Clintons Should See the Writing, End Cynicism
I remember Bill Clinton’s first presidential election in 1992. He was cool, smart, likable and most importantly, he really cared about the average American. He gave people hope and made them feel like America’s best days were ahead of them. There was a Bush in the White House, a war in Iraq had just ended, and there was a recession in the States.
Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience, but he was a skillful, optimistic politician. In 1992 he won a general election without receiving close to a majority thanks to Ross Perot. And the 1990s saw the biggest economic boom in American history. Of course it’s not fair to give him all of the credit for a technological whirlwind, but it would be similarly unfair not to give him some credit. Bill Clinton was the hopeful golden boy of the Democratic Party.
We are living through the presidential race of 2008. There is a Bush in the White House, a war in Iraq, and a recession in the States. Senator Obama has little foreign policy experience (although infinitely more than Governor Clinton did), but his is a skillful, optimistic politician. And he could get a majority of Americans in general election. And he could unite much of the country in a way Clinton never did, and his wife clearly will not.
It’s been a long 16 years, and the Clintons have gone from sunny outsiders to cynical insiders. Hillary Clinton has run a bare knuckles, intellectually dishonest campaign beginning when she played on race in South Carolina (if Bill Clinton was the first black president, does this make him the world’s first white uncle tom?). She has made experience her main claim to superiority saying she has 35 years of it. Yet George Will correctly pointed out that this includes every moment of her adult life including law school. She argues she is experienced because of her time in the White House, most recently drawing upon a Walter Mondale ad to argue that she is best to answer when the “red phone” rings at 3AM (see below). And yet it turns out she didn’t even have a high security clearance when her husband was president, meaning she was not legally allowed to have access to top secret information.
Incidentally, perhaps Clinton isn’t aware that Walter Mondale won one state. That’s right folks, he managed to be the only Democrat in modern history to lose Massachusetts! Not the campaign you want to model yourself after.
How does a Clinton become so cynical? They used to be so tied to optimism that President Clinton couldn’t stop reminding us that he was born in a town named Hope. Now they are so two-faced that Senator Clinton actually said she was “honored, just honored” to be on stage with Barack Obama. Within 15 hours she was shouting “Shame on you Barack Obama.” It’s almost as if she was unaware that YouTube allows people to watch the two clips back-to-back:
Next day:
I’m not really sure how anyone could watch those two clips–and yes, the were on consecutive days, and yes she knew about those supposedly outrageous mailings before the debate–and think that Senator Clinton cares about anything other than power. How could anyone be so transparently two-face? Who does she think she is, Mitt Romney? I’m sure she believes that she is the best candidate to lead the country forward, but to run a campaign this cynical, this hollow and this nasty is an embarrassment to the couple that once made you feel good about yourself and your country.
Senator Clinton is not using any illegal or out of bounds tactics (yet), and she has the right to use whatever strategy she thinks will work. It is not a case of disenfranchising voters like occurred in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. Yet it does involve threatening lawsuits, trying to change the rules after the fact and complaining that you get the first question in every debate, you know, the ones you keep demanding (note to Team Clinton: you want the first question because you can frame the debate. This is kind of basic.)
I’m not mad at the Clintons. In their heart of hearts they probably believe their own rhetoric. They are probably so consumed by the campaign that they actually believe Senator Clinton can unify the country. They believe it so strongly that they are willing to rip apart their own party to bring the country together.
And that’s just it. Senator Clinton cannot see the writing on the wall. This campaign is over. Don’t believe me? Newsweek has a piece highlighting how if Hillary won every election between now and the end of the cycle, even by wide margins, she would still lose on merit and have to steal super delegates.
Senator Clinton, my senator: thinking you can win that way is not hopeful, it’s delusional.
Share This
豪杰 responds:
Posted: March 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pm →
She is even worse than her wholly-imagined “right-wing conspiracy” claimed she was!
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: March 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm →
Hillary’s biggest obstacle in this race is herself. Before her official campaign started, and many talk shows and liberal talking heads supported her, the word was that women should have their moment in the sun to run this country and that they can do a better job than men and lastly that Hillary pretty much deserved the Democratic nomination. And I think she still believes that deep in her heart and is quite literally angry at the idea that so many young and middle aged women have turned out to support Obama (not to mention white men in the midwest, southeast, mid-atlantic and northwest).
Bill is steaming at the possibility that he won’t get a de facto third term in office (he has been quoted with the misstep of referring to himself back in the Oval Office).
And the last gasp of desperation is the Clinton camp throwing all of their money, influence and threats into getting the DNC to allow Florida and Michigan to re-hold primary elections. Of course, the Republicans would like that as well so they can run McCain against the Hilla-monster.
Charles responds:
Posted: March 8th, 2008 at 12:50 am →
Does anyone else find the argument “Look she can win ohio, and florida, states you need to win the general election” as annoying as I do? I hear this every time one of her supporters is on cable news to “face off” against an obama supporter. It is so absurd. She can win closed democractic primaries. When anyone can vote in a given state’s primary, Obama usually wins (I honestly believe that right wing talk radio calls for republicans to vote for her in Texas may have decided that contest). Anyway, is there any doubt that those clinton voters (blue collar, laid off etc) would vote for Obama in the general election？ He’s at least given lip service to protectionist ideas. Are they going to over to the biggest free-trader in the election? It’s ridiculous, she has no chance in a general election.
Richard responds:
Posted: March 8th, 2008 at 2:43 am →
On the other hand, Obama has mainly won states that almost inevitably go Republican in a general election, while Clinton has won in states that generally are more likely to go Democratic…..
Josh responds:
Posted: March 9th, 2008 at 9:29 am →
@Richard:
Obama has won swing states like Virginia, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota and Washington. Obama will win most of the “big” states that Clinton won (NJ, NY, Cali) and will probably have the same or better odds in the others she won, with the possible exception of Florida (I doubt Clinton has much shot there either). However, Clinton has zero chance in Virginia, which Obama could definitely win. If the Dems win Virginia they are virtually assured the presidency (they would have won the last two if they had taken it). Ditto for Colorado, which Clinton has no chance in.
Chris Devonshire-Ellis responds:
Posted: March 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm →
What I find amusing is that 90% of non-Americans think the Presidential election is between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. To those people - you have no idea. It’s going to get worse, much worse. No wonder China doesn’t have democracy. Can you imagine ? - Chris