What Will a Hillary Clinton Presidency Look Like?
What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?
The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.
Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don't go right. Which is to say, often.
And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated.
Such a picture of Clinton Redux is, by definition, speculation. But it is speculation based on the best evidence at hand: the demonstrable and familiar record of Hillary and Bill Clinton coupled together in Permanent Campaign-mode for a generation, waging a continuous fight on the national political stage since 1992, an unceasing campaign for the White House, for redemption, for their ideas (sometimes) and for themselves (almost always), especially in 2008.
The basic dynamics of the campaign, except for the Clintons' vast new-found personal wealth and its challenges, have been near-constant since they arrived in Washington: through Whitewater, health care, the battle of the budget, the culture wars, the tax returns released only under duress, the travel office, Monica, impeachment, the pardons and through Hillary Clinton's often repugnant presidential campaign.
In many ways, the characteristic tone, secrecy, and resilience of the Clinton political march have been determined more by Hillary Clinton than by her husband, reflecting her deepest attributes and attitudes, fermented in recognition of the antipathy held against both of them, and often, the foul tactics of their enemies. As an aide put it (quoted in my book, A Woman In Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton):
She doesn't look at her life as a series of crises but rather a series of battles. I think of her viewing herself in more heroic terms, an epic character like in The Iliad, fighting battle after battle. Yes, she succumbs to victimization sometimes, in that when the truth becomes too painful, when she is faced with the repercussions of her own mistakes or flaws, she falls into victimhood. But that's a last resort and when she does allow the wallowing it's only in the warm glow of martyrdom--as a laudable victim--a martyr in the tradition of Joan of Arc, a martyr in the religious sense. She would much rather play the woman warrior--whether it's against the bimbos, the press, the other party, the other candidate, the right-wing. She's happiest when she's fighting, when she has identified the enemy and goes into attack mode. . . . That's what she thrives on more than anything--the battle.
The latest transmutation of leadership in the campaign of Hillary Clinton for president -- Mark Penn's departure or non-departure, be it window dressing or window cleaning -- is perhaps the best index we have of the more absurd aspects of her candidacy and evidence of its increasing bankruptcy.
The Clinton folks asserted to donors and reporters alike that this second "shake-up" in eight weeks at the very top of the campaign apparat represents some kind of great electoral moment, an opportunity for Hillary to state her case "more positively," as if the negative approach had been forced on her; the beginning of yet another "turnaround" as if Penn, rather than Hillary (and Bill), has been the big problem. As if Penn were not an appendage of his two patrons, as if he were some kind of independent contractor twisting the candidate's arm to do what comes unnaturally to her. The willingness of so much of the press, sensitized to the Clintons' off-center complaints about one-sided coverage, to buy into this line is stunning.
In fact, the demotion of Penn -- like the departure of Hillary's acolyte Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager -- is a confession that, for all her claims of "experience" and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband's presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -- and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances -- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.
It is exactly under such circumstances that she usually resorts to the worst excesses that mark her in full warrior-mode -- and all its scorched-earth, truth-be-damned manifestations. Bosnia, anyone? Smearing the women involved (or even thought to be involved) sexually with her husband. Responding to Barack Obama with the same mindset, disdain, and arsenal as she did Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, as if Obama's politics and methodologies were as mendacious and vicious as theirs-and her own. Tax information kept secret (in 1992 to hide her profits from trading in cattle futures; in 2008 to shield the identities of Bill's foreign clients.) A campaign that openly boasts of throwing "the kitchen sink" at her opponent.
What you see is what you get: Hillary's cynical view of the larger interests of the Democratic Party, exhibited in her 3 a.m. red telephone ad. And her simultaneous, incongruous suggestion that Barack Obama -- notwithstanding his supposed lack of national security qualifications to be commander-in-chief -- would make a good vice president on her ticket.
And, yes, a sense of entitlement that veritably shouts, "Look, because I believe in good things, and because of all I've been through, I deserve to win this."
And yet, there is no denying that, compared to the Bush years, the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency, in which she was an elemental force (and generalissimo in the often successful fight against the forces of "the vast right-wing conspiracy") are prodigious, marked by peace and prosperity, whatever the price of the Clintons' methodologies and personal failings.
In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -- until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy -- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas.
Hillary Clinton's unique star power, her performance as a senator and fundraiser on behalf of her party are what gave legitimacy to the idea that she might be a credible presidential candidate: all premised on her changed demeanor in the Senate years, compared to her embattled tenure as first lady. As a steward of her state's interest, and a patient student of senatorial compromise and collegiality, she was widely commended by former skeptics in Congress and the press.
