Attention Bill Clinton: Step Away From The Wife
You can exchange “wife” with “significant other” or any one of many roles a female has in the life of a man if you’d like to universalize this post, because I’m sure what I’m about to describe occurs in long-term relationships as well as father-daughter, sister-brother, son-mother and other connections.
What am I talking about? Start here with Swaraaj’s very open post about how men, in their attempts to compensate for being less than perfect when it comes to standing by their women, tend to overcompensate when they do finally realize that they’ve been less than perfect.
Case in point: Bill Clinton, as Swaraaj points out.
I don’t understand why leading democrats are asking Bill Clinton to pipe down…
When you cross 60, you suddenly realise how unfair you had been to your wife, and maybe not much supportive during the testing times in life….
At least I realised this. And I presume, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who are my age, may be thinking like that…!!!
Observations made during the roundtable portion of this morning’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos reveal what it is Swaraaj gently says he doesn’t understand about the requests for Bill to step away from his wife (and who ever thought we’d have to ask him to do that?).
Specifically, here are comments made by the guests and host regarding Bill Clinton’s troublesome emergence in his wife’s campaign over the last few days:
George Will: [refers to Bill Clinton as an "Olympic-class whiner" but says that such behavior "might work" in terms of helping Hillary]
Katrina vanden Heuvel: “I’m not sure it’s working [Matthew Dowd speaks and then KVH again]…He is so over-invested in her candidacy. When she said in New Hampshire, ‘I have found my own voice,’ she was talking about more than just the politics of it…people are looking at him like a little league dad…he has to be sent far away…”
George Stephanopoulos: “…I don’t think that President Clinton believes he is hurting…”
[snip]
Dowd: “…the best thing that she can do is stand alone…the best thing they can do is he sort of take a step back, go off the stage and let her stand on her own.”
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!! Give those folks a cigar (or a nice This Week mug)!!!
Especially vanden Heuvel who may just be my newest hero of batting back at the push the MSM gives to certain theories and issues. But that’s another post.
Who got the dingdingdingdingding?
Both vanden Heuvel and Dowd. When a person – in this case, Bill Clinton – reaches that point when, as Swaraaj says, he (or she) realizes that they’ve somehow been less than helpful to someone who is supposed to mean the world to them or has propped them up in the past, they aren’t supposed to take actions that make them feel better. They are supposed to take actions that make that other person feel better.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, Bill needs to do exactly as Matthew Dowd says and let Hillary stand alone. She absolutely without question can stand alone.
Now, maybe the public – Republicans included – don’t want her to stand alone. Maybe even Bill doesn’t want her to stand alone. Why not? Why wouldn’t anyone want Hillary Clinton to test out, try out and remain standing alone?
Because the result of letting a capable, intelligent woman stand alone might:
1. show just how much the man is not needed. Man no like not being needed;
2. concern the woman that maybe she needs him after all (she must fight that back, because this is about her succeeding or failing, on her own); and finally,
3. lead to the woman succeeding – and what would that be like?
When it comes to the American presidency, no one knows yet. So understandably, some of us might be a little freaked out about the possibility. Allowing Bill to overcompensate for not letting Hillary be Hillary all by Hillary’s self is another excuse to keep her from standing alone.
But obviously, Bill Clinton is freaked out by the possibility of his wife becoming president, too. Which is why he has to step away from the wife and let us see Hillary on her own.
Then, if you want to slam her, she’s all yours. And you can leave Bill out of it.
The real trick for Americans will be testing themselves to see if they – the Hillary supporters and the Hillary haters – can neutralize the image and actions of Bill Clinton, though he may leave too indelible an impression for Hillary to ever be seen and critiqued as standing alone.
And that is the real shame about having so few women leaders.
Cross-posted at Writes Like She Talks.
12 Responses to “Attention Bill Clinton: Step Away From The Wife”
Like practically every U. S. president Bill Clinton is much as Alice Roosevelt described her father Theodore, a man who insists on being the bride at every wedding, the baby at every baptism, and the corpse at every funeral. There's only one center of attention.
It stems from his narcissism which truly is pathological. If someone doesn't experience live day and day out with someone like that, it is very difficult to understand just how oppressive it is.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
A contrary view: if, as I believe, significant numbers of Americans are less than willing to see a woman as president., it is important for her to have strong man at her side saying “she can do it.” If that strong man is an ex President, so much the better. The idea that Bill is being “narcissistic” and “oppressive” is just wrong, I think. She knows he is a better salesman for her than she is. And she knows that criticizing a strong black man running for President is better done by Bill and not her. He has the political capital to do it. I see the Clintons as a strong, connected couple working together for the goal. There is nothing demeaning in that viz Hillary and her ability to lead.
“And that is the real shame about having so few women leaders”
Too true. But, consistent with my thesis that there are strong emotional blocks in many Americans towards strong woman leaders, it is a unique confluence of circumstances that a strong woman, Hillary, also has a strong man who has her back and can tell people: “she can do this job. I know.” This really may be a once in lifetime chance to break the gender barrier on the presidency because of these unique circumstances.
