The following is from a blog by Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post reporter who with Bob Woodward broke the Watergate story that ultimately became the downfall of Richard Nixon. Bernstein, now a CNN analyst, is author of a book called "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton." The full blog is incredibly insightful - and particularly scary - that should be read in it's entirety. The full article is here. The following are the final two paragraphs of the blog, and pretty much sum up Bernstein's take on a possible Hillary Clinton(s) presidency.
Bernstein writes:
"A long-time associate of the Clintons, with whom Hillary has consulted in their quest to return to the White House, said early in her campaign: "She has a very plausible case for president. She had an eight-year super-graduate course in the presidency, a progressive platform..." He paused, and added: "[But] I'm not sure I want the circus back in town."
That is what the Hillary for President campaign has become: the whole Clinton three-ring circus, with little evidence that moving back to the White House will alter that most basic fact."
And that's what a Clinton supporter says. But Bernstein starts the blog by posing and speculating an answer to a question:
"What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?
The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.
Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don't go right. Which is to say, often.
And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated."
Obviously this is one reporter's speculation, though Bernstein certainly has the credentials to do just that. But you decide if he has it right... Read the full blog here.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
Plus all those people who mysteriously disappeared - anyway, she's a joke - I am so sick of seeing her on TV...no way could she be President. Salud.
If we say it enough times then people will believe it because it is familiar to them.
We need a change and that is all there is to it. It doesn't matter that she is a woman. Gender is really no issue to use to elect anyone. I feel a woman will make it to the White House one day, just not this woman.
I know that I will never vote for her, even if she was unopposed.
Policies are simple - the Republicans paint themselves with one brush, the Democrats with another. So the choice is pretty clear between the two parties. Within the Democratic party, the policies are essentially the same. The devil is in the details, as they say...but the details at this stage are meaningless. No plan by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain (or George Bush) will be passed as it currently is written. Plans are frameworks written by one campaign. Presidents provide frameworks and direction, Congress writes laws. Any plan presented by a President will be tweaked and poked to fine tune the details after it gets the benefit of input from all sides. And it needs input from all sides.
I've come to see Hillary as a gamer. She is a consummate politician, adept...and all too willing...to jump on any misstatement to paint her opponents (Republican and Democrat) as something she knows they are not. But integrity is less important than winning. Her gain is more important than the party...or for that matter...the American public. The evidence continues to mount of this during the campaign. It is why a huge percentage of Independents (and for that matter, Bill Clinton Democrats) have decided they cannot support her. It is why so many people have decided that it is time to leave the partisan fighting in the past and elect a President who can think broadly, accept input, and inspire the people to move toward a better future.
Our' biggest problem is not this stupid war...it's the looming economic disaster that's already afoot and apace. Castles in the air daydreams won't fix the problems.
The budget deficit inherited from the Bush presidency was staggering. Republican presidents had made rhetorical hay of fiscal politics for two generations, while presidents from both parties allowed debt to pile up.
In the first 100 days, while the bottom sometimes seemed to be falling out of the new presidency, the course was actually set for a historic economic recovery and boom.
Clinton alone among contemporary presidents grasped the possibilities of the global economy, and what the explosive power of America's technical invention & new industries could do for the domestic economy. He became the first modern president to actually exercise, as opposed to merely talk about, the fiscal discipline necessary to cut and even balance the federal budget.
In February 2000, the United States entered over a hundred consecutive months of economic expansion...the longest economic expansion in history.
22.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 91 percent (19.9 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.
Unemployment went down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.0 percent in June 2000, and in April the unemployment rate was the lowest in over 30 years. The unemployment rate haf fallen for seven years in a row, and had remained below 5 percent for 34 months in a row.
The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years.
In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history.
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/
clinton.surplus/
In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion, and the government was projected to pay down an additional $184 billion in public debt the following fiscal year alone. Debt reduction brought real benefits for the American people -- a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also meant lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With President Clinton's plan, we were on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by 2012. Than disaster hit the nation...Emperor Dubya.
