Bill And Hillary's Experienced Lies

With her sad and fruitless attempt at attacking Barack Obama's kindergarten ambitions behind her (by the way, who in her campaign hunted down and interrogated his teacher, and under what pretense?), Hillary Clinton is back on the Obama-no-experience track, a safer, if not necessarily more productive approach.

To that effect, she now associates herself with the non-threatening single-digit crew (Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd) and their combined 88 years in elected public office, ignoring the fact that she is far closer in experience to Obama than she is to them. As was her husband when he first considered running for president in 1988: kicked out of the Arkansas governor's office by voters in 1980 (returning in 1982), he skipped the '88 contest to succeed Ronald Reagan. When he did run, in 1992, he had a total of 12 years as chief executive of a small, poor state with few international links. Despite some successes (notably in education), after a straight 10 years in office, Governor Clinton barely managed to lift his state from poorest in the country to second poorest, just a hair ahead of Mississippi.

Nonetheless, he went on to win the nomination, defeat an incumbent president and rule for eight years. Whatever one's assessment of his presidency, clearly he did not run the country into the ground, regardless of his previous experience, or lack thereof. But now, in true Clinton style (a mix of chutzpah and straight lying), Bill lectures Obama about waiting his turn, as he says he did in 1988. Of course, we know this is not true, because it never is, but it's also nice to know that people close to the Clintons remember things differently, specifically that he backed away from running then because of concerns about his womanizing in the wake of the Gary Hart scandal.

Besides Bill's relative success as president, there is no clearer affirmation that experience is not all it's cracked up to be than Hillary, Biden and Dodd's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution, despite (or is it because of?) their accumulated wisdom. All three of them long ago forfeited their right to lecture anyone on foreign policy, let alone one (Obama) who opposed the pointless, devastating war they started and that they now claim they have the experience to end.

Established politicians like to claim that in a post-9/11, post-Iraq, post-Katrina world, experience counts more than ever. But 9/11, Iraq and the Katrina disgrace happened on their watch, and sometimes with their active participation. Why would we trust that things would be any different now, and why have their mistakes (or their cynicism) earned them a right to a promotion? Some observers dismiss Obama's original anti-war stance as being not risky because he did so from the safety of the Illinois state senate. That presumes there was a risk for those who voted for the war from the discomfort of Congress, and the question is fear of what? Voters? Do we really think that Clinton would have had trouble getting reelected in New York for being anti-war? Senators from states far less liberal than hers, such as Florida, Michigan or Wisconsin, voted against the war. So was it fear of voters nationally that was spurring this hawkishness?

In a satisfying twist, those national voters have turned against the war and are giving Obama a second look, partly because of his original stance on the war. Of course, the fact that Hillary is caught wrong-footed again, this time on Iran, does not enhance the tale that her experience leads to good judgment.

If she played it right, Hillary could probably drive home the point that Obama lacks experience, but instead she unravels, and accuses him of being ambitious and dishonest: how ironic is that?

For years, many of us have been in awe of the Clintons, really in awe: a little scared and a little admiring. But the spell finally broke in the past couple of weeks, when both halves of the couple looked a little ridiculous, and a little desperate.

She, tone-deaf as so often (did she not talk about one-night stands with her middle-aged rural audience this week?), went for her version of the jugular, Obama's musings as a 5-year-old. Her husband, a practiced liar, tried to get away with the biggest lie he could think of: that he had always opposed the war in Iraq.

After the hundreds of polls, focus groups, and various analyses they and others have paid for, surely the Clintons know by now that their Achilles' heel is their unbearable prevarication. It goes to show how deeply embedded this deceptiveness is that these two smart, accomplished actors are simply unable to even pretend to be honest.

After seven years of George W. Bush, and two uninspiring Democratic presidential candidates in Al Gore and John Kerry, we were really missing Bill, but next to Obama's fresh, open-faced, apparent candor, Bill is an unpleasant caricature of the lip-biting, mischievous, smart guy we loved back in the day. And lying about his support for a war that has had horrendous consequences is on another level altogether than covering up for sleeping with subalterns (in itself not a very pretty thing).

Hillary never oozed public charm, so there is no fading charisma there, but she should know better than to lash out about, of all things, another candidate's presidential ambitions.

And so here they are, looking annoyed, perhaps even angry, at the stupidity of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere who are not giving them a free pass to their second presidency. Maybe the Clintons no longer have the fight in them. Or maybe they just need to feel cornered to get their juices going, in which case, it could get very ugly, especially in South Carolina if Hillary loses the first two states.

