Embracing Billary
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Billary, Hillary
Image source: freakingnews.com
Last week the Clinton campaign released a new “3 AM” ad, this time targeting the economy and McCain. Taking a page out of the Obama campaign, the McCain counter-ad was released before most people had seen the original. They complement the previous “3 AM” Clinton ad targeting Obama and Obama’s quick response counter ad. Of course, none were as good as the SNL version.
What is this 3 AM ad really all about? What does the “Clinton is ready on day one” meme really mean? The Clinton campaign code word is “experience”. The McCain campaign uses the same word while the Obama campaign prefers “judgment”. But neither the words “experience” or “judgment” capture the gestalt of that ad or its meaning.
The ad is being repeated because it is effective. It is effective for the simple reason we know exactly what we are getting with a Clinton administration. Net, net - it is not Hillary Clinton’s experience we are talking about. It is our experience with Team Clinton. We have already experienced eight years of a Clinton administration, and while some hated it, for most Americans, it was a good thing. Even more so in contrast to the subsequent eight disastrous years of the Bush administration.We had more peace, more prosperity, more rationality, better currency, better economy, and a better standing in the world.
After eight years of the mind numbingly incompetent, anti-intellectual, disingenuous, and incoherent Bush administration, it is easy to be nostalgic for a competent, smart, predictable, and articulate Clinton Redux. Even if it is a team effort. Perhaps, especially if it is a team effort. And if a little bit of ruthless, cutthroat duplicity is part of the package? I am good with that.I find it a far more worisome delusion, that there will be no duplicity or “politics as usual” in an Obama administration.
In contrast to the Clintons, a prospective Obama administration is a cipher. There is simply not enough executive experience there to see it as anything but an unbreakable code whose meaning is fundamentally unknowable. Now I like Obama. I like the way he talks, and I like the way he thinks. It is easy to feel very good about an Obama presidency. That does not change the fact that no one can know what an Obama presidency will bring. He might be a great president. He might be a disaster.
Now, I can hear the objection - “That is not a fair comparison, you are conflating the Bill Clinton administration with a prospective Hillary Clinton administration.” Yes I am. I am doing that, because I prefer to deal in something I like to call “reality”. Here we get to the source of the rampant delusion infecting so many Obama supporters.
Let’s use Shaun Mullen, a columnist at The Moderate Voice. as an example. I enjoy Shaun Mullen’s work, particularly when he is writing about Iraq. His work is well researched and insightful. I always appreciate it, even if I disagree with it. But he is so in the bag for Obama, that like Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, like Andrew Sullivan, like Keith Olberman, or other Obamites, he has completely lost his critical faculties when writing about either Obama or Clinton.
On March 20 Shaun Mullen wrote on the subject of Clinton experience in this post “The forest, the trees, and the blue dress“:
“… Her claims that her years as First Lady are “a key element” of her 35 years of experience are not borne out by the thousands of pages of records released yesterday by the National Archive in response to a lawsuit. In fact, the records show just what you would expect: The First Lady was only tangentially involved in domestic policy making, not involved at all in foreign policy making and wasn’t even in Washington when many of the key events of the Clinton era transpired.”
Only four days later Shaun contradicts himself in his post “Why Hillary Must Come Clean About Bill:
“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.”
Now, it is not hard to understand why Shaun, as an Obama sycophant (using the word he uses to describe Clinton supporters), feels compelled to attack the notion that Clinton has far more experience than Obama to be Commander In Chief.
Once you accept Team Clinton as the practical reality if Hillary were to win, 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. The Clinton’s were, by Shaun’s (and others) argument - Co-Commander In Chief. Obama does not have that experience. McCain does not have that experience. To make the argument that either Obama or McCain have as much experience as Team Clinton, you must invoke a make-believe world where Bill Clinton does not exist, their marriage does not exist and further tell people that it is only fair to vote as if everyone lives in that make-believe world.
Shaun continues this convoluted rationalization of why eight years of Team Clinton experience in the White House is a bad thing:
“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.”
