Though no longer First Lady, Hillary Clinton is still a wife and there's the rub. As have many other female politicians before her, Senator Clinton has discovered that a husband can be a political liability. The events of the last few weeks recall what one cynic told me months ago: "If Bill Clinton got run over by a bus, Hillary would have one less thing to worry about."
The former president's outsized role in his wife's campaign has always been a two-edged sword. Though clearly unique among political consorts in his rock star magnetism and unrivaled fundraising skills, Bill Clinton has also been uniquely burdensome in that he comes with the record of his eight-year administration, good and bad, and the baggage of his all-too-well-known private behavior.
That a candidate's spouse has a significant effect on voters' decisions seems incontrovertible. A CBS News poll conducted in June 2007 found that six in 10 voters consider a presidential candidate's spouse "very" or "somewhat important." The poll did not differentiate between President Clinton and the female spouses, a distinction that may have yielded more layered results. Nonetheless, the numbers were telling. A spouse was considered important by 65 percent of the women and 50 percent of men. Republicans (71 percent) were more likely than Democrats (54 percent) or Independents (49 percent) to say they would factor the presidential spouse into their decision. Among those 45 years and older, nearly seven of ten respondents said the candidate's spouse would affect their decision.
Unfortunately, history suggests that rather than enhance her image the way a wife enhances a male candidate, a husband can complicate a woman's leadership aspirations. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jeanine Pirro, Dianne Feinstein, Geraldine Ferraro, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Dole are among those who have had to explain, defend, or distance themselves from their husbands' statements, activities, behavior, or improprieties.
Bill Clinton's recent "bigfoot" intercession on Hillary's behalf prompted former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder to say, "His actions, while occasionally intemperate and a little over the top, are much more noble than Bob Dole's were when his wife, Elizabeth was running for president." Dole starred in Viagra ads, gave money to his wife's opponent, John McCain, and was absent from the campaign trail.
The husband problem is a no-win for Hillary. If Bill absented himself, it would reflect badly on their marriage. Yet when he stumps for her, she runs the risk of his messing up or going too far. She needs him to be a beneficent presence in her campaign, supportive but not overbearing, embarrassing, or spot-light stealing. She needs him to appear adoring but not wimpish, agreeable but not hen-pecked. As a wife, she must simultaneously convey that she respects him but is not ruled by him. It's a tough balancing act.
Female heads of state offer scant guidance on how to manage it. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's husband, Denis, gave her no grief because he was content to remain in the background. He refused interviews, made brief, bland speeches when asked, and referred to her as "The Boss." Golda Meir, the Israeli Prime Minister, described herself as married, though everyone knew she and her husband Morris were estranged. Germany's present Chancellor Angela Merkel has had to make excuses for her publicity-shy husband who skipped his wife's inauguration and has been described in the media as a detriment to her career -- "dour," a "killjoy," and an "inept socializer."
Due to the husband problem, the ideal status for a woman candidate seems to be widow. The widow enters the fray with the sympathy of her constituency, a sense of entitlement, the assumption of her husband's legacy, and the credential of having been a wife without the complication of having to accommodate the demands of a living man.
American women who've been appointed or elected to public office as a result of their husbands' deaths include Wyoming's Nellie Tayloe Ross, the first woman governor; Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas, the first female senator (appointed and then elected twice more in her own right); two noteworthy women from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith and Olympia Snowe; Muriel Humphrey of Minnesota, widow of Hubert; Maureen Brown Neuberger of Oregon, widow of Richard; Huey P. Long's widow, rose McConnell Long of Louisiana; California Congresswoman Mary Bono, widow of Sonny Bono who died in a skiing accident; and New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for office after a madman killed her husband.
Internationally, Bangladesh, Guyana, Sri Landa, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Panama have had female presidents or prime ministers who assumed power after their husbands died or were assassinated in office.