Comments

[BudP]

Jonathan Alter has an interesting column (http://www.newsweek.com/id/73370) in Newsweek,

"... Hillary negotiated nothing and was present at no major meetings on foreign policy and national security after 1994. She reviewed some presidential speeches (including the one announcing the bombing of terrorist camps crafted in an awkward husband-and-wife session on Martha's Vineyard just after President Clinton confessed to the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998), gave an important address at a Beijing conference on women and traveled to 80 countries as a good-will ambassador. But these contributions are more reminiscent of Eleanor Roosevelt than, say, Al Gore.

On domestic policy, Hillary was essentially sidelined after her disastrous 1994 health-care plan...."

I've always thought the Clinton campaign was sitting on the Library records because they'd reveal that after '94 Hillary was given nothing to do. Which would mean that she is running for President based on one spectacular failure (healthcare).

[Lis]

Sweet evasion
Sweet evasion

You wonk about things and everyone cares
You're wearing salmon pink which nobody wears
You're calling my phone cuz you wanna make clear
the White House, baby, you'll take back in a year

Some smart talkin' mama with a neo-con bent
said her first gentleman he done came and then went
Well I got bad news, she's a real good liar
and the female Bubba raises just as much ire

Sweet coronation
Bleed our nation

You say the right wing went a little too far
When your hubby did things with a fancy cigar
You're saying these things but we know you lied
You can't escape the fact that Vince done died

(Suicide?)

Sweet coronation
Bleed our nation

You stand like a frontrunner covered in glass
Take you back in time, watch you cover your ass
Let's talk about something that you can control
'cause an unscripted question takes you back to your polls

Sweet evasion
Sweet evasion

[MRb1000]

If the Clinton go back to the White House their will be no Peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ikebona]

Jenkins is a genius.
He absolutely echoed my feelings and the sentiments of millions of Democrats out there.

Unlike the previous poster, I like the way he brings up Bill's Arkansas years. It speaks to his character. It shows that the Clintons are who the always have been and should not be trusted.

It's disturbing that someone who didn't have the judgment to opoose the Iraq war or discern the dangers of the Iran resolution, should be talking about experience.

[Lis]

Thank you for summing up, intelligently and with the all-important links to help back up your statements, what I have been trying all year to express to friends, coworkers and family.

Myself having been a Republican all my life, until January when I registered as a Democrat so that I can vote for Obama in the NY primary, I am surrounded by a mix of Republicans and Democrats amongst said friends, coworkers and family, and I am shocked at how few of them are keeping up with the election so far.

The Republicans that I know, I've given up on. But the Democrats who gush on about Hillary, Edwards, or Kucinich (sorry, folks, but I know no one personally who is supporting Richardson, Biden or Gravel), I'm all over these people about Clinton because I cannot bear the thought of her and her husband taking the White House back again.

It's not so much the impeachment trials against Bill or the womanizing behind it, and it's not even the grasping and ambitious "Evita" vibe I get from Hillary -- it's the fact that I want to see our country move ahead....beyond....above....

I want to be proud of my president. I want to be involved in his policies. I want to be informed of his practices. I don't want to feel shut out, scorned and helpless anymore.

That's why I'm voting for Barack Obama, and remaining very hopeful.

Peace.

[LeeFromVA]

Hillary is like Bill without the charisma. That was his best feature. He's generally a likeable guy, his wife, no so likeable. Likability is an extremely important character trait in a world leader. It enables you to inspire other people. The democrats haven't had that in so long, they forget it's even possible. For some reason it's easy to attack a guy whose inspirational. There's something in our thought process that says it's too good to be true, we can't win on that. And nothing could be further from the truth. That's why both Gore and Kerry lost in spite of being head over heels better than Dubya. Too many Democrats have convinced themselves that we don't need hope or inspiration, but instead need someone that can stick it to the Republicans. Hey America, let's try working together. It's not too late.

[jmpurser]

Anybody else out there kinda HOPING we get someone WITHOUT Hillary's kind of experience to vote for?

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

I'm an Obama supporter and not a big fan of Hillary, but Paul Jenkins goes a bit too far here.

Jenkins takes us way back to when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and how he didn't do a whole heck of a lot there. That's not very helpful in 2007.

Sure, Bill Clinton looks a lot better now than he actually was, after what will be eight years of the Bush nightmare. But we all tend to become nostalgic about certain Presidents-- Republicans about Reagan, Democrats about FDR, JFK, and Clinton. Examine their administrations more closely and none of them was as great as we remember.

One positive thing I take from Jenkins's post is this: the Clintons and Clintonites think they own the Democratic Party and run the show, and there seems to be a petty jealousy about them whenever a Howard Dean or Barack Obama or even Al Gore becomes the star of the party. The Clintons have the wealthy connections, the clout, and they don't want to lose it. The problem is, post-2006 midterms, the party belongs to Jim Webb and Nancy Pelosi other anti-war voices-- the "little people" are taking the party back, something that started with Howard Dean.

I miss the President Clinton years, but someday I hope to miss the President Obama years even more.