Why Hillary Must Come Clean About Bill
Few things are certain in this season of political upheaval on such a seismic scale, but here is one that is: Should Hillary Clinton win the nomination and the election, Bill Clinton will not morph from an alpha male into a passive male on Inauguration Day and will have an out-sized, historically-unprecedented and unwelcome impact on her presidency.
The former president has played a central role in his wife’s quest for the White House. She has depended on him so much that the fortunes of her campaign are inextricably tied to him and how voters perceive Bill Clinton has been as important as how they perceive Hillary Clinton.
It is time for Mrs. Clinton to drop the blather about her independence and explain how a co-presidency is something that the American people should welcome since they will in effect be voting for two people should she survive the primaries and convention.
There are only two historic precedents for what will transpire if Mrs. Clinton is elected: Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt. (Yes, I know that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer for President Reagan, but that’s different.)
When President Wilson’s health failed and a stroke left him partially paralyzed, Edith Wilson became the acting president and took over many of the details and duties of government. She vociferously opposed allowing the vice president to assume the powers of the presidency and the numerous failures that occurred during her husband’s incapacitation were her doing.
Eleanor Roosevelt’s role during President Roosevelt’s 12-plus year tenure was hands-on from start to finish and she was a key player in shaping his domestic agenda. While still attending to the more traditional First Lady roles, she was an important connection between Great Depression victims and the government bureaucracy, and later between African-American civil rights leaders and the White House.
Yet neither of these predecessors come close to approximating the possibility that the next president will be married to a former president, as well as the unhappy prospect of two families monopolizing the White House over three decades.
There are concerns that a John McCain administration would be a continuation of the George Bush administration. But no less concerning is that a Hillary Clinton administration would be a continuation of the Bill Clinton administration, a third and possibly fourth term, if you will.
The release last week of thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton’s personal records as First Lady confirms that while she did not necessarily help make major policy decisions, she certainly was a co-president to an extent that First Ladies since Eleanor Roosevelt have not come close to replicating.
The full extent of her involvement is difficult to gauge because nearly half of the 11,000 pages of records have been redacted, some no doubt because of third-party privacy concerns but others probably to obscure the role she played in dealing with the administration’s multiple controversies. This included the Monica Lewinsky scandal where she not only forgave her husband’s humiliating behavior but helped strategize his defense against impeachment proceedings.
Should Hillary Clinton be disqualified because she is married to a former president? Not necessarily. But as it is, she has been extraordinarily obtuse in addressing questions concerning a co-presidency while her husband laughs off such queries.
Yes, these are uncomfortable questions and ones that roil the tender sensibilities of Clinton sycophants. But they must be asked since the course that the U.S. takes if Hillary Clinton is elected is inextricably tied to them. And they must be answered if we are to trust her judgment and her ability to do the job.
There has been criticism, much of it justified, that the mainstream media went too easy on Barack Obama for too long.
But now it is Hillary Clinton who is getting a pass because there is virtually no chance of her winning the nomination unless it is revealed that Obama has a secret family in Idaho, as one pundit put it, or she steals the nomination outright, yet references to this reality are few and far between in news stories.
Let’s go to the numbers:
Obama leads 1,406 to 1,249 in The Associated Press pledged delegate count, Clinton leads 250-212 in Politico’s superdelegate count, trails by about 990,000 in the primary popular vote count and is roughly tied in congressional endorsements. Meanwhile, the Florida and Michigan insurrections have mercifully ended.
Most pundits with at least a rudimentary grasp of mathematics believe that Clinton will have to win the 10 remaining primaries with at least 60 percent of the vote, something that she has failed to do in all but three states so far, in order to draw even with Obama in pledged delegates.
About 260 superdelegates remain uncommitted and about 70 have yet to be named, but Clinton’s superdelegate lead has been shrinking steadily and if the national polls are to be believed, Obama has gotten a pretty good bounce off of that race-and-religion speech.
If the numbers and circumstances were reversed, can you imagine the pressure on Obama from the Clinton camp to pull out?
Clinton’s surrogates maintain that she remains competitive. But that is true only in that neither she nor Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. Simply and starkly put, Clinton will be unable to win a brokered convention without resorting to dirty dealing.