The point seems to be, if you want an uncomplicated run to power, remain husbandless. To wit: Kim Campbell, briefly Prime Minister of Canada in 1993, was divorced; Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, currently President of Liberia, is divorced; Michelle Bachelet, the President of Chile, is legally separated. Prime Ministers Maria de Lurdes Pintasilgo of Portugal, Eugenia Charles of Dominica, and Hanna Suchocka of Polands were unmarried
Men should not have to die for women to assume power. Women should not have to be single to run for office. And, as her historic candidacy goes forward, Hillary Clinton should not be penalized for her husband's sometimes overzealous advocacy of his wife.
If he weren't a career politician and past president we could forgive his zealousness, but who are you kidding? Everything he says and does is like a game of chess, thinking about its impact 20 moves later.
Telling us a vote for anyone but Hillary is akin to suicide is insulting to all Americans.
Comparing Obama to Jackson is too.
What's really ludicrous is how we label anyone with a hint of negro in them as black. Tiger is half asian and probably less than half negro, but no one ever really talks about his Thai heritage. He's described as a black golfer when he isn't even half black (look at his dad Earl and it's obvious he wasn't 100 percent negro). Obama is half caucasian and half negro. Anywhere else in the world he would be seen as white, but not in America.
Now lets ignore the manufactured PC image for a moment and look at the facts:
1.Obama voted WITH Republicans "NO" to capping interest rates on credit cards. I guess 30% interest cap wasn't enough for his corporate backers.A progressive candidate?! Hell no.
2.Obama voted WITH Republicans AGAINST Democrats to prohibit Secretary of Homeland Security from develop regulations regarding the transportation of high hazard materials.Progressive? No.
3. Obama voted WITH Republicans AGAINST Democrats to establish United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. How does this help American workers?!
4. Obama voted WITH Republicans AGAINST Dems. to continue funding Gitmo.
Progressive? No way.
5.Obama voted WITH Republicans AGAINST Dems. on Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.Obama here voted with corporate interests against interests of common people. This was done in worker's interests?! Gimme a break.
Obama will no more help working Americans than Supreme Justice Uncle Tom.
Obama, a rich lawyer Senator got to Senate just like any other establishment lackey. By taking millions of Big Money contributions and paying them back with supportive legislation.
A friend of workers? Keep on wishing upon a star. But don't forget looking under your feet for a trap.
Bill Clinton without dispute is one of the best Presidents in American US history, both on foreign and domestic accomplishments, popularity and world stature.
Gore lost to Bush partly because of misguided policy of distancing himself from Bill.
Barack's role model seems to be Ronald Reagan. His vote AGAINST capping credit card rates and other similar corporate shilling again confirms Obama's adoration of Ronald Reagan.
Hmmm, Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton for a international or political adviser....
If Michelle is Hyundai then Bill is a Ferrari.
Gore didn't lose because of distancing him. He lost because he didn't distance himself enough. Look at states like Missouri where the Democrats are values voters; moral character is huge to them and they voted for Bush in backlash to Clinton.
Of course Obama is a friend of business. So is Hillary. Their positions will move towards the consumer after they get elected, but not before. Look at what happened to Edwards; he was seen as antibusiness which isn't true and it killed his campaign. Funny how he was the only one of three tier one Dems whose profession was singled out again and again and again.
This Democrat was leaning towards Hillary, but Bill is what pushed me towards Obama. I don't need anyone telling me a vote for anyone but Hillary is akin to suicide or that Obama is of course going to get the black vote because he's like Jesse Jackson.
Bill would better serve Hillary if he kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the limelight. He had his time in the sun; now it's hers.
I think Clinton fatigue caught up with Hillary - precipitated by Bill's street-level advocacy and less-than-presidential behavior in support of his wife following the Iowa defeat. Hillary was much loved and appreciated as the first woman candidate running for the first female presidency. But she suddenly looked like something quite different: the first spouse of an ex-president running for the first spousal presidency. Family values a la Clinton. This wasn't what we'd bargained for. She wasn't so much an example of women's belated acceptance at the top, but rather some kind of dynastic nepotism.