Nonsense. Blather is the right word, Shaun, but only by reference to your assertion. There is nothing to explain, because there is nothing mysterious about a husband and wife being each other’s closest adviser. Hillary was Bill’s closest adviser. Bill will be Hillary’s closest adviser. It is perfectly obvious to everyone (except possibly Shaun and other Obamites) that she has a unique close family relationship with a former Commander In Chief. This relationship is called a “marriage”. Americans understand the concept. People can and should legitimately vote for the concept of Team Clinton rather than Hillary in a vacuum, since it is perfectly clear that Hillary has no intention of locking her husband in an isolation chamber while she is President.
In fact, this is a great advantage for any voters (like me) who would prefer an experienced known quantity in the White House, vs. a complete unknown quantity 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 American lives and limbs in Iraq.
Some Obamites have been making the preposterous argument that a Clinton Presidency is an end-run around the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Some examples are Stephen Kaus at Huffington Post, Alan Moses at the American Chronicle, diarist Kid Oakland at Daily Kos, Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic. They have been joined by right of center pundits like David Boaz at the Cato Insitute, and one can even find some extreme right wing rants like this Jayson Quigham screed at The Bald Eagle making the same point. When the extreme right and extreme left agree on anything, I usually find that I am on the other side.
The 22nd amendment was passed in 1951 to limit Presidents to two terms in office. It was ratified in response to Franklin Roosevelt’s incumbency as the first, and now only President to seek and serve in a third and fourth term in office. Roosevelt breaking with tradition opened the door to a permanent presidency, and the 22nd amendment slammed it shut.
Here is the problem with invoking the 22nd amendment in the context of the Clinton candidacy. The 22nd Amendment is written in simple easy to understand language, and it does not prohibit a husband wife team running for four terms as President. You can argue that it is a bad idea and that it should be prohibited by the Constitution, in which case you can work to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all the states in the union to pass the 28th Amendment and prohibit it. Until then, the 22nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution is perfectly fine with the concept of a husband and wife standing for four terms as president. Full stop.
Ok. Not quite Full Stop. This post continues at “Divided We Stand United We Falll.“
This entry was posted on Monday, April 7th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Billary, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Imagine if Yoko Ono was running for Beatle on the basis of her vast and relevant experience as John Lennon’s wife.
Hillary was the first lady once. Now she’s treating her experience as fungible…important when it comes to some things, and not involved when it comes to the bad things. I question how much her “experience” prepares her for the job. She wasn’t in the cabinet. She wasn’t a lot of things. Nothing springs to my mind when I ponder whether she had a “signature accomplishment.”
Sure, she had some interesting and relevant experiences that give her some familiarity with the job that some others might not have. How much of a leg up this represents is open to question. But her arse wasn’t in the chair, she wasn’t answering the red phone, and her finger wasn’t on the button. So I’m skeptical.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Kritter,
Fair enough. But it is a relative measure. I find much more to be skeptical about in Obama’s preparation for the job.
And as I recall, Yoko Ono was not too bad - as long as she was accompanied by John. I submit - give Peace a Chance” for your consideration.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I agree with you that Clinton II does not violate the letter of the 22nd amendment. But that doesn’t dispose of the objection to Clinton II. We’ve had a Bush or a Clinton in office since 1988. If Clinton II goes 8 years, that would be a 28 year stretch — over a full generation. That’s just not a good thing, of itself. That Clinton II is, on your argument, precisely to be seen as an exact continuation of Clinton I makes the problem even worse.
But to be fair, my objections to Clinton II are not centered on this point. I am not nearly as ready as you are to dismiss the cynical, divisive brand of politics practiced by the Clintons. The Penn fiasco is but another example of the sort of scandal-of-the-week we can expect from the continuation of the Clinton regime. Clinton I’s popularity had a lot to do with a tide of economic prosperity that was in turn founded on a stock market bubble. Take away that, and it is not so obvious that the country would or should want a return to the distinctives of the Clinton era.
