Lost amidst the shock of Hillary Clinton's upset of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary and the ensuing debate about why the polls were so very wrong was a remarkable statistic. By a margin of more than two to one (58 to 27 percent), those who voted for Hillary Clinton would have preferred to vote for Bill Clinton had they had the chance. For those who suspected that a vote for Hillary was really a surrogate vote for Bill -- a vote for the restoration of the Clinton presidency -- this was proof positive.
Hillary Clinton may well ride to the nomination on a wave of nostalgia for the 1990s among a sizeable group of Democrats. But a vote for the past could well mean trouble in the general election. Many Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike -- want a clean break from the past; that is why the word "change" has become a mantra among candidates in both parties. But Hillary is inexorably tied to the past, and she has an unrivaled capacity to mobilize Republican opposition.
Maureen Dowd's much-repeated remark that "Hillary would be running for the presidency of Vassar" had she not married Bill is overdrawn, but the results of the New Hampshire exit poll confirm that she is in an entirely different league politically from her preternaturally gifted husband. She suffers as well from the unease that many Americans feel about the increasingly nepotistic character of American elections; a Bush or Clinton has occupied the White House for 20 years, and a Hillary presidency could bring it to 28.
As Rosa Brooks pointed out in the Los Angeles Times, the notion that political power is something that can be passed along from spouse to spouse or parent to child violates the basic principle of democratic politics. In this regard, the last two decades are unprecedented in American history; even the presidencies of John Adams and John Quincy Adams were separated by 24 years, and the Roosevelts (distant cousins, in any case) by 20.
Nevertheless, many Americans feel a warm glow when they think of another Clinton administration. Hillary may yet triumph. And for those who find that the thought of the end of the Clinton era a depressing prospect, there may be grounds for hope. After all, in 2016 Chelsea will be 36 and eligible to mount her own run for the White House.
And I think the words "Bill Clinton" and "Trojan" are so amusing in such close proximity that I'll probably use this line many more times during the election season.
It's a big con game. Bill Clinton was speaking in front of some group in Las Vegas, and he told them that he had personally gone and walked around the Bellaggio talking to the culinary union members, asking them to go and caucus for Hillary, and they promised him they would.
Too bad nobody told these service workers that the reason they're stuck in minimum wage service jobs is because Bill Clinton began the devastating trade policies which encouraged American businesses to send our jobs to other countries to be done by slave labor.
And then the Clintons invested in those overseas corporations. Bill used his position as President to help foreign corporations, then invested in them. And the Clintons who were reportedly broke in 2001 are now reportedly worth $35 million. Most of that is money paid to them for selling out the American working people.
When the public said end the war, and Obama said he was against it from the get go, Bill Clinton said "Yeah, me too." Except he was lying about that. When Obama said Reagan changed politics in this country, the Clintons both said "We hate Reagan. We never said a nice thing about him." And they were lying about that too. When Bill Clinton was nailed for nailing the white house intern, both Bill and Hillary went on TV, looked the public in the (camera) eye and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." That was a lie too.
These people lie all the time. They cannot be trusted.
Let's give this country a chance to create something new. Let's get rid of the corporate-owned Clintons and try some new blood with new ideas. Out with the old, enough with the lies.
Vote Edwards. Or Obama. Anybody but Clinton.
It was this name recognition factor from a dumbed-down electorate that gave us George W. Bush, the most polarizing figure in U.S. political history. Now the second most polarizing figure, Hillary Clinton, will take her place in our new monarchy.
She'll only continue to polarize the electorate so that Jeb will be the next "name recognition" monarch after the country has had enough Clinton triangulation. After Jeb wrecks the country, Chelsea will now be in line for her rightful ascendancy to the throne.
At the end of the day it is ONLY a problem, because we have a dumbed-down American electorate who votes on "knee-jerk" faith based or tribal motives. No one cares about issues or the money financing campaigns to understand the changes that each candidate is likely to make.
All they care about is name recognition, having the right "sex organs", or faith based "hot button" issues.
Women today are the "evangelicals of 2004". America ultimately gets what it deserves: a ruling monarchy that keeps the status quo for the moneyed interests who line their pockets.
However, I have always liked Hillary better in terms of the important factors which I'm convinced, the country needs.
Not a surrogate at all....
People love to see Bill C., so he's a big draw. However, the dynasty issue is also a problem for her, so he's a detriment, too.
Cuts both ways, in my opinion.
Who is really running against Obama? Very often it appears to be Bill, not HIllary, and the rest of the time, he's running against the The Royal Couple.
Imagine how frustrating it must be for Hillary's competitors when the issue of who is really running for president is so confused. Are they running against Bill's record? Or Hillary's? Or both?
This is the central issue facing our nation. The Democratic party establishment is complicit in this fraud. Bravo to John Kerry for distancing himself from the would-be queen makers. With every endorsement from prominent leaders of the party Obama's star burns brighter. His coup will be a great victory over the most powerful special interest group: The Bush/Clinton machine.
I will not vote for Hillary. I urge my fellow Democrats to do the same. ABH- anyone but Hillary!
What is "a clean break from the past"? Like get a grip. Getting rid of the Bush Admin. is huge in itself.
What people want is some decent stewards in the Federal Administration. Clinton is something you know, Obama is not.
I think Democrats are being extremely naive if they think that all of the scandals of the past will be forgotten...it will make Obama's teenage transgressions seem like childs play.
Get ready for a Pres. McCain or Pres. Huckabee. It's still more tolerable than another Pres. Clinton
The two candidates who have worked the hardest for this nomination are John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Would somebody please tell me what contributions Obama has made on a grander scale that have improved the lives of others?
What, besides inspiration, can he provide? I like the man, he's honorable, smart, and he may get the nomination.
But I view this as interviewing for a job, and not simply any job. The stakes cannot be understated.
Then, along comes Obama with promises, great speeches, and expects us to trust him.
Show me the resumé.
Talk about SOLUTIONS, not problems.
What, specifically, will he do to address and correct the problems facing Americans?
What most of us want in all candidates is PROOF. Show us your skill set, don't just talk about it.
Lastly, the unfortunate reality is that the republican attack machine will be in overdrive, like a wounded, cornered animal. Their party is demoralized and their party leader, the president, is a drag on all of them, so naturally, the claws are going to come out.
Somebody please tell me how Obama plans to fend off what will be, arguably, the nastiest fight for the presidency in our generation?
Frankly, the press has been alarmingly slow or reluctant to pick this theme and examine it from the point of view of whether this is really good for the country. According to current laws, Bill Clinton seems to have every right to support his wife's candidacy. But he has been doing that by being extremely visible and outspoken, actively and publicly opposing Obama with some pretty sharp attacks. Extremely unseemly for an ex-president.
Even George Bush, whom I hold in the lowest regard, did not get his father out to stump and argue publicy for his son.
But the whole idea of an ex-president getting into the mire of politics and directly opposing a bona fide candidate of the party which he still presumably "leads" in some fashion is ugly and disturbing. One can only attribute this behavior to the presumption that Bill Clinton still has unsatisfied yearnings for the White House.
Until Mr. Karabels's post I have not read of any journalist calling the Clintons out on this. Thank you.