I am less concerned than the average Democratic bear that a prolonged primary fight favors John McCain, who is getting a free ride as he bumbles through March. More concerning is the shape the Democratic Party will be left in if Clinton resorts to slash-and-burn tactics to wrest the nomination from Obama.
8 Responses to “Why Hillary Must Come Clean About Bill”
Well lets see.
Except for the former presidents infidelity the First Gentleman can be a very popular former president who can help shape foreign policy and national policy.
Or.
Michelle Obama can be the first lady. Someone who just woke up and suddenly became proud of America now that they are voting for her husband instead of that other lady.
Once again it is those who are farther to the left then their mainstream liberal counterparts who never liked Bill Clinton in the first place because he actually was a moderate president. Yes. I know. He had to deal with a Republican congress……but thats the point, he was able to deal with the Republican congress and get things done from a more moderate approach.
The farther to the left then their mainstream counterpart Democrats absolutely hated that of Bill Clinton and now they have a chance to put another one of their own in the White House and Bill and Hillary Clinton are standing in the way.
Barak Obama preaches moderation, but his advocates do not. We all know that a president will govern to his base. They always do. When things turned evily hateful against President Bush what did he do? Went and hugged his base and talked to them and hung out with them and started listening to their wants and needs instead of governing to those A***** who only wanted to call him names and call for his impeachment.
So the Clinton Bush Dynasty? Under Clinton we had powerful economic expansion followed by a recession. Under Bush we had a powerful economic expansion followed by a recession. Under Clinton we had the war in bosnia and somalia. Under Bush we had the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These are the two things the farther then left mainstream liberals despise.
I am liberal and even I know that my farther then left mainstream counterparts are truly not happy unless we are holding a gun to the the rights head and demanding ransom. There is no moderation in Obama's base. Only a thirst for power.
Yes there is that equal thirst by McCain and Hillary. The difference. Neither of those are claiming to be this uniting, moderate like Obama is.
Whocares:
Let me be clear about where I stand on Bill Clinton: I think that he was a rather good president and a deft manager of the economy. His personal indiscretions and lying were abhorrent, but not good enough reason to be impeached.
Regardless of how he did first time, I do not want a second Bill Clinton presidency.
Yes, if the numbers and circumstances were reversed, as an African American I can imagine the pressure on Obama from the Clinton camp and from the Democratic Party to pull out. I agree with you, Clinton will be unable to win a brokered convention without resorting to dirty dealing. What have they done thus far?
The Clinton's have been playing a now classic Republican “Willie Horton” type “color Aroused” campaign politics against Barack Obama, which has created major problems for the Clinton's, the Democratic Party and may have long term impact on the democratic parties support from black Americans. There are now serious questions if this will create a sea of change for the National Democratic Party for decades to come.
2-3 weeks before the South Carolina primary, Hillary and Bill Clinton launched the race campaign against Obama. After losing the South Carolina primary both Hillary and Bill Clinton minimized Obama’s victory, suggesting that it was the result of blacks voting for black folks Bill Clinton also pointed out that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina primaries previously. Now that Hillary has made a comeback of sorts in Ohio and Texas, Team Hillary have been quietly pushing the videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright to their media contacts right before the Pennsylvania primary working to erode Obama’s message of change, hope and building bridges across social, economic, political and color lines. Their effort to cast doubt on Obama’s ability to beat the Republicans in the general election is their strategy to win at all cost. Team Clinton are using their “Color Aroused” Kitchen Sink Strategy and could care less what happens to the Democratic Party. They feel that they have built the modern day Democratic Party and they have the right to destroy it through the color aroused politics of the 1950's and 60's. It is too bad that team Billary Clinton sees the need to seek and destroy the character of one man in order to become co-presidents. Hopefully American's will continue to look at team Billary and say, “No Thanks” It's time for a change, Let's stick with real change, let's get away from this color aroused politics of the past. Let's go with Obama on this one. Both Bill and Hillary are stuck in the color aroused politics of the past.
