Clinton

December 02, 2008

The Continued Absence of a Golden Age

Commenting on the future of transatlantic relations, Anthony writes:

The plain fact of the matter is that there are structural issues at play that will ensure tensions remain. One of the great pieces of historical revisionism spurred by the Bush 43 tenure is the conviction that has emerged that under Clinton Euro-American relations were going well. They weren't. Most of the time it was poison. Even between Clinton and Blair things turned fairly sour...

We should hope for the best with the emergence of the Obama administration. And at the very least it'll give me an excuse to start having a go at the Continentals again. But managing expectations, so to speak, is undoubtedly the right way to go. There are plenty of issues that have the potential to cause ructions.

That's not to say, incidentally, that the problems are ALL structural. This is an argument generally employed by Bush 43 apologists to support the notion that it doesn't matter how undiplomatically the US government acts because the results will be the same and it should be resisted. But let's not get carried away.

This is entirely true. We forget too often how much the Balkan wars strained the transatlantic alliance and how close NATO came to breaking up over Kosovo. That wasn't the only issue, of course, but it was probably the biggest, most complicated one. You'll recall how Blair and Clinton were reduced to shouting matches over Kosovo and, previously, how Clinton and John Major had rowed over Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Now in the end most (or at least many) of these differences were resolved, but they were, in some ways, easier than many of those which face the west today.

November 21, 2008

Hillary Accepts

Well, one assumes the dear old New York Times wouldn't run a story saying she's accepted the offer to be Secretary of State unless it was pretty well certain that she will.

That sound you hear is foreign editors tearing up their pages right now. The groaning comes from Sunday newspaper hacks who now need to recast their focus pieces.

What does it all mean? Well, like I say, it suggests Obama's not going to break with the Washington consensus on foreign policy. But perhaps we will all be surprised. Alas, this also means the already tiresome "Team of Rivals" meme will run and run...

November 18, 2008

Hillary's Return?

Ewen MacAskill reports that Hillary is indeed going to be Obama's Secretary of State. His report in the Guardian is entirely unsourced however - which is interesting because MacAskill is not a reckless reporter by any means. Even so, Josh Marshall says he doesn't believe anything any British paper publishes about American politics. My old friend Toby Harnden has a theory explaining what could have happened:

Maybe the almost complete lack of sourcing is a clue.

When that happens, what's usually going on is that a very senior person on the paper has been told something, is certain it's true and directs that the story be written, without furnishing many (or any) details or giving the reporter access to (or even the identity of) the source.

The best (or worst, depending on which way you look at it) example of this in recent years is the infamous 2004 New York Post "scoop" that Dick Gephardt was John Kerry's vice-presidential running mate. The source? Reputedly Rupert Murdoch. Interestingly, the phrasing on the story was "the Post has learned''.

This seems quite possible, perhaps even probable. Pity the poor reporter in these instances: you get little credit for being proved right and plenty of blame if, in fact, your super-reliable and in-the-know source turns out to be talking through his hat.

 

November 17, 2008

She's Back! (Maybe)

I don't know. You go away for an internet-free weekend and everything seems more or less normal. You return and discover that there's much talk that Hillary Clinton could be the next US Secretary of State. Blimey! Andrew is, I think, depressed by this but concludes that shoving Hillary over to Foggy Bottom means she can't damage Obama without also, presumably, damaging her own chances of succeeding him. Perhaps! On the other hand, Mike Crowley says:

A stint at State, incidentally, would set Hillary up pretty nicely for 2016, if she's interested. (She'll be 69 years old on Election Day of that year.) No longer would people doubt the validity of her "experience."

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. On the one hand, she'd have the "experience" card (presuming she didn't have to resign in disgrace) but Foggy Bottom hasn't sent anyone to the White House since James Buchanan (The other five Secretaries of State to have become President? Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams and van Buren.) Perhaps that's just a coincidence, but maybe it's not! 

There is also the problem that the Democratic party will face: it's tough for either party to win three presidential elections in a row. Its only happened once since Truman was President. That doesn't rule Hillary out, even aged 69, but it does suggest that her life will be more difficult. And by 2016 Hillary will have been in the public eye for more than a quarter of a century; too long for her to win, I think. Remember the Rauch Rule? LBJ is the only President since Teddy Roosevelt who took more than 14 years from their first significant election victory to become either President or Veep. And of course he needed Lee Harvey Oswald to get him the top job too.

Now maybe Rauch's Rule is a fluke too, but combine it with the State Department's status as a final destination, not a springboard to higher office and, well, the stars might not be so very well aligned for Hillary after all.