“…Hillary, also has a strong man who has her back and can tell people: “she can do this job. I know.”
If only that was all he was saying. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
IMO, he's adding an aura of spousely dependence to her that's not just alien to her prior persona, but also demeaning.
Jammer – I really like your comment, even though I have some disagreements with it. So, if you're able to “hear” me through this one dimensional medium, I hope you'll read my response with the sincerity it's intended to convey for conversing, as opposed to defending, if you know what I mean.
Consistend with this post I put up a couple of days ago, you are right – there is a proportion of people who have answered the poll question about whether a female president is a good thing in the negative.
What we don't know is why they think it wouldn't be a good thing, and whether they're actually saying it would be a bad thing (hattip to Polimom on that point I think, yes?).
You've suggested this: “it is important for her to have strong man at her side saying “she can do it.” If that strong man is an ex President, so much the better.”
Now, I believe you mean well by this, but the problem is that then the woman never gets to develop the strength she needs for when she will inevitably have to stand alone. And with Hillary, it's hard for us to see her as a woman trotting out her man to say, “See! I must be great because he chose me” since Bill has so many faulty areas of making judgements.
Try thinking about it this way: do you want your kids to do well in school because you say so, or because they want to do well? Maybe when they are younger, a little bit of both, but eventually, it's all on them – they have to do it because they want to.
Likewise, Hillary has to be able to stand out there on her own and be desired by others for her presidential potential because Bill will not always be there and frankly, I don't want him to always be there. In some areas, he has really crappy judgement.
You also wrote, “The idea that Bill is being “narcissistic” and “oppressive” is just wrong, I think. She knows he is a better salesman for her than she is.” These items are not mutually exclusive.
That is – there is ZERO question in my mind that clinically speaking, Bill Clinton is a narcissist. Seriously. It is about him, it's always about him, even when it's not about him. It's a fascinating topic though I don't think this post is the one to really delve into it, but as someone who has intimate experience with narcissists and a mental health professional education, I couldn't be more certain about this.
As for the salesman part, sure he's great at it. No argument there. Yes, they seem to work well together on the campaign front but there's a chorus of folks, myself included, who knew exactly what Hillary meant when she said she'd found her voice in New Hampshire. The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel and Matt Down both on This Week yesterday acknowledged just how deep that statement goes.
Without making this all personal, I will just say that I have seen way too up close and personally what the dynamic between two people like Bill and Hillary does to one and then provokes in the other. Working together isn't the demeaning part and in fact, whether he demeans her or not isn't really the point – it's how his behavior impacts what she does and how she is perceived.
With all due respect to what I am sure is a very genuine sentiment on your part, there is something very troubling about the idea that you would perceive a woman as more deserving because there is a strong man at her side.
Oops – please see my reply below – I didn't realize that we can respond directly this way – thanks.
I agree 100% with you, Polimom. See my comment above, to Jammer. Thanks.
Hmmm… I'm not sure how to answer this….
Hilllary has gotten to where she is today because she has ridden Bill's coattails. Not that she's not capable and intelligent- I think she is. But if she hadn't been married to the President of the US, then when she moved to NY from DC, she would not have been elected Senator. Once Bill stepped off the stage (well, sort of) she has a ready-made political machine at her disposal. And to the extent we got two Presidents for the price of one when he was elected in 1992 I think he relies upon her much more than many people realize. Bill may be a better salesman and there is no doubt that he is very intelligent (as is HIllary), but he's also stupid (especially with his zipper problem). I don't know if Hillary is more intelligent than Bill, but she certainly seems a lot smarter. So I think their relationship is symbiotic.
Hillary may not always be happy with Bill. On the one hand she relies upon him, but on the other hand in some ways I'm sure she just sees him as a big immature boy. Sort of endearing but maddening at the same time.
Overall I think Hillary is more capable than Bill but as with anything in life there's some good and some bad.
Jill raises a good point: “…it's how his behavior impacts what she does and how she is perceived.” That's really difficult to answer. Some people (like me) believe that Hillary is using him to attack Obama and act as a surrogate to do her dirties work. I don't like it and it's one of the reasons I don't support Billary (I use that term to mean both). But I also thinks it's a shrewd maneuver. Hillary knows what Bill will do and say and sends him out to campaign for her. Or, probably more accurately, she send him out to campaign “against Obama”. Other people probably see Bill's antics as “boys will be boys and there's nothing you can do to change them.”
One last observation which I find troubling, but interesting… in a reply on here someone posted a link to an article about the Obama and Clinton supporters at their caucasus in Las Vegas. There was a quote by a Latina, Mexican-American pantry worker at a casino. She said she supported Clinton because “she's got good past experience as a first lady and a woman always listens to her man. In this case, her man was a great president.”
What's troublesome for me (and maybe I”m interpreting her comment incorrectly) is that the voter supports Hillary because of her husband. The comment suggests that a woman's place is subordinated to that of the husband (when she says, “…a woman always listens to her husband”).
