"It's odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line."
More from
Maureen Dowd in
today's New York Times:
If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.
If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.
The Clintons — or "the 2-headed monster," as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.
Bill's transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.
After Bill's success trolling the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, Hillary handed off South Carolina and flew to California and other Super Tuesday states. The Big Dog relished playing the candidate again, wearing a Technicolor orange tie and sweeping across the state with the mute Chelsea.
He tried to convey the impression that they were running against The Man, and with classic Clintonian self-pity, grumbled that Barack Obama had all the advantages.
When he was asked yesterday if he would feel bad standing in the way of the first black president, he said no. "I'm not standing in his way," he said. "I think Hillary would be a better president" who's "ready to do the job on the first day." He added: "No one has a right to be president, including Hillary. Keep in mind, in the last two primaries, we ran as an underdog." He rewrote the facts, saying that "no one thought she could win" in New Hampshire, even though she originally had had a substantial lead.
He said of Obama: "I hope I get a chance to vote for him some day." And that day, of course, would be after Hillary's eight years; it's her turn now because Bill owes her. "I think it would be just as much a change, and some people think more, to have the first woman president as to have the first African-American president," he said.
Bad Bill had been roughing up Obama so much that Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina suggested that he might want to "chill." On a conference call with reporters yesterday, the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, tut-tutted that the "incredible distortions" of the political beast were "not keeping with the image of a former president."
Jonathan Alter reported in Newsweek that Senator Edward Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman and former Clinton aide, have heatedly told Bill "that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Senator Barack Obama."
In the Myrtle Beach debate Monday night, Obama was fed up with being double-teamed by the Clintons. He finally used attack lines that his strategists had urged him to use against Hillary for months. "It was as though all the e-mails were backed up," said one.
When Hillary tried once more to take Obama's remarks about Ronald Reagan out of context, making it seem as though Obama had praised Reagan's policies, he turned sarcastic about getting two distortionists for the price of one.
"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," he snapped at Hillary, obviously entrapped and pysched-out by the Clinton duo.
On a conference call with reporters yesterday morning, Obama did not back off from his more aggressive, if defensive, stance. The Clintons, he said "spent the last month attacking me in ways that are not accurate. At some point, it's important for me to answer." Recalling that Hillary had called mixing it up the "fun" part of politics, he said: "I don't think it's the fun part to fudge the truth."
Bill has merged with his wife totally now, talking about "we" and "us." "I never did anything major without discussing it with her," he told a crowd here. "We've been having this conversation since we first met in 1971, and I don't think we'll stop now." He suggested as First Lad that "I can help to sell the domestic program."
It's odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.
At the Greenville event, Bill brought up Obama's joking reference to him in the debate, about how Obama would have to see whether Bill was a good dancer before deciding whether he was the first black president.
Bill, naturally, turned it into a competition. "I would be willing to engage in a dancing competition with him, even though he's much younger and thinner than I am," he said. "If I'm going to get in one of these brother contests," he added, "at least I should be entitled to an age allowance."
He said, "I kind of like seeing Barack and Hillary fighting."
"How great is this?" he said. "Neither of them has to be a little wind-up doll who's supposed to behave in a certain way. They're real people, flesh and blood people. They have differences."
And if he has anything to say about it, and he will, they'll be fighting till the last dog dies.
7 comments:
I allow that the Clintons have plenty of valid points within their message; and neither campaign's hands are completely clean. But when I try to look at this as objectively as I can (being an admirer of Obama), I sense that the Clintons are finding some pretty disagreeable ways of getting their message out.
And I agree with Dowd on the point she rather obliquely (to me) makes: they will stop at nothing to win.
It's unfortunate, really, because I never wanted this to come down to "who should go first: an African-American or a Woman?"
In other news, Cynthia McKinney, who is both, is running as a Green. But let's be real.
I just don't see Hillary Clinton unifying the country as much as I do Obama making great strides toward that goal. I know not every conservative will come to appreciate Obama, but I do know that a lot of people have affirmed his approach, even if they find differences with his policies. The fact that the Clintons have (to me) essentially goaded him into being more of a negative campaigner is reason enough to push me completely away from voting for them. And, yes, I said "them."
What joe said.
And to think, I used to be somewhat impressed with Bill.
Horrors.
I will be voting for Obama on Feb 5, not that it makes that much difference here in Texas.
Asshole Clintons. Makes it appear that Gingrich was right about them all along.
As far as unifying the country, I also feel that Obama has some refreshing ideas. That comment he made about Reagan, which received so much (misguided, IMO) coverage over the weekend is revealing. I think what Obama was trying to express is not that he approved of what Reagan did, but that he _does_ admire how went about doing it. What Reagan did wasn't the point. The important thing is that Reagan brought the people along with him -- he made us (largely) feel positive about what he was doing.
I hope you have a job writing op-eds for a newspaper...you're good! I've always liked Obama, but had been leaning to vote for Hillary because I did think she was more qualified...and too, because I did think that the animosity directed toward her wasn't warranted. But now I think I'm seeing what others have seen before me...both about her and him. As a former president, he should have never gone down into the trenches. Support H yes, but attack dog? Very unseemly.
Thanks for the kinds words, June! I also like Hillary, but even before Brother Bill started acting up, she wasn't my favorite candidate. She shouldn't take it personally, though, since this is the reason:
Bush 1989-1993
Clinton 1993-2001
Bush 2001-2009
That's 20 straight years of either a Bush or a Clinton! And what we really need right now is change. And I like the way that Barack Obama (with props to Apple Computer) thinks different (same goes for Edwards).
If Hillary doesn't want us to think that her administration would be similar to what we had with Bill, then she shouldn't be running on his record.
And don't get me wrong -- all that peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at! But I'd like to take what we learned during the Clinton years and step it up to a higher level -- to do it without feeling like we're under siege all the time.
What was I thinking? I'll be voting for EDWARDS on Feb 5.
::silly me::
Post a Comment