Finally, you do have a measure of Obama’s executive capacity. The campaign he is running is a model of competency. Contrast the buffoon-fest being put on by Team Clinton, and I think it’s hardly obvious that your central proposition holds. For whatever reason, the managerial skills you impute to Clinton I has not translated into Clinton II’s run for office. That needs to be part of the evaluation. (Indeed, I think it IS part of the present evaluation — the dishonesty, cynicism and lack of transparancy + the incompetency has a good bit to do with why Clinton has blown a commanding lead in public opinion at the start of the process and is now reduced to hoping for an internal collapse in the Obama campaign in order to have any shot at the nomination).
April 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The Clintons have done nothing in the last 8 years which could persuade me that they need another term in the White House (much less two). They have made an enormous amount of money and that’s about it. They have done little to nothing to focus reality on what the Bush administration has done, how shredded the Constitution has become, how ineffective the government is. They were in a powerful position of assumed authority and did nothing. They waited until it was politically convenient to say anything negative about the Bush administration.
The lack of courage, the lack of self-discipline, the feeling of entitlement, the apparent “sliminess” of their business dealings is the things I can’t get past - and believe me I have tried to get past them. The Clintons, for all of their gifts, are a toxic combination for the United States - I look at the Clinton administration from the 90’s and I can’t think of one decent thing they accomplished. I’ve looked for accomplishments and the “bad” greatly outweighs the “good”.
The United States of America needs a clean break from the past. The last 28 years have seen our great country fail on so many levels. The failures are too vast to list here frankly. As a nation we have to get past Nixonian tactics, Regan’s ridiculous economics, Clinton gamesmanship, and Bush law breaking in order to move forward. It’s almost like staying in an abusive relationship…..the longer you stay the worse it gets - only a clean break can help begin the healing process - that is where I think we are as a country.
It is clear that experience before the White House means nothing. Honesty helps, vision helps, inspirational helps, decency helps, knowledge of the domestic problems helps, a flexible foreign policy understanding helps, and lack of Washington DC experience really helps. Clinton doesn’t measure up - as a team they are lacking in so many areas and the arrogance and hubris is just icing on the cake.
Realistically, I am depressed that the best people we can put forward as a nation - that stand a chance of winning - are Obama, Clinton, and McCain. If that’s the best we can do right now I’ll take the likeable, inspirational outsider any day. We know what the other two (3 if you include Bill) can’t or won’t put the nation on a path toward getting better. The American people used to be able to afford blissful ignorance of the world and their countries place in it – we no longer have that luxury – serious change has to occur, and everyone needs to wake up to that fact.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Maggie,
As I have stated before, the difference between politician Obama and politician Clinton is a matter of degree and not of kind. Obama supporters prefer to believe that Obama is something that he is not, and should he be elected, the disillusionment among his supporters is pre-ordained.
Clinton lost an unsustainable large lead because Obama emerged as a strong candidate. Part of his effectiveness as a candidate, are the continuous and effective attacks on Clinton, many of which emerged from the Obama campaign and are promoted by a complicit media. So be it. That is the way campaigns work, and Obama has proven to be every bit as tough a cut-throat and knee-capping campaigner as Clinton.
In the continuation of this post on my blog, I invoke another candidate who was elected based on his campaign effectiveness, charisma, and rhetoric. His name was Jimmy Carter and his presidency fell far short of his campaign. In the post I suggest that Obama crib from his nomination speech should he prevail. He could use it verbatim:
April 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
mw,
I would almost say that it doesn’t matter what Obama does once elected; it is merely the perception of what he should be or campaigned on that people will see. Ultimately however, it does matter, and experience does count, although experience is only one attribute to judge a candidate.
