Opinion - News Analysis   

Bill Clinton looking like a liability for Hillary

Just three weeks ago, it was an article of faith that was beyond questioning: Bill Clinton was his wife’s greatest asset in her presidential campaign. The former President was loved by all Democrats. Practically all he had to do was walk into any roomful of Democratic voters, remind them of the prosperity of the 1990s, and the deal would be closed. All but the most truculent would leave the room committed Hillaryites.

Today? Consider this exit-poll data point from Saturday’s voting in South Carolina, where Barack Obama romped to a two-to-one victory over Hillary Clinton. Voters were asked to rate the importance of Mr. Clinton’s campaigning as a factor in determining how they voted. A majority, 58 per cent, said that the former President’s campaigning — he spent last week in the State lobbing volley after boorish volley at Mr. Obama (and at the media), while his wife was mostly elsewhere — was important. And guess what? Those 58 per cent voted for Mr. Obama, 48 per cent to 37 per cent.

Granted, Mr. Obama won by far more among the 39 per cent who said that Mr. Clinton’s role was not an important factor. But the fact that Mr. Obama carried the day among the 58 per cent is staggering. As we move to the 22-State primary-palooza of February 5, the key question for the Clinton campaign — in a way for Mr. Obama’s team as well — is what to do about this.

Early signs from camp Clinton suggest that the former President has not been given his sedative. On Saturday evening, after it was known that Mr. Obama was cruising to victory, Mr. Clinton made the less-than-gracious observation that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 84 and 88.” The comment struck a lot of people as one more inappropriate and dismissive attempt to pigeonhole Mr. Obama as “just the black guy.”

That could be written off as one more instance of Mr. Clinton’s off-the-cuff freelancing. But on Saturday night, his wife’s campaign made the bewildering decision to send Mr. Clinton out to deliver what was in essence her concession speech. Ms Clinton spoke only much later — after Mr. Obama, which broke with custom. By that time the cable channels had lost interest, and they cut away from her after a few minutes.

This kind of decision will only keep the spotlight on Mr. Clinton — and not just on the nature of his campaigning style. In recent days, a far more important question has been bubbling to the surface, concerning what sort of role he would play in his wife’s presidency. He may have no official title or role.

Yet he would, it is fair to assume, be deeply enmeshed in both politics and policy.

To what extent would this constitute a co-presidency? Writing in The New York Times on Saturday, Garry Wills noted that America’s founders had wrestled with just this question and decided executive power had to be invested in one person for the sake of holding that person accountable. Mr. Wills — who has written glowingly about Ms Clinton in the past — directly compared Mr. Clinton’s possible role to the one being played by Dick Cheney and concluded that “it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.”

It has long been assumed — more conventional wisdom — that Mr. Clinton as co-president was another huge plus, especially for Democratic voters. But suddenly even sympathetic observers such as Mr. Wills are exploring the darker penumbras of that question. And with Mr. Clinton having raised millions of dollars for his library from undisclosed donors — some of whom would surely have business with the federal government, as Frank Rich noted in his New York Times column on Sunday — these explorations are likely to mount over the next 10 days.

It leaves me very curious not only as to how Ms Clinton will address her husband’s role in the coming days, but how Mr. Obama will as well.

The Clintons have argued, not without justification, that the Republicans are going to throw everything at Mr. Obama if he is the nominee, so voters need to see now if he can take the heat. By contrast, Ms Clinton has said that everything there is to know about her is already known.

Well — not quite, it turns out. We do not know her husband’s recent donors and we do not know exactly what the Clintons have in mind for his role in her presidency.

This campaign is still going to be rough and tumble. And Mr. Obama is behind in current polling in most of the key February 5 States.

If Mr. Obama decides to put these questions on the table, it will constitute a very aggressive move. Either way, the Mr. Clinton of today is being called lots of things. But asset to his wife is not one of them. — ©Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2008

(Michael Tomasky is editor of Guardian America.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Showcasing independence
A champion and a star
Return to the spirit of 2004
India and U.S. allies in East Asia
Bill Clinton looking like a liability for Hillary
Sun shield could allow space crews to go to Mars
What is a green-collar job?
Corrections and clarifications
Bank strike
On political murders
Sex education
Fighting corruption

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu