Straight Into Baghdad: Hillary's Campaign

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

About three weeks ago, when it was abundantly clear that there was really no way for Hillary to clinch the nomination, she reminded me of George W. Bush soon after Florida 2000 -- the loser who refused to concede. To quote Joan Didion in her marvelous early essay, "Goodbye to the All That," Hillary had stayed too long at the fair. Weeks later, as candidate Clinton's stubbornness sinks in, defying Howard Dean's, Patrick Leahy's, and even Nora Ephron's pleas to take a respectable powder, the comparisons just keep coming. Josh Marshall was reminded of the eternally optimistic Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield, who kept hoping that "something would turn up" to rescue him from debt. Sticking with the 19th century for the moment, today I'm thinking of Melville's Bartleby the Scrivener, whose only answer to every request was, "I would prefer not to."

But as the days and weeks -- and months -- drag on until the convention, to which Hillary has vowed to schlep her losing streak, I fear the comparisons will become much less flattering. (What, you might ask, could be less flattering than George Bush after Florida 2000? George Bush full stop.) Though the Clintons spend a good chunk of their marriage living in separate places, they seem romantically united in their quest to go down with the sinking ship, even if the rest of us drown along with them. (Alas, this too sounds like GWB going into Iraq, but that's a disaster for another day.)

With their negatives rising and her poll numbers plunging, before long Hillary and Bill may begin to invite comparisons that we Dems would have never imagined affixing to two such truly intelligent people. But the longer they overstay their welcome, and the longer they obstruct the party's ability to unite and defeat McCain, the more they will be reviled, ridiculed, and Ralph Naderized -- which is to say, despised for putting their narcissistic needs before their professed concern for the welfare of the country -- for claiming to want to get up every day and solve our problems. Never mind answering the hotline at 3 a.m.

How long will it be before Hillary's quixotic quest will be likened to her husband's refusal to admit to having sex with "that woman," even as dozens of his staff members were hauled into court and grand juries at their own expense? How long before Hillary's delusional behavior will start to look like Britney's wigged-out public displays before her parents got her to the psych ward? Anyone have a date in mind for when we might start thinking that Bill Clinton reminds us of Bill O'Reilly, a deluded loudmouth who is paid attention to only because of the extreme foolishness of what he has to say? Out of boredom and rage, we'll be combing the cultural landscape for comparisons, just you wait. Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, the 400-pound Marlon Brando -- this could get ugly sooner than you can say "a majority of superdelegates."

It pains me to say these things about the Clintons. I voted for both of them. I've defended both of them against attacks from every side. But it's impossible to defend them in this losing quest. They are like drug addicts in your midst: at some point, the only choice you have is to kick them out of the house. Like Bush himself, they seem locked into a pattern of magical thinking that can only lead us, metaphorically speaking, straight into Baghdad.

Elizabeth Benedict's books include the novels Almost, The Practice of Deceit, and Slow Dancing, and the classic writers' resource, The Joy of Writing Sex: A Guide for Fiction Writers. For a copy of her recent essay, "What I Learned About Sex on the Internet," please click here. She is currently teaching writing at Barnard College.

Comments

[Computer Geek]

LAJonathan: thanks for the link.

The only way that the truth will emerge is if we on the internet keep giving the truth through links to the true reality instead of the hype - be it from the MSM who are making a fortune over this or from the Clinton's campaign headquarters (another source of total disinformation).

Here's another link for you from a 1994 article about what Arkansas State troopers observed who were assigned to service the Clintons while he was govenor (it's long but very, very informative): http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6736

If people in Pennsylvania were to actually read this I'm guessing she would lose by at least 30 points . But maybe people really don't care as much as I about the true personality of these two people. After Bush, you would think people would want to know all the information they could assertain instead of what the media wants to provide. These two are manipulative bullies (both of them) much like our current administration and we as voters are inviting more of the same by allowing this women to be unvetted (I hate that word anymore - but it serves a purpose).

[TommyMcCarthy]

My, what a mean-spirited post.
I'll bet Ms. Benedict had been saving up the line comparing Pres. and Sen. Clinton to
drug addicts needing to be thrown out of her kitchen for weeks.
I don't believe "it pains" Ms. Benedict at all to publish this stuff.......in fact, I think she, and many others are loving every minute of this.