True, her most revealing moment as a senator of national consequence was the vote she cast to authorize George W. Bush to go to war, which she's been trying to explain since with dubious credibility. ("If I knew now what I knew then," etc.) Twenty-one of her fellow Democratic senators had no doubts about what Bush intended, and voted against the authorization.
The second most revealing moment was her endorsement of legislation to make flag-burning illegal, the kind of pandering she once attacked right-wing Republicans of practicing. Meanwhile, she and her husband have regularly misrepresented their own postures and statements in the run-up to the war, as well as Obama's record, with Bill Clinton claiming to have been against the war from the start, and Hillary saying she has consistently been more adamant in her opposition than Obama -- except for the matter of his single "speech" against the war before it started.
The assumption of many senatorial colleagues, former Clinton aides, and reporters (including this one) was that her presidential campaign would be much different from the one she and Bill Clinton waged through the White House years.
In A Woman in Charge, I wrote about her ability to evolve, observable especially in the years before she met Bill Clinton and in the Senate: to learn from her mistakes. Events have proven me wrong on that count.
The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims she wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.
Bill, meanwhile, has taken up Hillary's old role as defender and apologist, with disinformation and misinformation, but (far less effectively than she defended him). Also with near-apoplectic tirades that have left their friends worried and wondering.
In the process of their search-and-destroy mission against Barack Obama, the Clintons have pursued a strategy that at times seems deliberately aimed at undermining Obama's credibility if he becomes John McCain's opponent -- heresy in the view of an increasing number of the Clintons' former suppporters and aides, a suprising number of whom now back Obama.
The choice ahead -- in Pennsylvania, and the remaining primary states, and for the super delegates, and perhaps even the arbiters of a deadlocked convention -- is clear enough at this point, at least in terms of what the 2008 Clinton campaign is about: the Clintons -- plural. Theirs is a campaign for Restoration to the White House, not simply the election of Hillary Clinton. Theirs is, has always been, a joint enterprise, a see-saw routine in which the psyches and actions of each balances the board according to the personal dynamics of the moment.
A long-time associate of the Clintons, with whom Hillary has consulted in their quest to return to the White House, said early in her campaign: "She has a very plausible case for president. She had an eight-year super-graduate course in the presidency, a progressive platform..." He paused, and added: "[But] I'm not sure I want the circus back in town."
That is what the Hillary for President campaign has become: the whole Clinton three-ring circus, with little evidence that moving back to the White House will alter that most basic fact.
Originally published on AC 360 blog.
Loading comments…
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
*
Simply scathing.
*
You know what's weird? The Clinton's are clawing for a Restoration, but yet Bill seems to be undermining his wife every few days. Before the whole silly "bitter" story took over, Bill was on the tube "explaining" how a tired, sixty year old woman might get a few statements on landing in a war zone wrong at 11 at night. Thanks pal, If she's that tired and befuddled at 11, how will she do at 3 a.m.?
As the 1st woman President, Hillary would be the Clinton best remembered. Like Prince Charles with Diana, Bill doesn't seem to want his wife soaking up the warm rays of the spotlight. I'd just as soon skip the whole Clinton psychodrama. I'll take my chances with Obama, thanks.
To say that Kerry and Gore are elitist and out of touch with and that they lack respect for the ordinary americans is to ignore the fact that the Repuplicans - and the Bush family, whose fortunes have always been closely allied with those of the Saudi Royal Family - hardly are respectful of this same broad constituency (i.e. the middle class).
This turned me away from Hillary finally for the first time. To say that Kerry and Gore, her fellow Democrats, are these things when the other side represent s only the wealthy classes, is appalling in any Democrat.
It's obvious pandering to the "Reagan Democrats", and in synch with her recent attempts to appeal to their stereotypically perceived love of hunting and going to church.
Carl, you fail to accentuate the authoritarian aspect of Hillary's general combative "my way or the highway" attitude which she exhibits constantly. That whole "let's have a conversation" thing, I suspect, is merely to encourage dissenters to reveal themselves. Look at the "unfunded mandate" to buy crappy health insurance policies from her largest campaign donors, for example. My very real fear is that, since the "Unitary Executive" is firmly in place and will take a while to dismantle, Hillary will be ready to abuse its power on day one. You and I, Carl, may get to know each other personally as we both find ourselves commiserating with each other as we languish in a Blackwater-run "Re-Education Camp" in Montana.
You might as well have written about what the Santa Claus administration would be like, because that's just about as possible as a Hillary Clinton administration.
Santa Claus is running for President???
He's got my vote.
We've just had two terms of the Easter Bunny, so why not?