That still doesn't explain why Obama would consider giving her the top job in the cabinet. If she wants out of the Senate - and is there any indication this is so? - then a place on the Supreme Court would seem a safer, more logical (and, granted, more powerful) position. This is supposed to be Obama's Presidency: why give your most high-profile cabinet slot to someone whose mere presence cannot help but challenge and, potentially, undermine the central thrust of your administration: how is Hillary "Change we can believe in"? Well, she ain't. So I can't quite believe this will happen...

Also: what about Bill's relationships with dodgy oligarchs around the world? Much embarassment lies ahead there. 

Still, this is fun, isn't it? Obama hasn't even been sworn in and we're already moving on to speculate on the 2016 election (presuming, I guess, that he'll be pretty easily re-elected in 2012...) At this rate the betting markets will open for 2020 business by the end of the month...

November 04, 2008

The Big Dog Gets On Board

An early start for Democratic volunteers in the Buckeye State. A friend emails to report:

Woke up this morning at 4am with my cell phone ringing and Bill Clinton's voice on the other end, "Wake up Ohio volunteer, this is Bill Clinton, the last Democratic President, telling you to get out of bed and go win this thing for the next Democratic President Barack Obama.". Great on many levels.

August 27, 2008

What Hillary couldn't quite bring herself to say...

Hillary Clinton is, on the whole, enjoying rave reviews for her speech at the Democratic convention last night. Well, it wasn't terrible, I suppose. But she wasn't exactly fulsome in her praise either. I mean, she could have said something like:

You know, as I look at all of you here tonight, and I think of all the people watching at home, I don't see Clinton supporters or Obama supporters, I see Democrats. I see a party that recognises the importance of this election, that appreciates that this country faces a choice between the change we need and four more years of the same old Republican policies that have done enormous damage to this country.

We enjoyed - perhaps I should say endured -  a campaign that was long and arduous. It was an old-fashioned American epic in a new political age. The age of Youtube and the blogosphere and a voracious media that hypes even the tiniest difference of emphasis while ignoring the common ground and principles that make us all proud to be part of the Democratic family.

But in a long campaign, sometimes you say things in the heat of the moment that you regret when the battle is won and lost. I know and you know that John McCain is a good man who has done this country great service in the past, but his ideas for the future cannot meet the needs or aspirations of the American people. You cannot vote with George W Bush 90% of the time and be the change our country needs. No biography, however heroic, can compensate for reckless misjudgment and a blithe indifference to the struggles of ordinary Americans.

This election isn't about biography or celebrity; it's about judgement and policy. We need a President who can inspire and lead the American people. We need a President who can make up for eight years of squandered promise and missed opportunities. We need to make up for lost time. We need a Democratic president.

Barack Obama is a good man who will serve - and lead -  his country with distinction. He won't just be time-serving President wrapping the failed politics of the past in a shiny new wrapper, he will be a great President, offering the hope and the real change our country desperately needs. I know that; you know that. This is his moment; this is his time. His presidency is our future. And I will do everything in my power to secure that future; for Barack, for you, for all of us. He is ready; we are ready. And together we will change this country for the better.

That took me about 15 minutes to write (and perhaps that shows!), but there you have it. For other takes, see the reactions from Crowley, Chait and Welch who were, on the whole, more impressed than I was. Also worth reading is David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's chief speechwriter from 1992-94.

June 09, 2008

When a wink is better than a policy proposal.

What accounts for John McCain's popularity? By which I mean, of course, his popularity amongst the press and television pundit class. After all, by some conventional measures, McCain is a politician, with few legislative achievements to his name (the most significant being his highly dubious campaign finance reforms) who shows little interest in the actual business of government, beyond sweeping bromides about "national greatness" and calls to "service".

It helps that McCain is primarily interested in foreign affairs which carries much greater cachet in Washington than banal, number-crunching domestic policy. The pundit class considers a lack of foreign policy "experience" a serious handicap; having little interest in domestic affairs is not considered a problem. In part, for sure, this reflects the traditional view that the president has greater autonomy and power vis a vis foreign policy than matters domestic. But it's also because foreign policy lends itself to generalised bloviating in a way that, say, economic policy does not. And journalists prefer grand rhetoric to tedious detail.

It's also the case that McCain's heroic biography - the cornerstone of his campaign - and his willingness to grant the press access to the candidate bolsters his easily-earned reputation as a "maverick". But there's something else too, something that I'd been meaning to write about for some time but that this passage from Matthew Parris's (excellent) autobiography Chance Witness, reminded me of.

