma -- not her.

Did Hillary move to New York because her ambition was to be a suburban New Yorker? To be a freshman U.S. Senator, who had never held office before? No. Her eye was of course on the prize of the presidency. Not that there's anything wrong with ambition -- hers in particular -- but to me she seemed like a cynical carpetbagger riding into New York, although I expected her to make a fine representative.

But let's get down to it, ladies. I am a wife who has also been a partner to my husband, and I have also sacrificed my time, energy, work, and creativity for his career as Hillary did for Bill's and as millions of other women have for their men. Most of the time we have not gotten the credit we deserve, if any at all, when we have enabled them more than anyone will ever know. And let's face it -- Bill owes Hillary big time. Wouldn't the ultimate repayment of her husband's national humiliation with all those women over the years -- but especially Monica Lewinsky -- be for her to become president, too?

This, essentially, was my problem with Hillary then: When Bill Clinton left office, Hillary could have done anything in the world to make an extraordinary national -- even global -- difference, and continue to be in privileged and powerful positions. But she had obviously been promised the moon by the Democratic movers and shakers who had recruited her. The greatest aphrodisiac of all -- Washington power -- had suckered her in. Back when I worked on Capitol Hill, I quickly noticed that people more or less sold themselves out to get whatever measure of it they could. It was the prime commodity over sex and money any day of the week, and Hillary had fallen prey. Why else would she even consider putting herself back into the position of having to play soul-sucking political games after the harrowing years the Clintons experienced in the White House? Yes, they survived (though others on their watch didn't).

Is it wrong for us -- especially women -- to want power? No, of course not. But what are we willing to give for it? Are we willing to give up our values and integrity? Does the end justify the means? To me, the answer is absolutely not. This would justify every act of terrorism or torture or any abominable act of which one can imagine. This puts one in the category of every evildoer in world history who thought they were correct about whatever atrocities they directly or indirectly committed in the name of their self-designed righteousness. This is how George Bush and Dick Cheney have arrogantly destroyed our country.

If, as she said, children were her issue, Hillary could potentially have done for them what Al Gore has accomplished for global warming. Instead, many women -- including me -- feel Hillary has betrayed herself and us. Author and communications professor Susan J. Douglas wrote the following in In These Times:

...If she's a feminist, how could she continue to support this war for so long? If she's such a passionate advocate for children, women and families, how could she countenance the ongoing killing of innocent Iraqi families, and of American soldiers who are also someone's children? If it would be so revolutionary to have a female as president, why does she feel like the same old poll-driven opportunistic politician who seems to craft her positions accordingly?...

What's new or transformative about an opportunistic politician? Where is the essence of change that Hillary and Bill now claim she will bring? It pains me to say it -- and for a time I felt a little guilty as a woman -- but I can't be a Hillary supporter anymore. The Clintons have become the Old Guard, like so many others whose machine is well-oiled and indiscriminately attempting to crush anyone or anything that gets in their path. Apparently, Hillary will compromise herself every single day to get elected. Apparently, Bill's sortie into her battle is becoming Hillary's Trojan horse.

When the Clintons went to Washington they were the New Wave, but that was a decade and a half ago. Now they are afraid of Barack Obama for being the 2008 breath of fresh air. The Clintons are promoting the idea that Bill is again running for president -- or that he will be co-president with her. But understand this: Bill Clinton is not running for president. He's done. And has gone from elder statesman to embarrassing himself as a desperate political hack.

Some say this election is a fight for the soul of the Democratic party, and I believe that. I also believe our country has years and years of struggle ahead to undo the damage the Bush administration joyfully led (and the Democratic Congress has gone along with after they received their majority) in sinking America.

MoveOn.org sent out a video email yesterday with Eli Pariser saying it will not be a walk for any Democratic candidate to the White House. "That when the Rove-Republican machine gets going, it will be very hard to stop." I totally agree, and I believe if Hillary is the candidate, the Democrats will lose. The Republican candidate will thrash her, because of the hordes of Republicans, progressives, and Joes and Josephines Schmos who hate her for whatever reasons or have totally lost respect for her. Hillary Clinton cannot bring our country together. A vote for Hillary in the primaries will help a Republican get elected.

I am a feminist, and I was a Clinton believer. No more. I support the candidate who can transform our country at home and throughout the world. I support Obama now.

Comments

[TishiJo]

The GOP will try to destroy any candidate because they dont need the truth to do it. They will make it up as they did against John Kerry. We just need to choose the best candidate and stand by that candidate no matter what the lie against them is going to be.

[Roose]

So much for the well-oiled machine they've spent years building.

Hear that? That is the sound of the machine being smashed to Smithereens.

[smchris]

When it is business as usual, or action by inaction, evil is so banal we hardly notice. Yes, you don't have to follow Rush Limbaugh to be sick of Hillary's empty words.

I understand my state is leaning for Hillary on Super Tuesday. So for the first time in my 56-year-old life I'll attend my Democratic caucus. Obama? Edwards? Still not sure. I am sure it will be "anyone but Hillary."

[RickBaber]

Great write, Beth, as always. As I've told you, I'm with you in principle. I just think Obama is the candidate the Republicans can massacre in the general election. That's why you hear them all speaking so kindly of him on talk radio, etc. They have pulled out everything they have on Hillary over the years, and she's still standing. He's "new meat" and, if he wins the nomination, they'll tear him to shreds. Of course, that's just my opininon (and, oh yeah, Dennis Miller's a dip). I hope I'm wrong.