Hillary may very well not have a chance anymore. Yet, Novack discusses the difference her new chief strategist could make. He explains the difference will chance the way she leaves but will not do anything about whether or not she will leave. The url is www.creators.com/opinion/robert-novak.html
"The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency."
Dear lord, I hope so.
Per the Onion, a painful seven years ago,
"Thank God Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over"
In perspective folks, what's a three ring circus... that we can all afford to attend?
The majority of "success" of the Bill Clinton's presidency was a result of his having to work with a Republican Congress and its Contract with America. Before that--he was a failure. I would add that the success of the Congress depended on Bill. (not Hillary- who after her utter and complete failure with Health care was relegated to nothing but an annoying figurehead.)
More like "What Will Carl Bernstein's Next Book Look Like?"
Except for "very good policy ideas", you've much more accurately described the Bush administration. Must be confusing, keeping track of the real war criminals and corporate thieves running this country into a ditch when you're neurotically obsessed with the Clintons.
Rave on, Carl. Your place in the pantheon of the final, media-wide Kill-Hill 'surge' is secured.
He calls 'em as he sees 'em, Amused. It's called "journalism"...
Yes, I agree with your comment, we need more journalism like Carl's Post. The facts are the facts. Period.
He sees 'em as the wind blows. It's a growth industry.
It's called "yellow journalism".
Be realistic! Hillary can no longer be elected in November! Only Obama has still a chance against McCain. I have been a Democrat all my life. I would even admit that I have never found a Republicain that I like and I have never voted for one either! If Hillary is elected, I don't think I can vote for her in good conscience. I have been turned off by "dirty tricks" and low blows! Don't want Bill in the White House! Period!
Obama has about the same (or slightly less) chance of actually winning a general election than Ralph Nader. His 20% base can maniuplate a few ice cream parlor popularity contests, but that's about it.
Extant polling says you're extracting this from where the proverbial sun don't shine and shows Obama does at least as well against McCain as Clinton. Next.....
Right. As if Ralph Nader has been packing 20,000 people into stadiums for campaign rallies. As if Ralph Nader has been attracting millions of enthusiastic new voters into his party (or any party) - including first-time voters, and re-registered Independents and Republicans. As if Ralph Nader has smashed all previous records for campaign fundraising. As if Ralph Nader has ever won a single state in a presidential campaign - let alone 30 states (and counting) in the Democratic primaries this season...
Yeah. Right.
And I will NOT vote for OBAMA because of his arrogance and the entitlement he and you OBAMATANS feel to the presidency.
Well of course you won't -- you're a GOPer who will vote for McCain no matter who the Dems nominate! Nobody but a Republican would exalt "the presidency" Nixon-style as if it's some sort of imperial throne worthy of genuflection -- in fact "the presidency" is a job, and we the people comprise the employer. So, go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot by shunning Senator Obama -- when McCain begins what amounts to the third GWB term, you'll have nobody but yourself to blame.
A Hillary Clinton Presidency? Four years of gridlock and finger pointing.
blah blah blah. it's fine with me if you hate hillary. lots of people do.
i've been voting for 35 years. how many presidents have we had that were loved by all the people? none. how many presidents have promised a tsunami of change and then accomplished scant little? all of them. how many presidents rode into washington on hot hot blazes and ended up a heap of smoking ash? most of them.
we're not voting for a guru or messiah. what we're voting for is a consummate bureaucrat that can heard the cats on capitol hill into some kind of workable coalition; who won't screw it up too terribly as they go and possibly do some good in the meantime. it would be nice if they could get us out of this war and restore some luster to our image but i'm not counting on it.
there is no historical precedent to expect otherwise.
Amen!
Absolutely no hope here. The politics of cynicism and minimalism. Is definitely dead and doesn' t realize ti.
Well said.
I forgot to say, I will hold my nose and vote for her over McCain if she should manage to arm twist her way to the nomination. That man represents no change what-so-ever. He has been given a free ride by the press who are completely blinded by his Vietnam war hero, prisoner-of-war, status. Never mind that it was his own hot dogging as a pilot that got him into trouble during that war.
The man is impetutous, and libable to go off half-cocked. His campaign and senate office is staffed with lobbyists who will want political pay-back if he should get elected.
I forgot to say, I will hold my nose and vote for her over McCain if she should manage to arm twist her way to the nomination.
__________________________________________
Not me. I have voted for Democrats in ten straight presidential elections, but I will not vote for Hillary. This doesn't mean I'll vote for McCain (gag) or Ralph Nader. I will go Green, despite the futility of such a vote. If Hillary wins, I don't want to be responsible for the result.