It's a journalistic turkey shoot,.....just concoct your cleverest one-liners regarding the Clintons (the nastier the better) string a few together and.......
Voila!!.....Column inches!..... Applause!!.....calls for "Encore!!"

There has always been a "pack mentality" among political journalists....it's just a much bigger (and less principled) pack these days.....................................................................................tm

[LAJonathan]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57053

I think its time the media starts to talk about the real Hillary Clinton. She was fired when she was 27 for lying.

[TheWesternBreed]

Rather than as Bartleby, I increasingly see Hillary Clinton as Captain Ahab, in drag, pursuing her obsession (white whale = White House) regardless of compassion, humanity, or even the safety of the ship that carries her.

[standforpeace]

Unfortunately, pushing Hillary out of the process is not going to do anything but make her followers dig in with their belief that she has been treated unfairly (notice they were not complaining when she had Super Delegates and other party hacks lining up behind her or the mainstream media declaring her the presumptive nominee or the advantage of the cash she carried over from her last senate run ... all before the first voter even got to weigh in). The appearance of unfairness might drive away voters that the Democrats will need in November. So let's be fair. What the remaining uncommitted Super Delegates need to do now is make it plain that they will back whoever emerges with the most pledged delegates after the primary season (who could complain if the Super Delegates voluntarily agree to back winner). Next every Democratic elite with any sense needs to start publically calling Hillary (or Obama for that matter) out when she attacks in ways that could be used by the Republicans in November. Unfortunately, we can't put this crackhead out of the house as you suggest, but we need to make it plain that we are not going to smoke crack with her or let her smoke it in our house and burn it down in the process.

[Gma11]

Well said.

[grendl]

The Clintons seem to have been in Washington a bit too long. They adhere to the philosophy it's only a lie if you get caught.

Most of us lie, at some time in our lives, whether or not its big lies or small lies, whether its to make us look better, or spare someones feelings. But at the governance level, it's very problematic, an addiction that can easily escalate from I did not have sex with that woman, to I am not a crook.

With Hillary it's a bit like watching those Looney Tune cartoons, where Bugs Bunny is at the bottom of the basement stairs, and Yosemite Sam's at the top, each one with a mallet. Every time the lights turned out she tries to sneak a new lie past us. It's a cumulative effect they have, incrementally accruing, little by little, escalating in scope, until one day you realize WHAMMO she's president.

Well, the lights have been turned on. She's been caught red handed, once too often. I'll take the word of her biographer Mr. Bernstein that she has a problem with the truth. Well, we've had seven years of an administration with the same problem. Only they haven't admitted its a problem, and thats the problem. Misremembering facts, when your platform is supposed to be your experience is ludicrous.

She's lost sight of just why we're in this race. Turn out the lights, the party's over.

[BlueAsh]

I like your analogies, especially Bartleby.

My problem with Bill had nothing to do with what he did in the Oval Office, or how long it took him to admit to it: He lied under oath. And Hillary stood by him through it all, like he stands by her now. What a sadistic and sickening pack they have made with each other and how "lucky" we got all dragged into it.

I heard an interesting comment on tv the other day: The Clintons like to bring in a big lie when a small lie will do; they will bring in a small lie when the truth will do.

How can anyone trust either of the Clintons?

[S1m0n]

"My problem with Bill had nothing to do with what he did in the Oval Office, or how long it took him to admit to it: He lied under oath."

Once again, you are entirely mistaken.

Bill Clinton was twice acquitted of the charge of perjury because nothing he said under oath was false. He didn't lie, period: that was the finding of the judge trying the Paula Jones lawsuit and it was also the finding of the trial in the senate over Newt Gingrich's impeachment attempt. The facts do not support the charge; your accusation is false.

[TheWesternBreed]

"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski"

--He was disbarred for his dishonesty, wasn't he? And anyway, since when should a President of the United States have to be under oath before telling the truth matters or not?

[Countess]

Hillary Clinton is like a vulgar comedian without a sense of humor.

[JoePalooka]

The Mr. Micawber allusion is quite apt.

