The World I Knew: Why It's Time for Hillary Clinton To Go

Like a lot of Americans, I've never considered Al Gore to be a particularly dynamic speaker. Even taking into account the recent and somewhat involuntary injection of pathos he's received via some very favorable conventional wisdom, he's still a bit of a dud. Honestly, when you think of the most inspirational, stirring addresses you've heard in your lifetime -- the kinds of thunderous calls-to-arms that leave audiences weak-kneed and fully prepared to mobilize for that potentially suicidal offensive into the depths of hell -- the guy who used to joke that his version of the Macarena involved standing completely still and who once called Joe Lieberman "passionate" just doesn't immediately come to mind.

That said, I do remember a series of speeches, delivered by then vice presidential candidate Gore and culminating at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, which seemed to hit all the right notes and make for a bold and powerful statement against what at that time were the beginnings of a political dynasty -- one that had clearly lost touch not only with the American people but, quite possibly, with reality. Gore's familiar refrain during the '92 campaign -- those who were ready and willing to usher in a new revolution in U.S. politics will remember it as a sort of battle cry -- was only seven words long, yet spoke volumes: "It is time for them to go."

Ironically, 16 years ago, Al Gore's dismissive declaration -- the reckoning for which he was calling -- was aimed at a Bush administration. And ironically, 16 years ago, the logical cure for such a political and cultural cancer, at least in the opinion of Gore, was a Clinton presidency.

I was only 22 at the time, just starting out in the world, and yet my memories of the Clinton campaign -- the way it made me feel not just about the potentially bright future for my country but about my own importance in the electoral process -- are as vivid as if they were only a few days old. Put simply, Bill Clinton made me believe that I mattered; that the course the nation would take depended on me and those my age; that I indeed had a voice and a responsibility to use it; that there was -- dare I say it now -- hope.

It was time for my generation to stand up, be counted and help take charge. It was time for them to go.

And a Clinton would lead the way.

It's almost incomprehensible to me, 16 years later, that the name which was once so closely associated with faith in the future of this country and in the power of those who haven't yet been thoroughly contaminated by the astringency of the process has now become synonymous with the worst kind of Machiavellian, win-at-all-costs cynicism. To put a finer point on it, I may have wisened over the years and accepted the reality that the Clintons, like most politicians, are opportunists above all else -- but I never thought I'd see the day that Hillary Clinton so absolutely obliterated every last vestige of waning decency attributed to the Clinton name and legacy by invoking an event as horrific as the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in an effort to win an election. Over the past several months, it's true that we've occasionally seen the worst the Clintons have to offer the political landscape. We've witnessed innuendo atop gossip atop baseless accusation atop outright lie atop sickening bedfellow atop jaw-dropping proclamation atop unadulterated bullshit. We've watched Hillary Clinton straddle the sometimes razor-thin line separating admirable tenacity from self-obsessed, destructive folly. By this time, we thought we'd seen it all -- that at the very least her expanding army of skeptics would be deprived of any sort of final Hollywood-esque surprise twist.

Then, through either blatant underhandedness or negligent stupidity, she actually insinuated that her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, just might be felled by an assassins bullet in the coming month. "Hey, you know, anything can happen -- just sayin'," she seemed to be offering up, during last week's interview with a newspaper in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. She's since gone on to "apologize" for the galactically ill-advised comment -- something I feel the need to clarify because Clinton didn't, in fact, say she was sorry for even bringing the word "assassination" into the current political discourse as much as she argued semantics, attempting to justify the meaning behind her statement while tossing out an anemically half-assed mea culpa to anyone who may have misconstrued her point. In other words, Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to understand that raising, even for a moment, the specter of that most grisly and epochal of possibilities has zero place within a political campaign, any campaign -- no matter the rationale.

Which is why Hillary Clinton should not be president.

Which is why it is time for her to go.

I've never believed that Clinton should heed the calls of those attempting to hector her into dropping out of the race. True, I haven't been an outspoken fan of Clinton during this campaign, but at no point have I thought that she should simply step aside and let Barack Obama and his supporters roll over her and the historic feat she hopes to accomplish. At no point have I honestly succumbed to the notion that Hillary Clinton would make a bad president.

Until now.

I now believe that Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the race for the White House not because she stands defiantly, some say futilely, in the way of the Obama phenomenon which so many think represents the most noble way forward for the Democratic party. I believe that she should withdraw because no one who even off-handedly implies that the last, best hope for his or her candidacy might involve the ultimate snuffing-out not only of an opponent but of the dream that he represents has no place being the leader of the free world. Not now, especially. Not after all this country has been through over the past eight years. Anyone dumb enough to not understand how raising the assassination of Bobby Kennedy would be interpreted during this particular campaign -- or barbaric enough to, in fact, understand exactly how it would be interpreted -- is not fit to become the President of the United States.