Writing about yet another Tony Blair speech, Parris notes:

"In that speech... there were ambitions but no plan. Of high-minded waffle this politician had no monopoly but what I found unusually repellent about Mr Blair's was that it came across unaccompanied by even the slightest wink. All politics involves a measure of sham, and a little sheepishness befits those who make it their career. The disjunction between a largeness of gesture and a timidity of intent can be redeemed by humour or by apology, but Mr Blair did not think he was funny and showed no potential for contrition. It was very American, very televangelist and most unBritish."

John McCain is not like this. In some ways he is a very unAmerican politician. At his best McCain recognises and mocks the rules of the game, the absurd hoops that candidates are expected to leap through and the dizzyingly facile nature of the modern campaign.

Unlike say Hillary Clinton, he's fond of the knowing wink that acknowledges the daftness of the media-political vortex. I know this is a game, he slyly suggests, and I also know that you like the fact that you know that I know and appreciate the ridiculousness of the game. But I didn't make the rules and, heck, I'm not sure you can remember insisting upon them either. But we're in it together so let's make as merry as we can and do our best to forget the degrading lunacy of the contest. 

So when McCain makes a joke such as his "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" refrain, the press is willing to concede that this is indeed actually a joke. When McCain panders, the press forgives him because he's winked at them - and at the entire process - as if to say Watch me do this, see how much fun opportunism can be - especially when you know that I know that I don't really mean it or, heavens above, take it seriously.

This is something Hillary Clinton never learnt to do. Her earnestness let her down and, allied to her campaign's pleasure in being thought (in the ealry days at least) ruthless and efficient and never-likely-to-make-a-mistake-or-leave-anything-to-chance, she fell prisoner to the rules of the game. Her pandering was always done too seriously and the candidate never created any distance between Hillary Clinton the Human Being and Hillary Clinton the Politician. Consequently, no matter how opportunistic or daft the moment may have been - all her remarks had to be taken seriously. Christ, you felt, she might actually believe this guff. There was no wink, no sheepishness, no acknowledgement that she was playing a game (albeit one for high stakes) and, thus, no room in which to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. There was no humour, no levity, no self-mockery and, alas, no irony either. Mitt Romney suffered from the same problem.

And that's at least part of the reason why, though by many more disinterested measurements, she and Romney are more formidable and stronger, more talented politicians than John McCain, they've also been less successful.

Obama has something of McCain's deftness, though he could do more to use this to his advantage. When he was badgered by policy questions during a routine photo-op in a Pennsylvania diner, he complained, a little peevishly, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" He should have winked and turned his breakfast to his advantage, joking about "this is waffle time, not question time. Question time comes between coffee and getting back on the bus" and leaving the affairs of state until after breakfast. Even better, he could have bought breakfast for the reporters travelling with him, apologising for having dragged them to a diner to watch him eat breakfast...

That's a minor example, of course, and perhaps Obama would like to play a different game entirely. But for the time being he's stuck with this one and he might remember that reporters - and voters for that matter - appreciate some sheepishness and a nod and a wink from time to time.

June 05, 2008

Last Orders

At long last: Hillary will quit on Saturday. I think Nick Garland's cartoon in the Telegraph a) sums it up well and b) is oddly affecting.
Ixd04big

UPDATE: In response to a commenter, there's no caption missing. None is required...

June 04, 2008

Transatlantic Currents: Press Division

Dan Drezner thinks that the Clintons are probably right to suppose that the press has favoured Barack Obama this year. Still, he says, they probably shouldn't read the UK papers and cites this piece by the Times' Tim Reid which begins:

Seventeen months after she sat regally in her New York living room and calmly declared: “I’m in and I’m in to win,” Hillary Clinton stands on a stage in a stifling hot shed in South Dakota, coughing and spluttering, as her daughter, Chelsea, grabs the microphone from her hand to take over the show.

“A long campaign,” the former First Lady chokes out between sips of water. Her husband, red-faced and exhausted — and having just apologised for another angry outburst in front of reporters — looks on wistfully at the final rally of his wife’s presidential bid, an endeavour that has been transformed from an inevitable juggernaut into a costly train wreck. 

Dan suggests no American paper would carry an intro like this and perhaps they wouldn't. But, then again, isn't everything Tim says here, er, true? Reads pretty well, too...


June 03, 2008

What will she do now?

All sorts of speculation as to what Hillary Clinton will do once the primary season ends this evening and even her doughtiest supporters might begin to realise it's unlikely she's going to be the Democratic party's nominee. Some of them doubtless want her to "fight on" all the way to the convention.

For what little it's worth I'd hazard that this is unlikely. Self-interest demands that she concede this week and that she does so graciously. At the risk of looking too far down the road (why bother with this election when we can have fun with one to come?) let's just say that it's all about 2012.

