Does Bill Harbor Ill Will Towards Hill?
Has Bill Clinton been sabotaging Hillary’s now-struggling campaign? Perhaps he has.
But if so, it’s not at all clear that it was deliberate.
The problem – and the speculation – surfaced back in January when Bill made a flat-footed reference that indicated Obama’s appeal in South Carolina was mainly among African-Americans.
Well, subsequent events have proven Bill at least partly correct (see North Carolina, for example). Obama’s coalition appears to be a combination of wealthy educated whites, blacks, and the very young. But referencing the enormous importance black voters have had in some of Obama’s primary victories isn’t politically correct, as Bill Clinton discovered. And the fact that he referred in the same speech to his wife’s success with women voters wasn’t enough to save Bill from charges of racism.
Perhaps Bill wasn’t sabotaging Hillary so much as exhibiting cluelessness that his remarks would be considered racist (although, as pointed out here, Bill used to be more savvy than that). Or perhaps (as I happen to think) it was an example of hubris: Bill thought he was immune to such criticism due to his own status as the first black President.
Why wouldn’t Bill want to keep that status, though, and prevent Obama from displacing him and becoming the real first black President? And wouldn’t Bill be looking forward to a new residency at the White House, with all its glories and perks?
My guess is that Bill’s early stumblings were representative of his failure to recognize a new media reality: not only had Obama replaced him as the prospective first black President, but Obama had replaced both Clintons in the fickle heart of the MSM. Therefore they could no longer rely on a press favorable to them. And so Bill’s every remark was jumped on in a way he simply was not used to, except from the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Perhaps I’m being too kind, but I think it’s most likely that whatever slipups Bill has had in this campaign represent true ambivalence rather than malevolence towards the prospect of his wife becoming President. Both Clintons love power enough to want it for each other, and for themselves as a couple. First it was his turn in the spotlight – the easier sell – and now it’s hers.
And yet it is an undeniable fact that the “First Husband” role of spouse of a female Presidential contender is nearly uncharted territory. How much more murky it must be for those such as Bill who’ve held the reigns of power themselves. Being the power behind the throne does not come naturally to those who are used to sitting firmly upon it.
The majority of previous female heads of state (with the exceptions of Margaret Thatcher and Gold Meir) have come by their jobs through their personal rather than professional relationships with men in power, either father or husband. But in almost all those cases the male relative in question was dead by the time the female ascended to her political career. This was true even of such famous strongwomen as Indira Gandhi.
Bill is very much alive, which puts him in the odd and perhaps singular position of being a husband accustomed to power who may have to yield it to his wife. It would not be the least bit surprising if the contradictions inherent in those roles make it both tempting for him to campaign for her and to have the trappings of the Presidency again, through her while finding it difficult to see her supercede him.
To be a success as First Husband, it must take a decidedly un-macho ability to play a distant second fiddle to one’s wife. That is why the relatively unknown and retiring Denis Thatcher was able to blend into the woodwork as the spouse of the formidable British Prime Minister. He customarily refused press interviews, referred to his wife publicly as “The Boss,” and saw his main role as being supportive of her.
Can anyone honestly say they can picture Bill Clinton fitting easily – or at all – into that role?
The Clinton marriage has been the subject of such endless speculation that I hesitate to add to the din. My first caveat is that no marriage can be understood from the outside; it’s difficult enough for the couple themselves to know what’s really going on.
But one thing I have noticed is that whatever affection once may have existed between the Clintons became even further chilled after the Lewinsky affair. Whether Hillary was hurt by it because she still cared about Bill in the conventional way, or whether the wound was merely political (“how could he do this to his legacy and my future political career?”), Hillary must have been bitter about his sabotage and her public humiliation.
Still, can Bill learn something of the First Husband role from the only lengthy interview Denis Thatcher ever gave, presented in the video “Married to Maggie?”
It is doubtful. And at this point, it’s also looking highly doubtful that he’ll get the chance – at least in 2008. But if Obama loses the general election this time around, Bill may get a four-year opportunity to study up and learn the properly Denisian posture for Hillary’s rerun in 2012.
Neo-Neocon is a New England-based blogger.
“Perhaps Bill wasn’t sabotaging Hillary so much as exhibiting cluelessness that his remarks would be considered racist”
Nope, I strong disagree. There was no reasonable reason why Bill Clinton should think that his comments might be perceived as racist. It was merely the typical leftist slime job to turn anything into a racial issue so that an opponent is constantly kept of the defensive. Clinton was doomed regardless of what he said or did not say. Think about it for a moment. What in heaven’s name is per se racist about comparing “Barry” Obama with Jesse jackson? What sense does that make? At best, it deserved a shrug of the shoulders.