Dole and Clinton are products of name recognition.
To say that Bill is a burden to Hillary is like saying Tom Bradey would be famous if there were no NFL.
Somehow I don't believe Hillary Rodham would be a political entity at all if it hadn't been for her relationship to the greatest president in the twentieth century. Harrumph!
That's because Denis wasn't threatened by his wife. Bill is.
While he was probably the best president since Truman Bill is competing with a string of awful or ineffective people that occupied the White House during the 2nd half of the 20th century. Sadly, greatness was within his grasp, but he self-sabotaged with his unbridled sexual addiction. Instead of initiating an unbroken succession of Democrats leading this country into a future marked by social justice, peace, prosperity, energy conservation, balanced budgets, et. al. his lack of impulse control made it possible for the Republicans to steal an election and devastate this country. I think many people intuit that the Clintons are co-dependents who act out instead of addressing their problems. There is simply no way she can be evaluated on her own. Many of us are uncomfortable with returning the Clinton family melodrama to the White House.
Second, Anything he does is payback. Anything. For her ... against her ... tongue-in-cheek. Get what I mean?
Yet, there is a third. A dark third. A very dark third. Why didn't she divorce him? Why didn't she divorce him back in Arkansas? Why didn't she divorce him in the White House? Why didn't she divorce him after the presidency?
These questions are then naturally followed by others.
Why did she leave her home base and go shopping for a Senatorial seat? Any Senatorial seat. Why did she use the gender card to apply herself to the candidacy? Why did she jump on Bush's bandwagon every time it rolled around, with Republicans singing their sodden, drunken songs?
These questions bring to light someone whose raw need for power, is just barely hidden behind a thinly woven veil.
The appropriate handling of this "false crisis":
"Bill Clinton is a globally recognized statesman, respected former President, and prominent leader of my party. He balances this role with his role as a key advisor and my husband. And he does it well. Because I would not presume to silence or control such an inconic, important figure in his own right, he should not and will not always speak consistently with my opinion or those of a new Hillary Clinton administration.
This is appropriate for a political person of his stature, who has earned the right to speak his own mind in all cases and will be asked to do so. If Bill Clinton is called upon to act in a specific diplomatic or legislative liason task - I am confident he will serve my administration and his country with loyalty and distinction. I am proud and pleased to have his active support."
Spouses who "control" or "bully" their spouses do not look strong. They look weak. Hillary mangled this issue by allowing the media to pressure her into taking the low road. Her instincts were wrong again.
Bill Clinton has earned the right not to be a "yes man" for the Hillary campaign. He line up when it counts.
Take a number, sister. We're all in line for the same thing.
Their relationship is on a plane far higher than most Americans can even conceptualize due to our brainwashing by the MSM.
What we see them going thru now is like watching Spiderman with his new found powers. Bill made a few mistakes and took the appropriate course corrections.
Obama's actually trying to do what Bill Clinton did to win the Presidency - attach to people on this gut emotional level. Very powerful stuff. In fact, it is exactly how Reagan became President. I expect Bill observed this and said I can play this game, too. Fortunately for us, Bill Clinton is a good person at heart and actually wants to make this country and its people great.
But we can't count Hillary out of the picture either. Without her, I doubt Bill would have ever left his comfortable good old boy life in Arkansas. It is the two of them together where the power is from.
Hillary will be fine with Bill as her husband. Just as he could not do it without her, she could not do it without him. How this campaign ends up is anybody's guess. For the American people they rolled the dice and won with Bill and Hillary once. Now they are faced with a choice - go with a known winner, or roll the dice again with someone who may sound nice but when you scratch the surface appears instead to be extraordinarily arrogant with the same whiff of contempt for ordinary Americans as GW Bush.