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.
In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.
Child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998, the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent...6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.
"Very few American presidents have figure skated through their terms in office with a perfect "10," and Bill Clinton was no exception. Controversy and scandal overshadowed a remarkable turnaround in the economy during his tenure, erasing a budget deficit of about $250 billion and creating a budget surplus of about $525 billion."
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2018.html
I don't support Hillary, per se, yet...what are the options? The military industrial complex' and corporate America's McCain or the Kool-Aid toting, pie-in-the-sky Junior Senator from Illinois?
Oh, hell no!
It's the economy...
But I think a few things need to be clarified.
First, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. Clearly this is so. So any benefit you may find in a Bill Clinton presidency cannot - and should not - be assumed to equate with a Hillary Clinton presidency. In fact, she spends as much time claiming differences from her husband (and her) positions (e.g., NAFTA) as she does claiming credit for his achievements (Bosnia cease fire). It comes down to whatever position she deems politically expedient, even if the evidence completely contradicts her supposed position statement.
Second, we actually didn't get out of the Bill Clinton presidency with our economy intact. The dot.com boom of the 1990s was as irrational as the housing run up of the 2000s. And both bubbles burst badly. Remember that the economy was also in trouble as the Bill Clinton presidency wound down. Gore was held back by several issues - Bill's behavior and impeachment, his own stiff persona, and yes, the declining economy at the end of the Clinton term. [Needless to say, 9/11 and Bush's subsequent war and economic policies also contributed to eating up the surplus.]
Third, this is not the 1990s. Conditions were different then, as they have been different in the 2000s, and as they will be different in the 2010s. To even consider reinstating the thinking of the past as a way to address the future is illogical. Should we reinstate the post-WWII thinking that led to an economic boom of the 1950s? Of course not, because what may have worked then will not work now (not to mention the fact that many of today's problems were caused by choices we made back then without adequate future knowledge or forethought).
Fourth, the biggest economic challenges of the future require us to deal with issues about which we have avoided having open and honest discussions. Hillary Clinton has shown she is more interested in gaming the system to her benefit than having an honest discussion (or even telling the truth).
Fifth, opting to elect someone as President because they were married to someone we used to like as President is probably one of the worst reasons anyone can come up with for voting. [We've seen what happens when you vote for a relative of a former President] Hillary's positions and political manipulation are clear. Obama's ability to put difficult issues on the table for discussion is clear. McCain's discomfort with pandering to the far right of his party, despite his conservative credentials, is clear. All three are intelligent people who have the potential for leadership. To ignore their contributions would be to not give credit where it is due. Perhaps some credit should also be given to their ability to lead Presidential campaigns. Obama clearly has shown leadership in this regard, rising from relative obscurity on the strength of his ability to inspire and willingness to take on difficult issues. McCain also has been able to best the pundits and better funded opponents to win the Republican nomination. Hillary, on the other hand, has squandered a presumed coronation bulit on her celebrity and the political ties she and Bill created over the years. She planned to have the nomination handed to her by Super Tuesday, and has stayed since then by playing on the fears that all of us have. So if you look just at how the campaigns have been run you can gain a lot of insight into how a Presidency will be run. Such was the topic that Bernstein speculated upon in his blog.
you ever think that maybe all those booms that happened were placed in order BEFORE Clinton got in the white house as it does take time for anything to happen... 100 days after he got in.. he hardly even knew were the toilets were in the white house.. Someone already had things in place... um.. could it have been the prior President... and Clinton just got the credit for it.. another amazing thought...
by the way.. I really hate politics..
And Bill Clinton, like Nancy Reagan, will have no impact on the presidency of their' spouse.
Yet, I'll stick to tried and true economic know how over the cluelessness and empty rhetoric of both Obama and McCain.