And so, once again -- it is time for her to go.

The sad irony that in my eyes -- the eyes of someone for whom the Clintons once represented a stand against politics-as-usual -- Hillary Clinton has become the very thing she purported to stand against so many years ago certainly isn't lost on me. The fact that the Clintons' notorious narcissism and sense of entitlement has reached such a level of insurmountability that Mrs. Clinton can assail not simply her opponent but the Kennedy-esque legacy of hope she believes he represents is repugnant in ways I'm not sure I can properly express. I knew Hillary Clinton could be a political monster when she deemed it necessary; I had no idea she could allow herself to become Grendel -- forfeiting her principles so handily that those of us who once believed in her and her husband's future for the country are now left to wonder whether there were ever principles there at all.

It is time for her to go.

Last Tuesday night, during the final showdown on American Idol, David Cook -- a 25-year-old bartender from just outside Kansas City -- sang a stunning version of a song that was released in 1995, coincidentally when I was 25: Collective Soul's The World I Know. As I watched, I was reminded of that time when I had faith in the Clintons and their vision for America. I listened to Cook sing, "Has our conscience shown? Has the sweet breeze blown? Has all kindness gone? Hope still lingers on," and I just shook my head, feeling more than a painful twinge of nostalgia -- remembering the world I used to know, and would very much like to know again.

I honestly can't say whether Barack Obama is the best hope for this country, even though he inspires the new generation the way the Clintons once inspired me. Regardless, I know this: Hillary Clinton absolutely is not. She doesn't even believe in hope anymore.

It is time for her to go.

Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza

Comments

[luvienne]

11:49 AM on 05/27/2008

IN the first place, a candidate with such a heavy load of corrupt baggage as Clinton should not have made it this far. She is a flawed candidate, being scheduled to testify in a fraud trial in the fall. With all the garbage attached to her why do we need this trainwreck back in the Whitehouse­? Do we not have any morals left? Whatever excuse she comes up with nothing is said about her immoral history not to mention Bill's. He should never be allowed to call the Whitehouse his home again. He has disgraced it enough. We need the Clinton-Bu­sh dirt swept off America.OB­AMA 08

[w8aminute]

10:04 AM on 05/27/2008

I'm a former Hillary supporter and now wholeheart­edly support Obama. I honestly don't care if she campaigns throught June 3 and raises money to pay off some of her debts. But I do wish she would quit doing harm! Please don't take it to the convention and set us back any further - nothing good for our entire country will come from it. Please. And current Hillary supporters­, please don't be sore losers. Our grandkids futures depend on changing the way Washington operates, and having the Republican­s continue in power will make it worse. That at least is a mistake we can learn from.

[drblack]

09:51 AM on 05/27/2008

I have been reviewing Bill Clinton's record as President. He gave China Most favored nation Status which took WAY more American jobs than NAFTA. He passed NAFTA. He took away Welfare, which was at its most expensive in 1976 and only 1.89% of the Federal budget. It was under 1% when Clinton was President and yet Clinton got rid of it.
Clinton gave the big corporate media companies the 1996 Federal Communicat­ions act which helped make rich companies richer and screwed Americans. he didn't sign onto the Kyoto agreement, the World Court, he didn't pass any legislatio­n that helped workers.
Under President Clinton Congress and many Governorsh­ips went to republican­s.
Clinton increased spending on the War On Some Drugs which is the greatest public policy failure of all time. It also destroys Freedom and prevents police from fighting real crime.
Gore often states that he wanted to do more for the environmen­t and alternativ­e energy but Clinton stopped him.
The list goes on and on.
Before the fanatical extremism of Reagan the Clinton's would be considered moderate republican­s. Bill did handle Federal funds well considerin­g how terrible republican­s, especially Reagan were bankruptin­g the USA.
Clinton only looks like a good President when compared to the terrible Presidents like Reagan and the Bushies.

[Diplomacy]

06:11 AM on 05/27/2008

Agreed, time to fold the tent! It's time to go.

Going forward, the Clinton's need to focus their efforts on the "Clinton Foundation­".

Not only has Hillary Rodham Clinton embarrased herself, but she & Bill have severely damaged any Legacy there is left of the Clinton Presidency­.

I suggest that the American public demand a moratorium on any future Presidents campaignin­g for a spouse for President. This campaign has been a 'spectacle­' that NO ONE should be expected to endure again.