The only thing that I ask for is that everyone vote Democratic in the next election. John McCain will be the next Reagan president; a befuddled, charming old man who the media adore and cover for as his aides continue to commit all sorts of high crimes behind the nation’s back. He and his handlers must be allowed nowhere near the Oval Office.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Really? How about the longest economic expansion in U.S. History, elimination of deficit spending, 21 million new jobs, lowest unemployment in 30 years, Welfare reform, NAFTA, WTO, HIPAA privacy laws, brokering Ireland peace accord, coordinating and managing an international solution to an explosive situation in Kosovo, Bonia, Serbia with minimal loss of life and more.
When Obama supporters engage in this kind of willful ignorance and revisionist history, it is far more damaging to the Democratic party than anything they accuse the Clinton campaign of doing.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Bringing up Carter is silly - a hemmorhoid could have been elected president after the Nixon/Ford Ford/Rockefeller administration(s) - resignations, pardons, scandal, Vietnam was still unfolding, please! Who ever the next President is they will face incredible challenges……better to have someone new with a fresh approach than the same old clowns and scavangers.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I’m sorry, but equating Obama’s ability to translate his ample charisma into media attention and gobs of small donor money is indicative of how he’d perform as a televangelist or on the self-help lecture circuit… it has nothing to do with being the President (unless you count post office book deals and lecturers)
April 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
MW,
Our perceptions are simply radically different. Hillary Clinton insults my intelligence almost every time she opens her mouth. She puts forward arguments that she cannot credibly believe hold weight presumably believing that most voters are too dim to notice that they are utterly empty. The most notable of these is the claim that it would disenfranchise MI and FL to not seat the delegations based on the ‘primaries’ already held — ‘primaries’ which are not democratic under any reasonable definition of the term. The distortion of logic in service of what is politically expedient for Clinton really is qualitatively different from anything I’ve seen from Obama.
I am not under the misapprehension that Obama will be a pristine politician. Far from it. But when it comes to intergrity Clinton routinely hits new lows. And I think it takes willful partisanship to be blind to her failings in this regard.
Back in the 90’s I did vote for Clinton. At the time it seemed like a good thing to have democratic politicians who could play the game of spin, talking point memos, and triangulation in order to wrest power away from the Republicans. It’s unusual in middle age, I suppose, to drift back towards idealism. But I am sick to death of being disgusted by my leaders.
And while she doesn’t disgust me as much as Bush does, Clinton disgusts me. I just don’t sit well with having my intelligence insulted on a daily basis. (Yesterday’s edition was that she critiqued the war before Obama did; today’s is that Penn is fired, but not really.)
April 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
So you lay all that at the feet of Clinton…….knowing full well that in internet bubble was responsible for the economy not any of Clinton’s policies (subsequently bursting and seeing the greatest loss in stock holder wealthe ever). NAFTA sent millions of jobs overseas and didn’t help the US worker. The WTO believes in free trade not fair trade and is a benefit to corporations not the US workers. Don’t forget the Republican led congress and Senate that forced Clinton to sign welfare reform, forced HIPAA privacy down their throats, and sent the line item veto to Clinton (later declared unconstitutional). Willful ignorance works both way’s doesn’t it - give Clinton credit for the good as well as the bad. Don’t cut and paste 1 line from a paragraph and quote that passage. I said I looked for accomplishments and the bad outweighs the good - and that’s a fact.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Hillary Clinton offers only a center-left version of the divisive political atmosphere that plagued Washington for the time-frame when Bush and the Republicans dominated every branch of government from roughly 2003-2007. They’ll push their own selfish agenda until the people get fed up like they did in 2006. I don’t expect the Democrats to lose any house or senate seats, so I’d like to see John McCain as president so that at least one Republican-controlled executive branch will be forced to work together with a Democratically-controlled legislative one. And if not McCain, then I’d hope for Obama, because while I don’t honestly believe him to be a true moderate, his rhetoric is always positive and that’s what matters.