Assume that the Clintons are right that Obama can't defeat McCain this November. Assume too that Hillarys presidential ambitions aren't likely to fade away. She would, one might think, be well-placed to challenge McCain in 2012, by which time of course, McCain will be 77 and the GOP will have been in the White House for 12 years...

But Hillary can only be a credible candidate if she's seen to be a team player now. If she continues the fight beyond the point of hopelessness and McCain wins many Democrats will, fairly or not, blame her for Obama's defeat. And they will not forget that.

Her own political prospects depend upon her being seen to offer Obama her full support, uniting behind the party's nominee. For that reason, then, I'd expect her to concede soo and to do so more graciously than might be expected on the basis of the tenor and temper of the campaign so far.

May 28, 2008

On Sale Soon...

Via Swampland, comes news of this exciting contest to design a new t-shirt for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Personally, I'd say it's tough to beat the impact of a slogan such as "She was for universal health care before universal health care was cool" but then again, what the hell do I know? Then again, I do know that I wouldn't have let this shirt be a finalist:
Tshirt_4
What's the problem? Well, as any fule kno, if you're "counted out" you can't then "refuse" to be "knocked out" for the simple reason that the referee has stopped the fight and, er, you've lost. By knock-out. Then again, perhaps failing to beat the count doesn't actually constitute a defeat in Hillaryland...

May 22, 2008

Hillary of Harare

In one sense there's little point in writing about Hillary Clinton anymore. She's lost. Still, if there is any truth to the notion, much-favoured by Washington reporters, that you can gain a sense of character and, indeed, governing style from the way in which a candidate campaigns then, by gum, we should be glad that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the next President of the United States.

Her caterwauling about the perceived injustice of not counting the Florida and Michigan primary results on account of their determination to break DNC rules, has conquered many peaks of absurdity lately. Norm draws my attention to this one:
People go through the motions of an election only to have it discarded and disregarded. We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe - tragically an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote.
Good grief. This isn't just absurd, it's grotesque.

Clinton agreed to "disenfranchise" Florida and Michigan.  As Jon Chait says "This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination."

And so, in her desire to win-by-any-means and her willlingness to rewrite the rules after the contest has been held, it's hard to avoid the thought that Hillary Clinton is ill-advised to start talking about Zimbabwe - as if her "plight" and that of Africa really had anything in common - lest folk draw the conclusion that, if the comparison must be made, she's the brutish Robert Mugabe figure who's been rejected by a public that (clearly) just doesn't know what's good for them but that, nonetheless, has determined that "change" is more important than "experience". Like Mr Mugabe, she seems to take the view that it's not the voting that matters, it's the counting...

May 20, 2008

If Hillary had skipped Iowa?

The Los Angeles Times' Don Frederick claims Barack Obama has "disrespected" Kentucky by declining to campaign in the Bluegrass State. Does this mean he disrespected Guam too?

More interestingly - if no more usefully - Frederick asks what might have happened if Clinton had, as her then deputy campaign manager Mike Henry urged, simply skipped the Iowa caucuses entirely?

Well, yes, there's something to that. At the risk of stating the obvious, Iowa was by some clear distance the most important state in the race. That seems clear now. But that importance is qualified: Iowa would not have been as significant if John Edwards had won. True, Edwards would presumably have done better than he did in New Hampshire and, equally plausibly, South Carolina might have been different too. But an Edwards victory in Iowa would have been ascribed to voter familiarity with him (having run in 2004 and spent more time in Iowa than either Obama or Clinton). It would not have been seen - correctly - as a game-changing moment.

Clinton could have survived an Edwards victory in Iowa since I suspect she would, even had that happened, have been favoured to defeat Edwards if the race had become a choice between the two of them. But Obama's victory was quite another matter. I think one may almost say that Obama won South Carolina in Iowa. Triumphing amongst white folks in the mid-west proved he could a) win and b) energised African-Americans who to that point had been well-disposed to Hillary. Iowa made Obama and the idea of Obama's candidacy viable. In the process - and to an extent that would have been denied an Edwards victory - it c) punctured Hillary's myth of inevitability.

That inevitability might have survived if Clinton had skipped Iowa and still won in New Hampshire. The natural, presumed order would have been maintained. She would have won their first head-to-head encounter and benefitted more from a NH victory than was possible after her Iowa humiliation. In other words, she would have gone to South Carolina effectively undefeated, while Obama would have played one game against Clinton and lost it. The optics would have been friendlier to Hillary. As it was, her NH win was still somewhat overshadowed by Obama's Iowa win.