Your assessment is pretty good Carl. My view of a Cinton Whitehouse is one of constant bickering and fighting, huge disorganization, careening from one controversory to another. Bill will not be happy sitting in the background because he would really rather be in the oval office, so there will be competition between the two of them.
My support for Obama has a lot to do with the remarkable organization that is his campaign. They have made some mistakes but nothing compared to the ones that Clinton has made. She has been angry (so has Bill) that someone actually could challenge her and take away what she/he felt they were entitled to. Her MO since, has been to twist and smear Obama's statements. All of this distracts from discussing the real issues that affect us all.
Carl, you only mention, as if in a footnote, that the Clinton years were some of the most prosperous and generally peaceful years that this country has experienced! Also, the Clintons are the only Democrats who wrested the White House from the Republicans since Reagan! No small feat, Amigo.
...you forgot to mention that the Clinton presidency oversaw the GOP takeover of both houses of Congress -- and you cannot institute effective and legitimate change without Congressional support. Also, remember that old Bill managed to "wrest" The White House with the help of a GOP base fractured by Ross Perot.
What was most repugnant was John King and Candy Crowley's attempt after the event, to justify Clinton's equality with Obama on any kind of theology subject, when She clearly evaded all of the questions with pandering remarks.
Time to put a stop to corporate MSM:
The only way, and I mean ONLY way to stop the "Talking-Heads" or any other unsavory business in our society is called "BOYCOTT"!!!
These businesses are just that, in business to make money, TV news via sponsors. With the V-chip, cable, direct-TV etc;and most of all cable, these people need and must SELL commercials to it's viewers. Sponsors monitor the amount of viewers via the aforementioned covert operations in place. Better then telephone wire tap, Internet interception and satellite spying, it is a direct link to each and every household. Couple that with the voluntary Nielson hook-ups, the paying sponsors know what we watch and when we watch it. They are not in the business of losing money, when we tune these radicals out/off, as well as boycott their products, they do an one eighty and pull their commercials, by by $-dollars.
You forgot to say 8 Years of Peace and Prosperity and a 270 billion surplus when Clinton left office...
Good BadgerBite !!!
Carl
You are not FOR anything, you are just against Hillary Clinton. That is your agenda. Why? I don´t know.
It is a sad spectacle.
You wrote a book on her, you make money talking negatively about her.
You should be greatfull she is in the race, you would be without a job without Hillary.
Can you get over yourself and do something constructive?
You sound like a broken record.
You have a brain, use it for something good. Maybe then you will feel better about yourself. You do not look very happy with yourself or anything you have been doing for the last few years.
I wish you good luck and good night.
And it would sure as hell look better than an Obama presidency -- given the forerunner media coverage we've seen to date; not to mention the divisive hateful comments one gets from just about every Obama supporter - when they discover you support Hillary or someone else.
Also not to mention: the Obama fawning puppet like pundits... who are on night after night - being touted as experts - who mimic each other like idiots, tossing out their arrogant interpretations of sentences - they think the 'limited intelligence' viewer cannot understand what they've heard for themselves, and therefore needs their 'professional' skewed help; that results in one and one adding up to 3!
Then there was NAFTA, GATT94(WTO), Welfare "Reform", "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Most Favored Nation Status for China, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ...
and the appointment, by President William Jefferson Clinton, of John Negroponte as US Ambassador to the Philippines, under whose tenure Al Qaeda turned the Philippines into their Club Med, and Abu Sayyaf went from being a nuisance to a murderous threat.
C'mon. You cannot be so serious as to blame John Negroponte for the flourishing of Al Qaeda in the Phlippines. Overreaching like does not help Sen. Obama.
And, thanks to the Clintons, once again, for 14 years of republican congressional rule. 1994-2006
Salute! Here's to another 8 years of bitter partisanship under another President Clinton.
Get your heads out of your a$$'s you Bush like fools. You can't see your candidate for the liar she is, just like the Bushies. No matter how Bush lies, the Bushies just love him. he can do, and has never done any wrong.
You Clintonista's are their ideological doppelgangers. According to both of them, (Shrill and W.), neither one of them has ever made a mistake, let alone acknowledged one. They are God's to you both. And, you are fools.
News Flash! Clinton shit actually stinks. (No it really doesn't...)
Begging to differ.
I believe the Republicans are all about money. The economy was clearly doing well under Clinton. But Republican power players are about concentrated money, not distributed money.
Better to found the "Anybody-But-Clinton(s)" party than fess up that Democratic principles "trump" Republican ones.
I'm not ready to tar Hillary with Republican congressional pick-ups.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
