Martin Van Buren had Andrew Jackson. William Howard Taft had Theodore Roosevelt. George H.W. Bush had Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush had his father. Hillary Rodham Clinton has Bill Clinton.
Van Buren, Taft, Roosevelt and the two Bushes had the indispensable political assistance of powerful patron presidents, a formula that often works in American politics. But these presidential advocates were mentors and, in one case, a father as well. Bill Clinton is the last Democratic president, a wildly popular figure in his own party. And he is also Hillary Clinton's husband.
Ultimate political weapon
But has there ever been a political arsenal with a weapon quite like Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton may not be the best husband alive, but he surely is the best political campaigner alive, the best political strategist alive, the best political symbol alive.
So the news that the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is going to enlist the help and talents of Bill Clinton is no small thing. It is a bigger thing than Taft campaigning as TR's handpicked successor, which helped Taft in 1908 but which turned sour once TR came to believe Taft had abandoned the Roosevelt approach in the White House, "completely (twisting) round the policies I advocated and acted upon." By 1912, when Roosevelt ran against his onetime protege in one of the most bitter but colorful American elections ever, he would speak of "Taft's muddleheaded inability."
Bill Clinton's likely involvement in the 2008 election is bigger, too, than Reagan campaigning for Vice President Bush, a relationship that helped Bush win the election but which had its undertones of resentment as well. In his inaugural address the new president spoke of an administration that would be kinder and gentler, prompting Nancy Reagan to wonder: kinder and gentler than whom?
And yet any precedents may be irrelevant. The Clintons are a partnership, to be sure, but above all they are a marriage. The skeptics, cynics and voyeurs can say what they wish, but even a marriage of convenience is a marriage, requiring gestures of respect and boundaries of action far different from those in even the closest political partnership.
In short, Bill and Hillary in 2008 are different from TR and Will in 1908.
Strengths, weaknesses
What does Mr. Clinton bring to the table? Not much in Iowa, oddly enough; in his 1992 race, the presence of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the Democratic field rendered the state's precinct caucuses all but meaningless, and Mr. Clinton spent precious little time there then or in 1996, when he faced no opposition in the caucuses. He does bring a lot in New Hampshire, where he had his first brush with political death at a paintbrush factory in Claremont when allegations broke that he had had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, a Little Rock television personality. He then campaigned like mad in New Hampshire, came in second, and painted himself as the "comeback kid," one of the neatest bits of political packaging in modern political history.
But his real value is that there is nobody in Democratic circles who won't take a call from Bill Clinton, or who won't put his message slip at the top of the pile.
The lower President Bush sinks in the polls, and the more the Republican presidential candidates seek to establish their distance from the president, the more important an asset is Mr. Clinton. He's the president people liked.
Now the dangers. Mr. Clinton was a rogue - a player, in the argot of today - and the Clinton years, though a period of robust economic growth, were not exactly a day at the beach. There was arguably more administration incompetence in the Clinton years than in the Bush years (though the Iraq war alone may trump the cumulative effect of Lani Guinier, the parade of attorney general nominees, the imbroglio over gays in the military, the missed opportunity on health-care overhaul and many, many more).
There was immense partisan anger. The impeachment ordeal was a disaster for all who touched or were touched by it. And lest we forget, the Clinton years are not remembered as a high-water mark for traditional family values.
Enhance, not diminish
The key is that in campaigning for his wife, whose ascension to the presidency would not surprise anyone who heard her speech at the Wellesley College commencement in 1969, Mr. Clinton must enhance and not diminish Sen. Clinton. Somehow Hillary Clinton has to reap the benefits but not relive the agony of the Clinton administration.
This is important to her politically, but it is vital to her psychologically. She cannot appear, or feel, like an appendage of the Bill Clinton mystique.
Her appeal must be for who she is, not for whom she married. Her candidacy, her presidency and her dignity depend on that more than on anything else.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
But Bill and Hillary are members of a very conservative DLC not members of the DNC. Woman or not I vote no!
Why is it Americans cannot elect a representative instead of a name from corporate america? What is the romance? Why do americans fall over themselves for political media stars and fat cats? Have we not learned that these people NEVER make things better they just continue the corporate welfare and watch american jobs go abroad. It really stinks!
The news media and corporate america do NOT need to decide who OUR candidates should be for local,state or federal level representation.
The media takes in a ton of cash during our election periods and play a huge role in selecting candidates for all sides of the aisle. Then THEY decide who should participate in televised debates as if no one else matters to the voters. Yes they also seem to decide which issues are important to voters and many times miss the mark. The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who also spend the most money and the question is why?
Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths on the 2008 ballot.
Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.
Lets's demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
Demand a change on the 2008 ballot.
The big money candidates are more beholden than ever to corporate special interests due to the very long nature of campaigns. How do they have time to do the job they were elected to do? We need public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Where's the frackin' byline on this??? Is this from the LJW "editorial board?" If it is, why doesn't it explicitly say so?!?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
pelliott (anonymous) says…
Who did write this, what is it?
SOURCE?????
mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…
Here ya go:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07140/...
Author is David Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh (Pa) Post Gazette.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
LJW is not only prone to hiding themselves, but apparently plagiarism now as well.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Giggity.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Funny stuff, the fringe leftist socialists have their feminazi panties in a bunch because Hillary is too conservative for them. The far left LJW is in trouble
with the fringe left for not towing the propoganda line. Thanks for the funny stuff. :-)
merrill et al have forgotten that sHrillary also has a long history of ties to [GASP!] Wal-mart [insert law and order sound]. wal-mart is about as eeevill in their eyes as is halliburton.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Can we please get a story about Ron Paul? This is the type of guy the Republican party needs. There isn't a candidate running right now that could take him on in a debate.