Apparently, with the caucuses and primaries about to begin, Bill and Hillary Clinton have shifted tactics and are now claiming that the two of them constituted a 'co-presidency" during the 1990s.
As part of the Clinton strategy, the former president is playing an increasingly prominent public role as an advocate for his wife. He appears to have overcome concerns within the campaign over how closely she should associate her candidacy with his time in office and over whether his appearances could draw attention away from her.Both Clintons are making the case that theirs was a co-presidency -- an echo of Bill Clinton's controversial statement during the 1992 campaign that voters would get "two for the price of one" if they elected him. At times, the former president has seemed to cast the current race as a referendum on his administration.
Two questions spring to mind here. First, is this true? Were the Clintons really a "co-presidency" as they are now suggesting? Second, is this smart political strategy for Hillary to tie herself so closely to her husband?
On the latter question, the political strategy might be sound here, but only up to a point. No doubt, the American people remember the Clinton years fondly, especially in contrast to the disastrous (in every way) Bush administration. There are a number of risks here, however. For starters, the Clinton administration had its bumps, including the failed health care initiative and a series of (relatively minor) scandals (or alleged scandals). Also, I'd argue that what worked for the "peace and prosperity" 1990s might not work for the challenges and threats we're facing today in the world. More to the point, I'm not sure if Clinton administration policies are what voters are looking for in today's world.
For instance, is "free trade" -- NAFTA, for example -- what people want today? The Clinton administration did, after all, take the lead on NAFTA; is that something Hillary Clinton wants voters to be reminded about right now? I have my doubts.
With regard to the Clinton administration being a co-presidency of Bill and Hillary, I simply don't remember that being the case, certainly not after the 1994 Republican landslide. If anything, I recall the post-1995 Clinton administration as more like a Clinton-Gore co-presidency (if anything), or maybe a Clinton-Greenspan-Rubin co-presidency (fiscal conservatism, the end of "the era of big government," individual -- but most definitely NOT corporate -- welfare, etc.). But honestly, I can't recall a Bill-Hillary "co-presidency" after 1994. Is my memory failing me? Does anyone else remember this? Or, is it simply Bill Clinton exaggerating in order to help his wife, just like a few weeks ago he said he had always been against the Iraq war? As we demonstrated, that simply was not true. Nor, as far as I can determine, is the current claim about a Bill and Hillary "co-presidency."
P.S. Also, during and after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I seem to recall the Clintons barely even talking to each other, with photos of Chelsea separating the two of them as they walked across the White House lawn, etc. Anyone else have a different recollection?
As for the "co-presidency" talk of the 1990s, Lowell, that died along with the health care initiative. I had the impression at the time that her claim of joint authority rankled more than a few people in Congress, and was a big part of why the plan died as disastrously as it did.
We can't survive much more of this disingenuous and muddle-headed smoke and mirror approach to our personal and national security.
I think the fundamental reason why Bush's presidency has been disastrous is the power that's been given to Cheney. The system isn't set up for a Vice President to have any role in governing until the President is no longer able to govern. The thought of the First Spouse being given actual power is especially scary given what we're going through with Cheney.
The good news for Hillary is that as much as she sidetracked her professional political career to help Bill with his, her rivals aren't any more qualified to President than she is. The bad news for Hillary is that as much as she and Bill want to claim it, she isn't more qualified than her rivals.
Still, there's no doubt that the fact that Hillary is married and will likely stay married to Bill is a huge difference between her and her rivals. To get the nomination, I don't see this as an advantage for Hillary. For every Dem nostalgic about Bill's years, there's probably a feminist Dem who hates the thought that our first woman President might be perceived as her husband's puppet.
I think the desire for change is much more desperate than in 1992, particularly on the Dem side. This isn't to say that Obama and Edwards are obviously better than Hillary Clinton or that they won't stumble their way out of the race. I just think that on balance Bill is a liability for the primaries.
That is why I am supporting Hillary. Bob Kerrey, Wes Clark, Robert Rubin--those are future leaders and advisors in the Hillary Clinton administration. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Hillary has known these leaders for years and will not pigeon-hole them.