[Boadicea]

What's happening to the Clintons is sad. It's just sad.

Hillary is still ahead in the Super Tuesday states. She might still win the nomination. But I agree, if she does, it will be a very sad day for Democrats.

And it's sad that a once respected duo has destroyed their reputations - Bill with all his women, his lying under oath, and now his hideous campaign commentary that is virtually tearing apart the Democratic Party. And Hillary with her campaign's lie-filled pamphlets, robocalling and attack ads.

WEll, I guess Democrats won't be able to point at Karl Rove and say only Republicans do it anymore.

[Nutcase]

You are correct that if Clinton is the nominee that the Republicans will win. It is also true that if Obama is the nominee the Republicans will win. Edwards can win.

cognito ergo populistae

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I enjoyed this article. I only wish your reasons for supporting Obama were as thoughtful and reasoned as your reasons for not supporting Hillary.

[itmaybetoolate]

"What's new or transformative about an opportunistic politician?" The same could be said about Obama. What's so new and fresh about him? He panders to homophobes, he takes money from Wall Street, he uses Ronald Reagan as a context for discussion of political movements and ideas, for god's sake. He is a politician, like the others. The only difference? He's younger and gives a good speech. He also refused to say he would shut down the office of faith-based initiatives! I urge you to take another look at Edwards.

[Xiexie]

I simply don't see how Obama is "fresh air" and a huge difference from Clinton.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

I agree with the author and reached the same sad conclusion some time ago.

AND the Clinton's now have a much bigger problem.

As I understand historical trends, when the Clinton's used race as a wedge issue, they committed a HORRIBLE STRATEGIC ERROR.

Why?

ALL the historical data (no exceptions) says that once, as did the Clinton's, you deliberately divide voters along racial lines, the reaction of those voters is NOT uniform.

In previous elections, African-Americans have (virtually) not moved once convinced regarding a candidate. Further, as an identity group (and I can't stand this kind of politics, but this is good news for us, so . . .) African-Americans are more likely vote uniformly regardless of geography, this owing to a generally more connected and extended family unit than other segments.

The Clinton's, though, must not have researched the "white vote," where there is no historical record of loyalty and where trends are more fuzzy, owing to weaker family connections combined with a parallel deeper immersion in the pop culture phenomenon of politics. They are, hence, susceptible to the movements of the news cycle . . .

ALL OF WHICH MEANS that the "race card" (as I've said, a "reductionist rhetorical Lego") will ONLY work once AND WILL NOT WORK BEYOND A FEW NEWS CYCLES.

I hope I've explained this well, and apologize if I haven't. But, in sum, if you're an Obama supporter, you should enjoy the next couple months, because the mistake that Bill and Hillary made was SO HUGE (their advisers oughta have their heads examined) that, combined with "Clinton fatigue" and a general sense of cynicism re Hillary's candidacy - the horizon's looking brighter for Obama as it fades for the Clinton's.

[solarenergy]

Yep, the author has it right.

I voted for Bill twice. But that was long ago. Hilliary voted too often for Bush's programs.

This election is about flushing that crap down the toilet. Unfortunately for Hill, she has to be flushed too.

[Tankan]

Hillary and Bill Clinton, the kiss of death for Democrats!

Republicons will attack her for they want her to be nominated, sorta Karl Rove psychology!

[rkrenke]

Until the Clinton years, I was a lifelong Democrat. What they've done to politics and the Democratic Party in particular is horrendous.

Democrats need to recognize the damage done by Bill and Hillary - they don't care about anyone but themselves - they certainly don't care about the middle class.

Democrats will continue to lose major elections until they purge themselves of the Clintons and the rest of the DLC.

We need publicly funded elections and if the Democrats are going to continue to support morally-corrupt people like the Clintons, we also need a strong third party!

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

Mitt Romney publicly professes that he is concerned about Bill Clinton being back in the White House with a lot of free time.

He shouldn't worry. There are lots of public/private initiatives that come to mind, just off the top of one's head, some of which the ex-president could conduct from the comfort of the Lincoln bedroom.

Consider these:

1) Special envoy to Fidel's Gulag to end U.S. embargo on Cuban cigars.

2) Commissioner of Women's Softball

3) National spokesperson for adolescent campaign for sexual abstinence.

4) Head of the Motion Picture Association (with lots of unpublicized trips to Hollywood, and foreign film colonies--nothing like private diplomacy, I always say).

5) Head of the U.S. Office of Public Integrity.

6)Chief, White House intern program.

7)Special advisor, Congressional intern program.

8) Co-Chair, with Clarence Thomas and Larry Craig, of blue-ribbon National Commission for the Rights of High-Minded but Misunderstood Public Servants.

9) Washington-based Rove-ing correspondent, Hustler magazine.

The list goes on ...

If the Republicans choose Romney, claiming that his vast experience in the private sector makes him tailor made to right the economy, we Democrats have a better argument with a Clinton co-presidency. ...

Bill Clinton has been getting down to business for years!

Seriously, he likes to say that in politics, you have to do what you have to do.

So do a grand coaltion that includes Democrats of conscience, parents and grandparents, and defenders of the meaning of that tiniest of words--"is".

Clean slate !!!
Barack Obama,
'08 !!!

[MyThought]

Times are too serious to believe in fairy tales - Obama isn't ready and he's offered nothing substantive to prove that he can waive a magic wand and make things better.