Reagan had that going for him, and the country loved him. And I don’t even think he was that spectacular of a president (if you think going into Iraq was pointless, please remind yourself of the invasion of a tiny island in the Caribbean known as Grenada). But the Reagan era is remembered as a generally good one, and I think that Reagan’s ability to not be a constant dick to his opponents made a huge difference. Bill and Hillary don’t have this charm. Yes, Bill too. Remember that Bill’s refusal to compromise with Republicans over the budget led to a government shut down. Newt Gingrich can be blamed equally for this, but he’s of the same divisive school as the Clintons…. a far cry from the friendly nature between Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan despite their political disagreements.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Funny. I thought a great deal of that could be attributed to…drum roll please…divided government. Particularly the elimination of the deficit and welfare reform, neither of which would have happened under single party Democratic rule. I doubt we would have seen free trade survive without Republican help either.
The only way I can see Clinton II having similar results to Clinton I is if another Clinton in the White House focuses the moribund GOP mind so they can exit their death spiral and retake Congress in 2010. Otherwise all bets are off.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
crw -
True.
I just don’t think we can get there this cycle. It looks like a Dem tsunami in ‘08. I am betting on the Dems not getting 60 votes in the Senate this round, so there is some moderation, and the reps retaking one house 2010. Your scenario is what I am betting on.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Bubbles,
I have not decided what I’ll do for the general election. Absent the war issue, it would be an easy decision for McCain - just to maintain divided government. I would not be surprised if events overtake the campaign as al-Sadr wins the elections in the South and increases his power in the Iraq government.
In any case, McCain is going to have to move to the center and articulate a way out of this quagmire to have any hope of election.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I wouldn’t stress Sadr much:
Today, Maliki was explicit that the legislation was aimed at Muqtada al Sadr, his Sadrist movement, and the Mahdi Army. “Solving the problem comes in no other way than dissolving the Mahdi Army,” Maliki told CNN. “They no longer have a right to participate in the political process or take part in the upcoming elections unless they end the Mahdi Army.”
Maliki’s advisors have also been clear the Mahdi Army is the target of the legislation. “We want the Sadrists to disband the Mahdi Army. Just freezing it is no longer acceptable,” said Sadiq al Rikabi, a senior adviser to the prime minister. “The new election law will prevent any party that has weapons or runs a militia from contesting elections.”
The legislation is said to have broad support from the major Sunni, Kurdish and Shia political parties, and is expected to quickly pass through parliament. The details of the legislation were outlined by the Political Council for National Security, which included the Kurdish president, the Sunni and Shia vice presidents, the prime minister, and the leaders from the major political parties. No political parties other than the Sadrist movement have opposed the recommended legislation.
The declaration caught the normally triumphant Sadrist politicians off guard. “We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament,” Hassan al Rubaie, a Sadrist member of parliament said the day the news broke. “Our political isolation was very clear and real during the meeting,” he said, referring to the meeting of the Political Council for National Security, where the legislation was announced.
Rubaie confirmed the Sadrists have now been isolated politically. “Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament,” Rubaie said. “We must go and explain to [Sadr] in person that there’s a problem.”
The Sadrist movement has been caught off guard by the government’s announcement, and is making conflicting statements. One aid said Sadr is rushing to consult senior Shia clerics in Iraq and Iran for guidance. Another aide backtracked. He denied Sadr was seeking advice from senior clerics and the decision to disband was Sadr’s alone.
(excerpt from the long war journal on 4/07/08)
Looks pretty “lose-lose” for Sadr imo. He either keeps his army and gets pushed out of Iraq or he disbands the army and has to play by the same rules as everyone else. My gut tells me that if he chooses the latter, he’ll prove an incompetent civil servant and be voted out by his own in short order after failing to live up to promises.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
No one said the 22nd Amendment prohibited Hillary from becoming President. It is just difficult to cite your experience as First Lady with no separate accomplishments and not create the feeling that you have overstayed your welcome.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
[...] I have said before, and I’ll say again - I like Obama. I like his intelligence, I like the way he talks, I like [...]
May 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am
[...] and along the way I may have a made a few predictions that proved to be, um… what’s the word I am looking for? Wrong. And [...]