African American Political Pundit
Who would care what Hillary says about Bill's role? First, there is no way for her to really KNOW how it would play out, and secondly, what reason is there to expect her answer would be candid anyway? In Clintonesque manner, the answer would be nuanced, subject to interpretation, etc. Now, if she said flat out she was kicking him out and not taking his phone calls — or if she said they were redoing the desk in the Oval Office to accommodate seating for two — then we could bank on it. Short of that, forget it.
The other thing running through my mind is a statistic that I don't think has changed. Assuming the poll(s?) that gathered the data were valid, Hillary placed #1 on the list of candidates “I would never ever cast my vote for under any circumstances”. I don't think people back off that kind of categorical rejection, do you? Given that, the issue is moot, right?
Tried to listen-in to Shaun on Blog Talk Radio but can't hear a thing.
Holly:
I think they were having technical problems,
Whew baby! The Obama sycophants are really getting strident now. Lets go straight to the most egregious example:
This is complete nonsense, based on the fallacy that pledged delegates represent the will of the voters. They don't. The best that can be said about the Democratic party pledged delegates is that some of them represent some of the voters.
Clinton winning the nomination by convincing a large majority of superdelegates to support her is not “dirty dealing”. It is just the way the Democratic Nomination process is designed to work. Those are the rules, Shaun – sorry you don't like them, but they are rules. It is interesting to note that Obama supporters tend to care about the “will of the voters” over democratic party rules when it is convenient and prefer to insist on “following the rules” even if it disenfranchises Dem voters when that is convenient.
It is no more “dirty dealing” for Clinton to win with superdelegates than Obama is “dirty dealing” in Michigan and Florida, where voters have been disenfranchised by the shenanigans of the Obama campaign -having blocked every attempt at a redo Or do I understand Shaun that example is not “dirty dealing” because those were the Democratic process “rules” – you know – like the “rules” that permit superdelegates to overrule pledged delegates?
And was the Obama campaign engaged in “dirty dealing” in Texas – when Texas voters spoke loud and clear in their preference for Clinton, but had their will perverted by a caucus process that gave more anti-democratic pledged delegates to Obama? Or Shaun was that ok because those were the Democratic process “rules” in Texas – you know – like the “rules” that permit superdelegates to overrule pledged delegates?
My hope is that superdelegates also take into consideration the anti-democratic nature of caucuses in general, as they disenfranchise voters who do not have time to spend 4-8 hours or more in a byzantine process just to express their preference and their will. Or Shaun – do we just not care that much about the voters with jobs and/or kids? Because those are the rules? You know – like the “rules” that permit superdelegates to overrule pledged delegates?
Finally, to the point of your post. When that call comes in at 3 in the morning, I for one, will be very happy to know that – if Hillary so chooses- she can find Bill easily, wandering around the White House in his bathrobe looking for cigars or whatever. Why would we not want her to consult with a man who was Commander In Chief for eight years?
Now, I know why, as an Obama sycophant, you need to attack that notion so vehemently. It does completely blow out of the water any notion whatsoever that Obama (or McCain) has anything that remotely approaches the CIC experience of team Clinton. It is not even close. You can only make that argument if you invent some make-believe word where Bill Clinton does not exist and tell people they should vote as if they live in that world.
She does not have to speak to it. It is perfectly obvious to everyone that she has a unique close family relationship with a former CIC and he will be her closest adviser, just as she was his. There is not a thing wrong with that – in fact, it is a great thing, for anyone would prefer an experienced known quantity in the White House, vs. a complete unknown like Obama. God knows I wish that Bush43 had taken advantage of his close family relationship with former CIC Bush41 and listened to his advice before investing a trillion dollars of our treasure and tens of thousands of lives and limbs in Iraq.
“Should Hillary Clinton be disqualified because she is married to a former president? ”
Yes she should be disqualified. This country should be ashamed of itself, letting the process get so watered down by marketing gimmicks we are once again looking to our version of royal family for guidance instead of getting out there and finding someone new. This is how we ended up with Bush Jr. and its been a total disaster. All 3 candidates are qualified for the job, why on earth would we pick the one that smacks most of monarchy? 300 million people to choose from and we are still voting for the quarterbacks girlfriend. Its almost enough to make me give up on the system.