GoldbergBlog

Election 2008: Why Hillary’s Time Is Almost Up

I don’t hate Hillary Clinton. Some people do. I find her distasteful and crass at times, but I don’t think she’s a bad person or The Great Emasculator as some have painted her. I will say that if she tries to steal Michigan and Florida’s discounted delegates, I will hate her because she’ll have cheated her way to victory. I tend to dislike her because I know that even if she managed to beat John McCain in the general election, she wouldn’t be able to get a damn thing done as President because she embraces partisan politics rather than move past them. I also find this co-presidency idea of her and Bill rather uncomfortable. When I vote, I want to vote for a President and a Vice-President. I’m not saying that the First Lady (or if she won, the First Husband) couldn’t have their own policy agenda, but they also have to realize that they’re not elected officials. They didn’t have to be confirmed by Congress.  Also, if we’re really to consider them “a team” then we’re giving that team an unconstitutional third term. But most of all, what bothers me is that if she plans to run the country the same way she ran her campaign, we’re in for a nightmare. Not a nightmare of Bush-proportions, but certainly an unpleasant dream.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic, Frank Rich of The New York Times, and Robert Creamer of The Huffington Post have covered this wonderfully. I would only add that for the Hillary Clinton campaign, it didn’t have to be this way. They didn’t have to play into the ridiculous belief that Democrats are somehow weak so they need to look tough and since Hillary is a woman, she needs to look double-tough. I’ve read numerous articles that say in person, Hillary Clinton is a warm, funny, and friendly person. I haven’t seen that on the campaign trail. I’ve seen cold, calculating, and ruthless with only the faintest hints of a human inside the political machine. Hillary’s tears in New Hampshire didn’t draw attention because it was a moment of weakness (as some cynics may say), but because they showed humanity and if a glimpse of humanity draws massive attention, then it’s because it’s a break from the norm of her campaign.

Which leads to the schizophrenic approach we’ve seen since Iowa. One moment, she’s viciously fighting with Obama (as she did in South Carolina, where she lost badly) and the next, she’s conciliatory and cordial, as she was in California (where she won by a fair margin). During last Thursday’s debate in Texas, she’s proud to be sharing the stage with Barack Obama and the next, she’s mocking and scolding him. Her campaign doesn’t attack him with much beyond a dubious message about “experience”. And if you honestly think you can win by rallying against hope and optimism, then you’re mad.

And the banner of “Hope” and “Change” don’t make Obama invincible.  There are other ways to attack him.  Compare him to George W. Bush by saying that in 2000, we had a choice between a likable guy with no specific plans and a stodgy guy with highly detailed plans, and now we have a chance to make the right decision.  It’s a false comparison, but it’s a solid attack.

Or she could go after his lack of foreign policy experience.  She could say, “Barack may have visited many countries, but I’ve actually worked with them,” It’s simple, effective, and it seems like the only reason she won’t play it is because now she’s put herself out for a litmus test with John McCain on the basis of foreign-policy experience.  That’s a piss-poor reason because if you can’t beat down the guy who wants 100 more years of an unpopular war, you’re a coward and a fool.

And let us not forget about the transmogrifying of Bill Clinton from affable populist into borderline-racist-hitman. Instead of using Bill’s natural charisma and charm to try and win voters, the Clinton campaign has sent him out to be the bad guy, saying all the nasty things Hillary can’t say because her unfavorables are so high (she can say them now since obviously, the Bill-as-Bad-Guy tactic failed miserably) and she has no choice but to pull out all the stops before Ohio and Texas.

It’s not only that the Clinton campaign has actively pursued bad strategy, but constantly avoided good strategy. How am I supposed to trust in your experience if you can go all the way from front-runner to a last stand in the space of three months?

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.