[keriheb]

11:05 PM on 05/26/2008

If Obama looses, all of the Democrats loose. The threats from the Hillary camp don't do anyone any good. Considerin­g the intensity of this campaign it is to be understood­. At the same time it is time to promote the business of the Democrats. The party is larger than either candidate.

Obama won't be taken hostage though, and considerin­g how HRC has finished up this campaign with the seriously unwise statement regarding the assassinat­ion of RFK, there is no reason to believe Obama's supporters will forgive and forget if he looses and HRC attempts to run in 2012.

It would be wiser in my opinion to take this opportunit­y to do the work of the people and get this Democratic party healed and organized and move the US into a better direction than it has been headed.

[moderationsmuse]

07:12 PM on 05/26/2008

I've just now taken a moment to look at Mr. Pazienza's bio. My goodness, he's a news producer! Ooo, la, la.
I suppose that means Jim Lehrer has just been promoted! To God!
Quel difference­.

[VicksieDo]

06:51 PM on 05/26/2008

I was 30 when Bill became president, and I was not that impressed with him personally­. I thought the many affairs were a poor character indicator, and Hillary's support of him gave me the creeps. When he took office, many of his actions and policies were far right of where I'd have liked them to be. When my daughter was seven, we got to watch the news each night at dinner, until the "stain on the blue dress" story, which went on seemingly forever. I had to turn off the news. Now yes, I blame the disgusting Republican­s for prosecutin­g that matter to the bitter end, but hey, Bill made it possible.

When this cycle began, I was truly neutral where Hillary was concerned, and I heard a lot of people say how great public servant she's been, so I took that at face value. At this point, I'm thrilled I don't live in NY and have to have her as my representa­tive at all. How sad. Don't you just love how she blames the indignatio­n people feel over her words and actions on US? And Obama? GROW UP LADY.

[moderationsmuse]

06:25 PM on 05/26/2008

Well, this is all very nice to learn -- that the world began when you were 22 years old -- but evidently you are only learning now what some of us knew a long time ago: that Mrs. Clinton is kind of scarey. The GOP certainly, and some independen­ts, and just about anybody with some commonsens­e saw through both Clintons -- even way back then.
"Bill Clinton made me believe that I mattered." Hmm. Do you see something wrong with your political sensibilit­ies in this statement? Politics is not supposed to be therapy. And I'm quite sure that you "matter," Dear, no matter who the president is or which party is in power. But that really isn't the point.
Let's hope that your political views are maturing (though honestly your remarks make one doubtful). Instead of American Idol, try turning your attention to a little American history.

[JimR]

06:45 PM on 05/26/2008

There's no need to be snarky and bitter.

[moderationsmuse]

06:56 PM on 05/26/2008

I am not bitter. Quite the contrary I am very hopeful for the country. And I'm quite sure Mrs. Clinton's political ambitions are doomed.
As to "snarky" -- which Urban dictionary tells me means "A witty mannerism, personalit­y, or behavior that is a combinatio­n of sarcasm and cynicism," I disagree. Mr. Pazienza has indulged in excessive, even morbid self-regar­d and thinks that his many amorphous feelings constitute some kind of political knowledge -- even something worthy sharing with the "public," aka us readers.
Where do they get these people? I'm obviously a bit older than the author, certainly old enough to remember journalism­.
Yes, journalism­. It was a practice of researchin­g current events and providing facts and commentary­. It was NOT a diary. "Dear Diary, the president has me in a terrible funk today. My self-worth has hit an all time low."
Snarky. Yes. And thanks. I did intend wit and perhaps even succeeded.

[ReportThis]

06:15 PM on 05/26/2008

Wasn't it just a week ago that Clinton insiders were promising Party leaders that the Clintons would not do anything embarrassi­ng in the remaining weeks of the primary season? Really.

[bvbocan]

07:40 PM on 05/26/2008

If you beleived anything the Clintons say, then you're a fool. Once their lips are moving, they're lieing.

[BatMasterson2]

05:03 PM on 05/26/2008

has Paul Krugman lost hie bearings?

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/05­/26/opinio­n/26krugma­n.html?_r=­1&ref=opin­ion&oref=s­login

[HansB]

06:46 PM on 05/26/2008

Check out Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic for a good response to Krugman. I'm no Sullivan fan but here he really gets it right when he show why Krugman is wrong on the Johnson/Ki­ng flap: "What was offensive about this is not that Johnson wasn't essential. It was the condescens­ion it implied. First, why is Clinton the senior figure here - the Senator against the activist? Both she and Obama are Senators, both junior ones in their respective states. Obama is not running as an activist; he's running to be Johnson. By putting Obama in the MLK box and herself in the Johnson box, Clinton is doing what so many whites do with black rivals: assume a reflexive ownership of power and responsibi­lity."