There is just too much at stake, and there is no more room for delay at the Executive Branch. Treasury, Labor, HUD, Energy, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Transportation -- can Edwards get it? No-- he really never got it during his three active years in the Senate. Can Barrack get it? With time, lots of time--but we don't have time to mess around.
I wish I could be idealistic, look back on the JFK election, and dream about Barrack doing the same. But that is unrealistic. In 2016, I hope so. But not 2008--no way.
I was one of 3000 people across the US that made phone calls to 25 supporters of Hillary on Thursday, and I will be down at her HQ today for more volunteer time. We have family in Michigan, South Carolina, New York, Alabama, Colorado, and California--all of them helping Hillary to win the Feb. 5th primaries and caucuses.
Additionally, Wes Clark will take the lead and actively work to win Virginia, and that will kick off very soon.
Hillary Clinton 2008. Please get involved because the tasks that we will inherit are too overwhelming for inexperience.
I'm glad you raised Wes Clark. Here's his endorsement: http://securingamerica.com/ccn...
If Wes Clark thinks that of her, that kind of opinion should be respected. All top three candidates deserve our respect. (I like others, too, especially Richardson.)
I do not know Hillary personally, but one of my mentors knows her extremely well -- and has known her since Yale days. My brother knew Bill very well for years. Bill and Hillary are top flight people.
I was referring more to statements commenters have made like "Hillary can't win", or her politics are those of the "past" (which, in view of Bill's overall accomplishments, is not necessarily a bad thing, even if I were to agree with the statement.) The "can't win" criticism (which is most likely false as revealed by two recent polls on the issue) is damaging because it is defeatist.
In terms of their inconsistencies on the bi-presidency, one could make the same claims about various aspects of all the candidates' records. (Though Mitt's and Rudy's multiple reversals are sea changes.) Like Obama on trade: he voted against CAFTA -- which he brags about -- but he supported* the agreement with Peru (which Hillary did also--and which may have been the better position -- there were Democratic liberal Senators who thought it would help American exports.) (*Neither voted--they were both campaigning.) There are anti-NAFTA/CAFTA people who were also anti-Peru. That doesn't necessarily mean Obama was being inconsistent. (Another factor is that we don't want Peru to get too cozy with Chavez.)
I would just like people to think about what they're saying, and not go negative. Some months down the road, we could, e.g., have a Clinton-Webb ticket (that's my betting) and we don't want I. Publius taunting "but your blog said back then that Hillary was a doofus on foreign policy, e.g."
Also, I'm aware that many of the same criticisms being leveled against Hillary (that she represents the politics of the old, or the status quo) are also being made against Obama. There was a notable article in Harper's http://www.harpers.org/archive... which Obama has responded to here http://obama.senate.gov/press/... saying he really was a product of the old-line establishment (not that that is necessarily bad -- personally I'd prefer Rubin running econ policy now over anyone in the Bush administration).
I did not mean to single out your observation, which does raise glaring inconsistencies. I was responding to what I sensed were "Providence's" frustrations -- I've felt too there has been lots of unnecessary negativity towards Clinton.
In terms of the health-care debacle at the beginning of the Clinton Administration, very powerful corporate interests lined up against her, especially the tobacco companies. That's one place Grover Norquist accumulated a lot of power -- he became a hired gun against Hillary's plan. I don't blame her for failing to get a plan going -- no one in 50 years has come up with a comprehensive solution that works.
Again, I would just like people to think when debating the strengths of the candidates -- there's no need to tear down the other candidate.
p.s. I like Hillary's laugh. I like women who snort when they laugh, too, or who are generally raucous.
and p.p.s. I know from my associations with conservative men that some of them will absolutely defecate in their trousers if Hillary is elected (it's not just political with them, but a gender thing too -- they're afraid of women). Even if Hillary is your third or fourth choice, that thought alone should console you if your favorite should not win.