[desmirl]

A lot of Democrats feel that some of the blame for the Debacle of 2000 belonged to Bill and Monica. People hated what he'd done, and blamed all Democrats (including Gore) for Bill's misbehavior. The idea of Bill back in the White House doesn't sit well with a lot of us. The idea that Hillary could somehow rig the convention doesn't sit well with a lot of us. Not voting for Hillary in November wouldn't be a lot different than voting FOR McBombBombIran.

[Desiderata]

Something in my gut tells me that the Clintons did everything they could, from the shadows, to see both Gore and Kerry could not be a barrier to Hillary's preordained race for the White House. That becomes obvious with their praise for McCain. She wants to try again in 2012__ and that can only happen if a Democratic President is not running for a second term.

The Clintons are the Macbeths of our times.

[SamThornton]

One problem not yet addressed by the Clinton campaign is exactly what a Bill back in the White House is going to be doing.

Will he be an extra-constitutional co-President beyond the reach of Congressional oversight? A backroom wheeler-dealer untouchable by any pressure of law or party? The guy who takes the hit, supplying plausible deniability for questionable actions by the "real" President?

No matter how it's sliced and diced, Bill's presence in his wife's White House looks to be a potentially huge disaster just waiting to happen if not handled properly.

Senator Clinton owes it to all of us to give us the facts about Bill's role now, before we go any farther in this process.

[ljsfolly]

"Magical Thinking" words well known in cogntive therapy. The idea that someone will fail and I can win is this one clearly labeled. Hillary and her followers, dare I call them "the Believers", are dug in with the decision that this race is so very close that if she can just win the next "BIG state" she will win the nomination. Like Texas her happy sound bites about winning there pale when you know how many delegates Barack got there. That pattern repeats itself in other "winning states". The idea of throwing the kitchen sink at Barack backfired when the world did not turn againest Barack when Rev Wright got called out on sound bites. But we have something I had hoped to see before now, more truth coming from MSM and not what the clintons want us to hear. If Sinbad had not outed Hillary about Bosnia, would we have been told the truth by MSM? That question still bothers me. How much more isn't being told due to fear of someone doing something to them as a result?

[Disparaged]

Why has it taken so horribly long for the MSM to even begin to tell the public any "truth" about our candidates? It appears to me that either the Clintons or the Republicans own the MSM (I can't help but believe that Fox is owned by the Republicans). Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC) is one of the MSM who was on the same trip to Bosnia with HRC. Why didn't she just state the truth when this MIS-STATEMENT (LIE) was "initially" told by HRC.? Why did she just sit on t.v. everyday and relate other unimportant crap to the public instead of "outing HRC". What was/is her excuse? And are we supposed to actually "believe" anything else Andrea Mitchell or the other MSM tells us in the future - I would think her credibility is about as good as HRCs!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8464923602139974671

[PJay]

Absolutely. Andrea Mitchell is a hillary shill trying to look neutral. It ain't workin.
She recently tried to push the "jewish vote" thing. Today, while channel surfing, it only took a minute or two to see how blatant she is in her bias, promising that she would have more on the Wright "controversy" coming up, and rhetorically asking her guest if Obama looked genuine while bowling. FEH!

And let's not forget that Hillary was recently singing the praises of michell's husband, Alan Greenspan.

With Andrea MItchell, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Dan Abrams, MSNBC has become unwatchable (except for Keith Olbermann).

[standforpeace]

Good point. Why didn't members of the media who were along for this trip just jump in and say, hey that's not what happened? When you can't even count on the MSM to provide basic information, what in the hell are they good for?

[Gma11]

Andrea Mitchell - I suspect because of who her husband is, Alan Greenspan.

[RickO]

It is apt to use the term "believer" in the same way one would for religion. A belief is below the lowest limit of the hierarchy of scientific method (which is why Intelligent design does not belong in science class, but I digress).

Way back when, it was almost considered a "Law" of nature that Hillary would be the nominee. Then it took a step down to where it was "Theoretically" possible that Hillary would win. As time went by, it was reduced to a "Hypothetical" path to the nomination. Now that even hypothesis does not stand under any rational measurement, it is further reduced to a mere belief that it can happen. It is well established hypothesis, however, that these true believers, in large numbers, by way of chaos theory, can invoke the law of unintended consequences...hence it will come full-circle.