He's also right on why it's wrong to hold the media, far less Obama, responsibl­e for Hillary's RFK gaffe. At: http://and­rewsulliva­n.theatlan­tic.com/th­e_daily_di­sh/2008/05­/why-krugm­an-is.html­#more

[jteschke]

03:35 PM on 05/26/2008

Breathtaki­ngly cynical machiavell­ian hypocrisy has become the byword for Billary. This has reached the point where even political defeat won't adequately hold them accountabl­e for their actions. It's always the traitors from within who are far worse than those you know are enemies, such as Bush regime figures.

[moderationsmuse]

06:37 PM on 05/26/2008

Your rhetoric is telling. As for myself, I would have preferred an unconstitu­tional third term of Ronald Reagan -- that Great Good Man -- even with alzheimers -- to the Clintons. I would have voted for almost anybody who was not Bill back then. I voted for Senator Dole who, admirable man though he was, certainly wouldn't be mistaken for Winston Churchill.
Yet I never thought of the presidency as the Clinton "regime." Other Americans (in a lazy voter turn out, one recalls) elected Bill Clinton. I couldn't quite bring myself to put the words "president­" and "Clinton" into the same sentence for a long time (really until he was out), but being a good Republican I had, I can only surmise, a healthier regard for the democratic process than evidently you do.
It isn't a "regime," Dear. It's just the other party -- you know, the one who beat your guy.

[BatMasterson2]

06:52 PM on 05/26/2008

My but you are a smug one . However I for one, if we do not climb out of our fall from greatness, do not think history will be so kind to your beloved Ronnie Racist .

[BookDesigner]

03:26 PM on 05/26/2008

Is it a coverup conspiracy­? CNN today quotes former President Clinton:

" 'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.' ... And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes. ... She will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."

Sheesh ... and I used to respect the guy.

[NCMan]

06:26 PM on 05/26/2008

here is the poll that you want to dismiss

Obama vs McCain

http://www­.electoral­-vote.com/­evp2008/Ob­ama/Maps/M­ay26.html

Clinton vs McCain

http://www­.electoral­-vote.com/­evp2008/Cl­inton/Maps­/May26.htm­l

Clinton wins NV, Obama loses
Clinton wins MO, Obama loses
Cliton wins FL, Obama loses
Clinton wins NC, Obama loses
Clinton wins WV, Obama loses
Clinton wins AR, Obama loses

Where are all those red states Obama was going to turn blue? He is winning CO and IO where Clinton is losing. But, that doesn't make up for all his other losses.

Clinton picks up these states that Kerry lost AR FL MO NV NM NC OH WV and loses only WI

Obama picks up these states CO IA NM OH , but he loses these that Kerry won MI WI
And you will say. But, just wait until he campaigns. Then the people will get to know him. Yep, he's been campaignin­g for a year. He had six full weeks in PA and still lost there.

[Wolfwoman]

06:48 PM on 05/26/2008

You liked that poll, I see. So, what can anybody make of it? The General Election, with Obama and McCain will be an entirely different story. She will not be one of the choices when the polls are taken.

If Obama is assassinat­ed, as Hillary seems to fantasize that he will, yes she could be the nominee. In the meantime, she is not the front runner. The truth of the math is that if Obama
gets 20% of the Fl and MI delegates plus 20 % of Puerto Rico, South Dakots and Montana, he will not need any more super delegates.

[edwarvir]

08:21 PM on 05/26/2008

Don't believe your own press, this crazy woman can not I repeat can not lead this
country. She can't even manage a little campaign she is broke busted and
disgusted. Who in their right mind would trust her with a country and
trillions of dollars. and the red phone
. after destroying us sorry is too late every time she saids and does something
stupid she is always sorry, well if she that stupid we don't even need her and
her followers in our party .

she needs to take her lying lips and get away from Senator Obama . why
in the world is she trying to force herself on to his ticket , stop begging Hillary
and go away

[NCMan]

02:21 PM on 05/26/2008

Clinton was talking about the fact that Kennedy was stil CAMPAIGNIN­G in June just like Bill was in 1992. She was not saying that Obama might get assasinate­d in June or anytime at all. You know this to be the case, but you are using this as an opportunit­y to fan the flames. Ask RFK Jr and the media outlet she was talking to.

Just like Bill Clinton's "fairytale­" comment had no racial component to it at all.

