Several news stories including one in The New York Times underscore what this site has been saying for some time: former President Bill Clinton is emerging as a distraction in Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Democratic nomination campaign — sucking up media attention and dominating the stage in increasingly testy and potentially divisive-for-Democrats public appearances.
Here’s the latest from the Times —- and there’s a recent video below so you can judge for yourself:
Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the spouse running for office, but it is more Bill Clinton who appears to be feeling the heat.
After weeks of complaining publicly about Barack Obama’s record, the news media’s coverage of the Democratic presidential race, or both, Mr. Clinton on Wednesday ripped into a television reporter who had asked him about a Nevada lawsuit concerning participation in the state’s caucuses this Saturday. Mr. Clinton believed the question had seemed sympathetic to Mr. Obama’s stakes in the suit, Clinton campaign officials said.
When you watch the video, it’s clear that the reporter was DOING HIS JOB by asking questions that are “out there” — discussed on talk radio, in blogs, and even (we know first hand) by people who follow politics as they sit in Starbucks. The reporter wasn’t sent there by his office to ask friendly or unfriendly questions or extract a public relations comment. He asked questions pegged to a hot political news story that many members of the public would want asked and answered. MORE:
A federal judge in Las Vegas ruled in the case Thursday, with a decision that will apparently benefit the Obama campaign. The judge, James C. Mahan, held that some hotel-casinos, as arranged by the Nevada Democratic Party, would be permitted to set up caucus precincts on site so employees who work Saturday can participate. Many of those Nevadans are members of Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which has endorsed Mr. Obama, and their votes on Saturday could help him significantly against Mrs. Clinton.
In Sunday’s debate, Mrs. Clinton insisted her campaign wasn’t behind it but made it politely clear she was sympathetic to the suit brought by a union that had high officials who reportedly back the New York Senator as individuals.
Bill Clinton sandbagged any attempt to “finesse” the Clinton camp’s position: he made it totally clear that the Clinton camp most CERTAINLY had not just a position but felt it had a vested interest in stopping the onsite precincts and made the case for the plaintiffs:
The suit was brought by the state teachers’ union, which maintained that the arrangement gave the hotel employees an advantage that others working Saturday did not have. Some of this union’s top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. But her campaign has denied involvement in the suit, and when the television reporter suggested a connection between it and her supporters, the former president, stumping for her in Oakland, Calif., narrowed his eyes. As his aides looked on with concern, Mr. Clinton’s voice took on an edge.
Watch the video and make your own decision:
The reporter also did what many journalists fail to do today: he was persistent in asking follow up questions if he did not get a good answer — which is what GOOD reporters are trained to do in journalism school and/or by their editors on the job. Bill Clinton keeps saying the reporter’s questions reflect “your position” when the reporter is asking a question:
The Times again:
Mr. Clinton’s temper has been an issue for him as long as he has been in public life. But it has played an unusual role during the current campaign, his face turning red in public nearly every week, often making headlines as he defends his wife and injects himself, whether or not intentionally, into her race in sometimes distracting ways.
Some Clinton advisers say the campaign is trying to rein him in somewhat, so that his outbursts become less of a factor to reporters, but his flashes of anger only seem to be growing. Last week, for instance, a clearly agitated Mr. Clinton told Dartmouth students that it was a “fairy tale” for Mr. Obama to contend that he had been consistently against the war in Iraq. And in December he said that voters supporting Mr. Obama were willing to “roll the dice” on the presidency.
“The bottom line is, his outbursts don’t help the campaign,” said James A. Thurber of American University, an analyst of the presidency and Congress. “They become an issue, and it can grow into a real problem. I think the campaign is worried about him right now.”
The Times piece says that some Clinton camp officials believe Clinton frames the issues so forcefully that it helps the campaign by pushing vital points into the national debate.
Our view?
Yes, Bill Clinton is indeed pushing points he feels need to be discussed or given more attention into the news cycle, but he is in grave danger of becoming overexposed and negatively impacting his wife’s campaign.
There is no precedent in American history for a former President to discard that special above-the-fray aura of the Oval Office and jump so totally, absolutely and a times aggressively into a bitter partisan fight to help a relative (or any candidate) as what America is seeing with Bill Clinton. Even Richard Nixon and the first George Bush kept that Bigger-Than-Life former President aura.
Clinton’s controversial appearances could be very negative for his wife because:
–There is only so much “ink” and “air time” given to news stories, even in this era of super-quick news cycles that run 24 hours a day. He’s sucking up “news hole” and “newscast time” that could be devoted to aspects of the Hillary Clinton campaign that could help her.
–He is triggering all the animosities that “Clinton haters” had nurtured for years. It’s hard to believe they will not get out and vote now in droves if she gets the nomination, just to keep him out of the Oval Office…even as First Spouse.
–He is tripping up the VALID narrative of Hillary Clinton who has, by all accounts, been an excellent New York Senator who is known for doing her homework, having an impressive grasp of issues and responding quickly and efficiently to most constituent requests. She also had carved out an impressive reputation as a centrist. Meanwhile, she looks increasingly impressive on television. She’s evolving in a positive way. Her political skills seem to be growing — at a time when her husband’s seem to be slipping.
–He is giving a lot of ammunition to Republicans, particularly talk show hosts, who will argue that Bill Clinton is “really” running for his third term as President (some have started arguing it already). At best, they’ll say, America will buy one and get one free. At worst, they’ll argue, it’ll REALLY be Mr. and Mrs. Clinton as President and then whoever is picked as Hillary Clinton’s running mate as Vice President.
–He’s is tossing away the natural aura that former Presidents have and is coming across as just another partisan and/or husband who lashes out at political rivals within his own party who oppose his wife’s goals.
–Stories such as this take some of the attention away from recent, almost masterful attempts to enhance Mrs. Clinton’s image. She was on a daytime TV show giving her most touching account yet of how she felt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And then there was a bit of genius political stagecraft where she acted like a stewardess giving campaign-plug information to reporters on her airplane.
Both made her look GOOD. But Bill Clinton takes the attention away from her and puts it on HIM. Having No Bill Clinton on the campaign trail is better than having a red-faced Bill Clinton making it clear that the Clinton camp most-assuredly was hoping that the courts would stop the on-site voting in Las Vegas.
And after this You Tube and TV clip gets widespread play, is it likely that it will HELP Mrs. Clinton in Nevada?
Stranger things have happened this year. But in this case it most likely will not help her one bit. A little bit of a Bill Clinton angry at those who dare oppose his wife goes a long, long way.
[This writer was a supporter of Bill Clinton when he was President and defended him in heated arguments with friends and relatives during impeachment. He is not a Rush Limbaugh fan or a “Clinton hater.]
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.