CBS does a bit of a hit job on Hillary with this piece, especially focusing on the sweet little girl that greeted her on that day in ’96. But then, Hillary earned every bit of it. Yet another reason I am almost 100% certain she will be bested by Obama. And another lesson in how trying to act like 1990s Bill when you aren’t Bill leads to disastrous results.
Let’s face it, the vaunted Clinton machine has shown complete fecklessness in the face of Obamania. The ways in which she has failed to make headway against this force of nature–the rhetoric of Obama–are countless. Its actually staggering the missed opportunities and the inability of her campaign to find weak points to harp on, especially considering the willingness of the Clintons to play dirty.
A new thought occurred to me this afternoon, though. Did Hillary just get unlucky? What if Obama had decided to wait until the next go ’round in ’12? How would the “inevitable candidate” fared in a race without the Illinois senator-cum-rock star/hope-monger/Presidential candidate?
For starters, she would have dispatched all the second-tier candidates with ease. John Edwards would have remained as her chief rival. I suspect that she would have become at some point the clear establishment candidate, meaning all the endorsements and money flowing to Obama would instead have been hers. She would in that case have been able to play by her own rules. She could have hit Edwards with more traditional attacks, since he would be a more symmetrical opponent. Without Obama, it is highly likely she would have all but wrapped up the nomination by now.
Then what? She would face McCain in the general election. Theoretically, she should win, because she would be the “change candidate.” In the general election, her more centrist foreign policy would dilute McCain’s biggest selling point, and she could probably demagogue her way to victory on domestic issues.
But this is 2008. Would the voters really go for the old Clinton tricks this time around? Cynicism directed toward Washington is high, as shown by not only President Bush’s perennially dreadful approval ratings but also the even worse approval rating for the Democratic Congress (which somehow has managed to do worse than the shamefully useless Repubican Congress before it). The Clintons of ’92 and ’96 got away with all manner of semantic gymnastics and fallacy, and developed evasion of tough questions into an art form. They played dirty but never got mud on their clothes. And somehow, they could connect with Americans, who were all too happy to overlook the closets in Arkansas bulging with skeletons.
Methinks today’s voter would be less apt to let them get away with it. The Clinton machine is a 20th century dinosaur that has proven itself inferior to better evolved species. Perhaps she was unlucky in that in her year to shine, Obama also rose. Perhaps, however, she was doomed anyway.
Your comments are appreciated.
Difficult as it is to believe, it was 16 years ago that the phrase “the economy, stupid” defined Bill Clinton’s successful bid for the Presidency. James Carville’s powerfully simple mantra has been found under the letter “I” in America’s political dictionary ever since; and Democrats and Republicans alike have found it especially pertinent in various contexts. The reason is simple—while foreign wars and domestic legislative battles are fleeting, the average American citizen’s thirst for financial freedom to pursue his American Dream trumps all.
The economy in recent years has been sufficiently vibrant to render most Americans financially confident on their various levels, so with this first need cared for worry was available to be spent upon things like the War on Terror. Certainly, a year ago any analyst would have predicted that the War in Iraq would take center stage in the presidential campaign. Based on the media’s (and to a certain extent the citizenry’s) preoccupation with the goings-on in Iraq at the time, this was a fair assumption. However, two developments coincided to bring the economy back to the forefront of concern.
The first of these developments was the dramatic success of the troop surge in Iraq, President Bush’s last-gasp effort to demonstrate success in Iraq. In a series of deft political moves that ought to at some point be studied more in depth, Bush quieted a fresh Democrat-controlled Congress who demanded a withdrawal from Iraq by convincing them to give him one final shot, as it were. Much to the Congress’ dismay, Bush’s plan actually worked for the most part. With a dramatic drop in violent incidents in Iraq, the bloodthirsty domestic media in turn seemed to lose interest in focusing the spotlight in the “disaster” in Iraq.
As Iraq faded from the limelight, the first noises of a looming crisis in the financial sector began to be heard. Over the course of the last half of 2007, the chorus of bad financial news grew exponentially louder. We are now all too familiar with the refrain that points to troubled lending institutions and weakness of the US dollar as evidence of what may already be a recession.
Flash back to 1992, when Carville posted “The economy, stupid” on the wall of Bill Clinton’s campaign office. Incumbent president George H.W. Bush had just presided over a mild recession while the thrill of victory in the Gulf War was in the process of slipping from memory. Bush suddenly seemed irrelevant.
Today’s situation isn’t a perfect reprise of 1992 by any stretch, but as we have seen there are clearly some parallels that can inform analysis of the 2008 Presidential campaign. Foreign concerns remain, but are not at the forefront of debate. Healthcare is slightly higher in the hierarchy of issues. Tax reform garners a similar level of attention. It is change in Washington and a quick fix for the ailing economy that far and away dominate the messages of the campaigns of both the Democrat and Republican candidates.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani all would do well to post Carville’s words in their offices, or at least have them tattooed inside their eyelids. Even if the freefalling economy begins to right itself in light of initiatives by the Fed and the White House, the after-effects will linger throughout the campaign. Of all candidates, Mitt Romney with his vast (and clearly successful) business background, has the best opportunity in this environment. It will be interesting to see if he can capitalize on this opportunity. The rest of the field will be relying less on their resumes and more in their various contrived “my plan”s.
Former CIA director George Tenet has been a handy scapegoat for Bushites looking for someone to blame for missteps in Iraq. His infamous “Slam Dunk” characterization of the connection between 9/11 and Iraq purportendly made Bush, Cheney, and Company’s decision to attack Iraq–as if no other deliberation was involved in the President making the grave decision to commit US troops belligerent action. To blame Tenet for Iraq is bogus. And Tenet is tired of it. So, in the greatest American tradition, the much-maligned former CIA director is releasing his tell-all book and making the talk-show circuit. Tenet is obviously working to clear his name by playing the “I did my job but the White House roughed me up to hear what they wanted to hear” card. That’s all well and good. He has been unfairly utilised as a pinata by the Bushigentsia. But the problem is the that other than his lofty post, Tenet is no superstar and no portrait of smashing success. It bears stating for those evaluating the impact of Tenet’s revelations a few truths. First, Tenet took his post at the CIA in 1997 under President Clinton. During Tenet’s tenure the US faced the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and of course 9/11. While the CIA has been a mess since the end of the Cold War (or perhaps before), one would expect such a venerable agency to not act entirely inept at spying on Islamic extremism. So I suggest that Tenet may have a legitimate beef with being a scapegoat for Iraq, but maybe his poor record with the agency should be examined before we join his pity party.
Mara Copeland developed a political dialogue with the Clintons through MySpace, exchanging what she calls “personal” emails with the two and other Clintonites. Once the Clintons-or their campaign people masquerading as the Clintons en vivo-had poor Mara on the hook, they demanded cash and set a deadline! Full story is on Newsmax.