| Could have easily won nomination
I suppose, at this time of revising history in the midst of a heated primary battle--as she retells the stories of flying into Bosnia, or not supporting NAFTA--Hillary Clinton could look back and find the possibly fatal flaw in her campaign: her decision to support her husband after he was impeached for his philandering and lying ways.
While many people applauded her for her dutiful and stoic support in the face of international disgrace, history, as unveiled by this campaign cycle, is beginning to paint a far different story. We can look to the problems of the first Clinton presidency and see how they are coming home to roost as they deploy a drogue chute around Hillary's campaign and drag it down. A drogue chute she would have been well served to jettison years ago.
From the lobbying style of chief strategist Mark Penn, to her husband's insistence to be in the thick of the fray, flinging parsed and nuanced word bombs to the media, one thing after another reminds people of why the Clinton legacy is gathering tarnish: it wasn't all peace and prosperity in the 90's. There was a real messy side to the Clintonian political machine--a messy side that is rearing its ugly head again
Unfortunately, Hillary would have us forget all the problems of her husband's presidency, and choose to run on experience gained at the salad bar of her husband's accomplishments, picking those most likely to enhance her candidacy, while tossing the rest to the compost. Running a campaign based much around her life as first lady, Hillary Clinton has opened a trove of questions and problems for her candidacy.
Bill Clinton's associations with numerous organizations at odds with his wife's stated policy goals--from Columbian trade groups to some of his Foundation's donors supporting China's repression of Tibet--whittle away at her support. Hillary is caught in the unenviable position of having a first-gentleman-to-be who has severe conflicts of interest with her own campaign. And a husband and political team who demand loyalty to political favors delivered years ago.
As Bill Richardson--recently branded "Judas" by Clinton strategist James Carville for not repaying Hillary with an endorsement due from his appointment by Bill as an ambassador and Energy Secretary--exclaimed, the Clinton campaign is "just too messy." And that his loyalty to Bill Clinton does not extend to Hillary. How many other people are in this boat? How loyal to Hillary will the people be who only are extending their support because of favors they owe to Bill?
From sharing a bank account with a man who takes nearly a million dollars for assisting an organization promoting trade agreements she opposes, to filing joint tax returns showing millions of dollars of income related to shady dealings with overseas investors, Hillary Clinton is saddled with problems she doesn't need.
Hillary Clinton is a capable and brilliant politician. After all, she worked out with one of the best for many years. But she should have left it at that. Once Bill had outlived his usefulness in a blue dress moment, she should have struck out on her own--if she had presidential aspirations at that time, which many suspect she had. She has what it takes to be the first woman to run for the presidency and win, without her alliance with Bill Clinton.
Stand Hillary Clinton up on her own, and divorce her from all the pain and troubles of the first Clinton presidency, and she becomes a much more attractive candidate. Take away all of the surrogate, back-stage dealings and whispers and Bill gaffs, and she becomes much more likable. Hillary Clinton doesn't need to be wrapped in a campaign run in the style of the 90's, and built on a Washington D.C. power base that brings the likes of Burson Marstellar along for the ride.
No, the best thing Hillary Clinton could have done for her presidential aspirations would have been to get as far away from the legacy of Bill Clinton as she could have. She could have portrayed herself for the woman and politician that she truly is, and she would have had widespread support for that.
She truly has what it would take to be this country's first woman president. Except that when you figure Bill into the equation, it all starts to slide away. She gambled in a moment of perhaps understandable self-doubt that the prospect of a two-fer was better than a solitary bid. But the blue-light-special package of Bill and Hill isn't a "take what you need and leave the rest" proposition. We get it all: you buy it, you like it. Except many of us don't.
If she does not win this nomination, and has aspirations for 2012, she might be well served to reflect on her ultimate question: whether loyalty to her husband and marriage, or drive to ascend to the presidency is her life's goal. Because it may just well be that one is exclusive of the other. |