Now, for sure, many other things might have happened and there's no single explanation for her defeat, but the rot set in early and Iowa dealt a blow to her campaign that she never really recovered from. She might have lost anyway, but I'm not so sure she would have. Her defeat in Iowa, however, proved that there was in fact an alternative to Hillary.

May 12, 2008

Hillary: Situation excellent, I shall attack

The question itching le tout Washington is simple: why won't Hillary Clinton do the decent thing and quit? Well, my friend Mike Crowley has a grand piece in the latest edition of the New Republic that may explain why. The Clintons have been here before and, against the city's expectations, prevailed. Mike suggests that we should view Hillary's campaign in the light of her husband's impeachment. It's a persuasive thesis and, frankly, one that leaves you kicking yourself for not thinking of it before. The parallels cannot be exact, but they're sufficiently compelling to be useful.

As Mike lays out the scene:

The Clintons find themselves victimized and under siege. The presidency is being stolen from them. The press is out to get them. They deride elites and champion the masses. They live in a constant state of emergency. But they will endure any humiliation, ride out any crisis, fight on even when fighting seems hopeless.

Hence her appeal to byapss Washington and throw herself upon the mercy and common sense of the American people. It worked for Bill, so why not for Hillary too?

Populism is potent in the hands of many politicians. But the Clintons have perfected their own brand of it. Impeachment taught them that the specter of defeat could endear them to the public. It's no coincidence that, before several major primaries, Bill Clinton emphasized that Hillary's survival was on the line, or that Hillary's campaign has advertised rather than ignored efforts by pundits and party leaders to force her from the race. She has styled herself as a populist largely by adopting the pose of a fighter--one battling an elite political-media establishment that cares little for ordinary people (as exemplified by her derision of experts who trashed her gas-tax holiday proposal as a gimmick). What working-class American can't relate to feeling stepped on by the fancy-pants establishment?

True enough, but it's also worth recalling, I think, that this sort of self-pity  -and self-indulgence - was a major contributor to Clinton's presidency being less than it might have been.

Crowley again:

Beyond those particulars, however, one gets the overall impression that the Clintons feel Obama shouldn't be here in the first place--that this "young man's" very claim to power is itself questionable. In this sense, the Clintons may be victims of their own sense of victimhood. The vileness of the Clintons' past enemies seems to have convinced them that their enemies always are, by definition, in the wrong. And that Obama's candidacy is almost like another illegitimate attempt to steal a White House that, in some sense, belongs to them.

This too seems plausible. One point I'd add that tends to be ignored (including by me) is the question of why the Clintons should feel the White House belongs to them. I'd hazard there are two connected ideas at work here: firstly, there's the sense that eight fat years of peace and prosperity haven't given Bill (and by extension, his wife who, remember, aspired to be something of a co-President at one point) the place in history they dreamt of when first they arrived in Washington.

That way, a second Clinton administration offers a chance to correct the historical record, leaving the George W Bush years as just an awkward inter-regnum. History can be rewound and the project can begin again. Rubbing against this sense that history has not given Bill his due, however, is something else: the chance to take a Mulligan and have a second go. The Clintons are owed a second shot at the Presidency precisely because they didn't achieve all they wanted first time around. A hostile Congress didn't help, of course, but  they must also recognise that Bill's recklessness deprived them of their chance to make a grand, historical impact. In this sense, then, there's the feeling that they need a secod go at the Presidency because Bill's first and final two years were largely years of failure. In other words, the Clintons feel they have unfinished buiness on Pennsylvania Avenue. Thus, a Clinton restoration would, paradoxically, be a confirmation that Bill's presidency was significant and a chance to complete a long list of unfinished business...   

April 27, 2008

The Evolution of a Politician

Mike Crowley highlights Hillary Clinton's changing style:

April, 1993: "We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility   and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers the unanswerable   questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones, as to how   we can have a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves." 

April, 2008: [E]very speech she gave in Indiana on Friday and Saturday had the same topic sentence. “My campaign is about jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs,” she said, always to thunderous applause.

From a political point of view, it seems Hillary has learnt something. Of course, I suspect Hillary still believes what she said in 1993. Then again, just as troublingly, Barack Obama and John McCain would each be happy to waffle on about "a new politics of meaning" and how government can  - god help us all - "fill us up". But such is the sort of guff that politicians on the campaign trail - never knowingly under-bashful as it is - feel compelled to promise. And, once again, it smacks of the particular form of megalomania that should disqualify from office anyone who has the audacity and presumption to seek it.

My Photo

Powered by Rollyo

Amazon

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    You Might Like...

    Google Search

    • Custom Search

    Google Ads

    • Google Ads 2
    • Google Ads

    Amazon Store

    Powered by FeedBurner

    Blog powered by TypePad