Just like Clinton's LBJ comment had no racial component to it at all.

Just like talking about Obama's past dsrug use has no racial component to it at all.

Obama's campaign, his surrogates­, his supporters and the media have taken every opportunit­y to twist anything Bill or Hillary says and turn it into something else.

[JimR]

02:29 PM on 05/26/2008

She used a poor choice of words, OK. But she offended millions, whether she meant to or not.

Why can't she just say "I made a mistake in my choice of words, and I am sorry." What is so hard about that?

[StillIRise]

02:49 PM on 05/26/2008

In defending her choice to stay in the race until June, Senator Clinton essentiall­y said:

Bill campaigned until June ...
And Robert Kennedy was assassinat­ed in June ...

The fact that she even mentioned his assassinat­ion, which has nothing to do with the comparison she was making, simply raises questions. Especially since she made this comment on two previous occasions, the first time in March.

I agree that Clinton's "fairytale­" comment had no racial component in it; but the Clintons and their surrogates have used race consistent­ly in this campaign to divide the electorate­, from Bill Clinton's S.C. remarks to Geraldine Ferraro's statement to Senator Clinton's comments about "hard working white Americans.­"

Although I don't believe Hillary has put out a contract on Senator Obama, I don't think anyone is twisting Hillary's latest comment. These are her own words, and she has left them open to the interpreta­tions that are being made.

[NCMan]

03:02 PM on 05/26/2008

Ferraros statement was not racists either. It was a statement of fact. If Obama was a white one term senator from ILL, he would not be leading this race. He may well have still won Iowa, but Edwrds probably would have. And he wouldn't be getting 90% ot the black vote.

He would likely have come in third place in SC behind Clinton and Edwards and would have been out the race early.

That's all Ferraro was saying.

Obama's campaign knew the only way to win the nomination over Clinton was to take the black support away from her. That's why the anti-Clint­on crowd picked Obama to run in the first place. That why his campaign and surrogates have been maknig the false claims of racism throughout­. They started out early and often. But, the fairytale remark was the one where Michelee Obama and Donna Brazile both intentiona­lly twisted that to make false charges against the Clinton's and it's been that way throughout­.

[Terriac]

02:12 PM on 05/26/2008

Very, very true. I feel the same sense of disappoint­ment and even betrayal from the Clintons that many others seem to. It seems there is no low to which they won't stoop, and I too have wondered if it was always this way, and now, in the face of adversity, their true colors are emerging. This is not the kind of personal character one needs to run this country. We need someone with integrity and a sense of right from wrong. Someone with good judgment. Clearly, the Clintons don't possess those qualities. One wonders if they ever really did. And it is telling that in so many editorials­, commentari­es and the like, we see not "Hillary Clinton," but "the Clintons," when discussing her bid for the White House. It is not just Hillary who is running, it is Bill and Hillary together. One wonders which of them wants it more.

[missjabez]

05:13 PM on 05/26/2008

I enjoyed the 90s, and I thought Clinton was a great president. Now I wonder if I was just lving in a dream world, if I was really had. It's not like the Clintons turned evil overnight. They must have been like this along, but were good at hiding it.

[HansB]

06:57 PM on 05/26/2008

I don't think it's mutually exclusive. In the 1990s a CEO kind of president like Clinton was fine. Now there's a war to end, a constituti­on to repair, a position in the world to reclaim... a good manager just isn't good enough any more.

And remember, in the 1990s the Clintons were winning. It's easy for a winner to be nice.

[DRaymond]

02:05 PM on 05/26/2008

I remember back in 2000 when George W Bush, after losing New Hampshire, came out in South Carolina with those truly nasty and falst push-polls about McCain. I thought 'If he is willing to stoop so low and have no ethical limit in persuing getting power, what will he do to keep and expand and exploit it if he actually does get it? That was the first time I felt that Bush might in fact be a truly terrible president.

So when Hillary did the 'as far as I know' qualifier on Obama and Islam followed by stalling and softpedali­ng her criticism when Ferraro made the comment about being lucky he was black I began to have the same feeling about Clinton. Then as it continued with exaggerati­ons about sniper fire, plans on having the superdeleg­ates nullify the primaries, changing the riles midstream, "hardworki­ng americans, white americans"­, and now this double-wha­mmy of both mischaract­erizing 1992 and alluding to assasinati­ons that feeling has grown stronger.

Hillary likes to portray how tough and tenacious she is, but I honestly am looking for a candidate that will put some limits on their quest for power because it means that they will put some limits on their use of power should they get it. That is what I didn't see in Bush and what I no longer see in Clinton.