“Nope, I strong disagree.”
Should be: Nope, I strongly disagree.
I also recommend that one reads the book, Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance With The Left, by Ronald and Allis Radosh. On page 213 we find the following:
“In what may be the first example of ‘political correctness’ run amok, the (Communist) Party expelled or brought to trial members whose only sin was using words like ‘whitewash’ or ‘black sheep,’ both of which were offered as proof of racism.”
In many respects, these incidents which occurred between 1949 and 1953 were laughably hilarious. People inevitably were charged with racism on the flimsiest evidence. The situation has only gotten worse since that time.
In the 1980s, some satirical magazine published excerpts from the “diary” of Denis Thatcher.
In fact, the Communists pioneered the tactics later associated with Joe McCarthy.
Bill’s face has become much more red since Hil started running. Coincidence?
These are two impossible-to-underestimate cynical con artists whose marriage exists only as a vehicle for their Faustian bargain with the demon of political power. I think Bill is likely inner conflicted with his narcisstic desire for power, fame, and the spotlight, while recognizing that the same spotlight will hamper his bimbo-addiction.
A classic study.
I think the governing authority is “Heinlein’s Razor.” Bill Clinton has always been lauded for his political brilliance, but I think you see Bill Clinton now as he is on his own. Not all that smart and sadly lacking in impulse control.
I personally think Bill is getting senile, and losing his ability to conceal his inability to act out of anything other than self-interest, which doesn’t include his wife being paramount.
But let’s not forget that the main reason Hillary is not already the nominee is that the votes in Michigan and Florida are not being counted. She’s won every top-ten state except Georgia and Illinois and all of the top three. Had she won Michigan and Florida too, and their votes been counted, she would now be naming her vice president.
But, Dumaurier-Smith, the media must have seen something in Bill when they annointed him a political genius! What did they see?!
What? What’s that you say? Oh. Right. Party affiliation. Never mind.
What Bill really desperately wants is to be first Rapist (again).
Whatever ambivalence Bill may have over Hilary’s election to the Presidency, and despite any gaffes he may have committed, his political relationship with his wife has little similarity to the relationship between Denis Thatcher and his wife, the Prime Minister.
Bill Clinton has already been President. However much experience Hilary claims from her years in the White House, her husband has more. He also remains the more naturally gifted and deft politician of the pair. In any real crisis, as long as her husband is in the room, the eyes of all Hilary’s subordinates will drift toward him. And when they speak to him, they will not be calling him “Mr. Clinton,” but “Mr. President,” because that is how you address a former President. It’s a small point, but a meaningful one. I don’t think Hilary would have been able to stand sitting through Bill’s third term.
Luckily, we will in all likelihood never know. Hilary will likely sink into insignificance as a lifelong U.S. Senator. Lucky for Bill, too, because I think that had he and Mrs. Clinton found their way back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the honeymoon would have been short. We all would have awakened one day to find that Bill’s body had turned up stone cold dead in some national park and that the park rangers, who had somehow acquired jurisdiction over the investigation, had attributed his demise to natural causes. At his funeral, President Rodham would have been distraught, in some subtle, dignified and heroic way.
Bill Clinton is exhibiting classic narcissist behavior – this time without the enablers of his wife and press to keep his ego fed. Hence, he’s desperate for stroking. The guy needs to be the center of attention. It is at the core of his being. So he goes for attention when there is no real reason for it, and ends up only getting it by make mistakes.
He’s still smart. He’s not senile. He just can’t control himself well – and never could, as the Lewinsky affair so dramatically showed.
This is one of the strangest phenomenons that has occurred in American politics the last couple of decades: Bill Clinton’s political invincibility. He’s always been this way. He’s very skilled at running a campaign (the 92 campaign against the elder George Bush was masterful in its mercilessness), and of course he’s always benefited from a friendly news media. The weird thing is that he didn’t really understand what was going on: to hear him tell it, the media has always been unfair to him, picked on him when there was no reason, etc. The whole Lewinsky thing was, as far as his camp is concerned, essentially invented by the media. Certainly there was no reason to ask the question to which he replied with the famous finger-wagging denial. The strange part of this is that now he’s trying the same song, and it’s not playing at all. I’m not sure what the difference is, other than that no one seems to like his wife as much as they like him. Regardless, it’s not playing well in Peoria now, and it’s clear he understands this, but doesn’t know why. I’m not sure anyone else does either. I know I don’t.
You’ll drop the pseudonym when you’re ready to contribute to civil society. You’re wasting your talent on this too-partisan stuff!