But what I find most interesting is that hispanics in NV voted for Hillary. I had thought that Obama would do better than hispanics in NV. So this raises the question of gender in politics. Do many women have this old fashioned view of women being subordinate to men? And if so, then I guess these women woudl only vote for HIllary if they liked Bill. It may also explain why some women won't ever consider Hillary- they didn't like Bill so they won't vote for Hill. I had thought that many people wouldn't vote for Hillary because they found her to divisive. However this comment from the Latina puts some more color into that picture I'm trying to paint.
At any rate, to get back to the central question of Jill's post, I don't think Bill can step away from Hill. It's not in their dynamic and Hillary views Bill as a great PR strength. I remember that when Gore “lost” many Dems were unhappy that Gore didn't capitalize on Bill's popularity. And that was just after the Lewinsky scandal. Now all these years later, Lewinsky has faded (unless Hillary gets the nomination and then the Republicans will bring it up- Obama won't because he doesn't play politics that way) and Bill is still hugely popular. Except among the people who would never vote for Hillary anyway. So yeah, Hillary needs Bill to win the PR side, and according to that one Latina, because there's a “man” in the house. A man that is popular and great.
Personally I think Hillary would be a fully capable president (without Bill) if you like her style, her partisan approach and want the status quo to continue.
Well, I respect what you feel – a lot of people feel that way about Bill and HRC. I share some but not all of the same concerns, obviously.
As for Bill stepping away, I view whether he can or he can't as a clinical issue, not a matter of whether he should or shouldn't strategically and not even as an issue of whether HRC wants him to or not. As far as I'm concerned, as a woman? She'll win a lot more kudos by telling him to buzz off and letting her do things her way than she will keeping him around. The vote in New Hampshire seems to reflect some of that standing up and alone. I disagree with your implication that Bill is popular with everyone except those who wouldn't vote for HRC anyway – that's just not true. There's a huge midsection of women in particular who are disgusted by him and understand her and the dynamics. I think you're glossing over that. But so are a lot of folks.
Last thing – single presidents. This whole conversation – as I started it too – has revolved around the assumption that presidential candidates are married people.
Well, more than half of all adult women in the U.S. are single. Maybe black, Jew, woman, Hispanic, multi-racial, atheist – none of those groups are real issues o barriers – being single? Might be the toughest barrier yet to break.
Something to think about, hm?
Thanks, Jill.
“I disagree with your implication that Bill is popular with everyone except those who wouldn't vote for HRC anyway – that's just not true. There's a huge midsection of women in particular who are disgusted by him and understand her and the dynamics.”
Sorry- I wasn't clear in my original post. I was referring to those women (i.e. the Latina in my posting) who felt that women should be subordinated to men. Women who feel that men are subordinated to men might believe that because of education, culture, age or some combination. I didn't mean from my comment to include all women. I know many women who are angry at Bill and women who are angry at Hillary for remaining married to him after Lewinsky.
As far as the clinical question of whether Bill can or can not step away- I agree with you. It's all about him. He was President and is used to getting his way, which only compounds any natural narcissistic tendencies he has. Should Hillary become President I wonder how he will act. My guess is he will act the same as he is right now and that Hillary will use him to deal with Republicans over legislation. It'll be very interesting watching the Repubs deal with Bill all over again. We all know that Bill loves a good fight so I think legislative battles is where he will gravitate to. I'm not sure if Hillary would put him in a cabinet position, but if she did, I would guess Sec. of State.
But the two will remain intertwined and she can never fully contain him.
Oh, I forgot. Back in the day when I would have considered voting for Hillary it wasn't because of Bill. In fact I hardly gave him a thought and how he might influence the campaign (silly me). So even though I think it's a shrewd move on Hillary's part to capitalize on Bill's popularity, it's a move that doesn't faze my vote one way or the other. Bottom line I look at is how she conducts her campaign, and part of that is sending Bill out to fulfill certain tasks. If she really didn't like what Bill was going to say then she wouldn't allow him out at all. Or at least to the extent she has.
Anyway, it's just my opinion and I don't claim to know whether it's right or wrong. But this is what is great about voting. Hopefully Americans can make well-informed choices and together the best candidate will reign on election date.
Well – this has been a very interesting exchange. I'm convinced that if HRC becomes the next prez, she will not appoint him to any cabinet and she shouldn't and he shouldn't expect it, desire it or accept it. It is NOT his turn for that stuff – he needs to just be the First Lady.
Seriously. Setting some boundaries for that man would be accomplishment enough.
I honestly believe – and I'm just speculating – that she probably pities him. I mean, he really is a sad, sad individual – could you imagine how much more successful he might have been in accomplishing good for this country if he didn't have the character flaws he has?
But fate is fate – and the American public had/has a hand in it too.
My hope is that HRC jettisons him as appropriate and then we get the benefit of what she can do. Or at least get to judge her for whether she can do the job, and her ideas. We have to separate them – isn't it a disservice to ourselves and to the candidates if we don't?