But NPR aired a women the other day (from Iowa, I think) who claimed if you sleep with a person you can do the other person's job. It's times like this when I know how in peril our "democracy" is. It depends upon informed citizens who use good judgment. Ridiculous notions like pillow talk=a resume ought to be laughed off the stage.
The co-presidency argument, by extension, means individuals without Ph.D.s could teach at universities if their spouses do, spouses of doctors could/would operate, spouses of firemen could put out fires safely, spouses of engineers could design bridges, and so on.
I am just not buyin it. And I personally object to any statement concerning this being mischaracterized as Hillary bashing. It is not. Rather, it is Hillary (and Bill) who are bashing us with their absurd equations and presumptions. Spare us!
Too depressing for words... Our side never learns.
Which is EXACTLY why Hillary should NOT be the nominee.. anymore than Edwards or Obama.
The only candidate with REAL experieince is Goveror Richardson.. he has more real experience than Hillary, Obama and Edwards combined..
I am sorry a life long ambition to be president does not qualify as expereince, being married to a governor and a president also doesn't not qualify as experience.
BEING a Governor, BEING an Ambassador, BEING a Congressman, RECEIVING 4 Noble peace prize nominations.. thats real experience.. and in comparing the REAL Experince of all three candidates combined they lack the resume of Governor Richardson.
HAVING THE RESUME Is much different than being in close proximity to someone with that does..
Charles
Then the Boston Globe finds a 1978 claim by Mitt that he and his father marched with King. Mitt's campaign issued some disclaimer about this also.
Then -- LOL -- someone finds evidence backing Mitt's original claim. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a... and http://www.mittromney.com/News...
Anybody who is this slippery cannot be a true Christian (as he claims to be while waving his faith like the American flag) or even someone you would want to do business with. And he is claiming we should hand him the reigns of government. We have already tried one empty suit. With George Bush with have already been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, worn out the T-shirt.
She was a senior adviser to the President for 8 years. You can dismiss that as "pillow talk", but I know that my wife is involved in many of the important decisions I make, and my relationship involves more than just "sleeping with her" (and I was frankly surprised to see a woman, Kathy in Blacksburg, above, reducing marriage to those crude terms).
Based on Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary, A Woman In Charge (which I recommend), she was quite heavily involved with policy issues and decisions during the early years of the Clinton presidency, though it is true that in later years she spent much more of her time a goodwill ambassador and representative, visiting many countries around the world. I think all of it, as well as having been in the pressure cooker of the White House and two presidential campaigns, represents experience worth citing.
Also, FYI, for those who say that her experience is "equal" to her rivals, she actually has more years in the Senate than Obama or Edwards. I like all of these folks and would love to see any of them get elected. But I've been sick of all the Hillary-bashing since 1992.
It's not Hillary bashing to question the made up experience she claims.. just as it's not Obama bashing or Edwards bashing to point out they too don't have the experience. I will say of the three she has more "experience" but she also can't be an element for change in a Washington she is as deeply ingrained in as anyone. Her "experince" is completely from inside the beltway and so is her thinking.. thats also what we don't need.
This country needs REAL experience, as it also needs fresh ideas and that can NOT come from someone inside the beltway.
That is why Gov. Richardson should be the nominee.. too bad the media loves the status quo...
Charles
It is clear the reason they've stayed together is their intellectual rapport. They are both powerful intellects. Bill used to walk the floor until the small hours, wanting to talk policy to whomever he could find. His mind was always in overdrive. Hillary is one of the few people who would be a match for him. It is extremely unlikely that she and he were not discussing and debating issues endlessly. Maybe people with 100 IQs don't need that intellectual rapport in their marriages, but super smart people do. She's no Laura Bush, that's for sure.
Here's the new point. I actually think that if Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and probably Richardson were all put in separate rooms and given a complex problem to solve (imagine this is like a Foreign Service exam) they'd come to similar results. They all strike me not only as brilliant, but also rational thinkers.
I think there is less brain power on the GOP side, though several are very smart. (I think Huckabee has above average intelligence but that's all.) What concerns me is that I do not trust their rational thinking abilities. This includes McCain, who I think is the best of the lot, but who apparently is noted for flying off the handle.