As to how the campaign has gone...I've seen the major news networks campaign for a candidate (Obama) and pilory the other candidates. I don't support Hillary, I just haven't joined the good old boys club yet, and most probably never will. I know that we probably shouldn't talk about this because Obama is above criticism, but, what the heck...
"As bitter as small town Americans may now be, guns and God were always part of the picture and Mr Obama's remarks seemed to reveal a gulf of comprehension that has left even his supporters flabbergasted. Branded as an undetectable elitist, a contrite Mr Obama showed up at a local evangelical college on Sunday to explain these remarks to a private audience in much-despised San Francisco. Despite being the most polished candidate for the White House in a generation, his inelegant remarks could turn into a serious block on his path to the Democratic nomination.
Unlike the Reverend Wright episode, which was guilt by association with a rabble-rousing pastor, this time the trouble is of Mr Obama's own making. It began when he tried to explain to fund-raisers why small-town Pennsylvanians weren't supporting him.
A tape of his unscripted words made it to a blog and his opponents, Hillary Clinton and the Republican, John McCain jumped all over them. Mrs Clinton compared him with Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom won the nomination but failed to get elected because, she said, of the perception that they were sneering elitists out of touch with real Americans.
Her ally, James Carville, the Democratic strategist, once wryly observed that Pennsylvania is made up of two liberal cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, "with Alabama in between".
And it is in the depressed old coal-towns of central Pennsylvania that Mr Obama's campaign is in the deepest trouble it has been for some time, with Mrs Clinton leading by more than 10 per cent points in some polls."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pennsylvania-takes-
dim-view-of-obamas-elitism-808981.html
I always felt that the Democrats would find a way to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory'. Republicans have voted en masse for Obama...and McCain 'chomping at the bit' to get at the delicate one. Good luck in November. Let's see if the elite academians come out on top.
Oh, hell no.
Moderates are being elected to Congress, and that's good, but no President is going to push through a partisan agenda. Moderates don't get re-elected on a partisan agenda.
"Okay, so experience in dealing with the economy doesn't count."
No one is saying that experience with the economy doesn't count. This is a counter-talking point defeating a straw man that is easy to shoot down because no one is suggesting it.
"And Bill Clinton, like Nancy Reagan, will have no impact on the presidency of their' spouse."
I'm not sure the value of Nancy's advice to Ronald (especially given the whole psychic thing). As a former actress she didn't have any particular political or economic expertise to offer. However, no one is suggesting that Nancy (or Bill) won't provide advice to their spouses. Spouses often are sounding boards for issues President's need to discuss with people they trust. Hillary would be wise to ask for Bill's opinion, but then his opinion should not be the sole source of input either. And I'm sure it won't, as Hillary is clearly an intelligent and capable woman. But whether Bill will impact a Hillary presidency is not the question. The question is whether the policies of the 1990s will work in the 2000s and beyond. Another question is whether the presumed co-presidency experience will enable Hillary to make good decisions for the future. I think her behavior (and his) during this campaign clearly suggests that personal and partisan politics will again return as a hallmark of another Clinton presidency.
"Yet, I'll stick to tried and true economic know how over the cluelessness and empty rhetoric of both Obama and McCain."
In this statement I see real danger - in two critical ways. First, the assumption of "tried and true." As I noted in my previous comment, this assumption is not bourne out by the facts. While Bill Clinton should be given ample credit for the budget surpluses, as much credit should go to the Republican Congress that took over after Hillary's ham-fisted attempt to ram through the universal health coverage without adequate input for all stakeholders. The Republican Congress forced Bill to compromise many of his intended programs and cut costs. Bill was able to adapt to the realities of the split control and offer packages that helped reign in costs (while Hillary was pushed into the background because the fallout from her health care fiasco made her ineffective as a public figure). Another important factor that made conditions ripe for budget surpluses was the economic boom, as you correctly pointed out. However, as I noted previously, much of this boom was based on the irrational dot.com bubble, which then burst in the final year of Bill's presidency.
The second aspect of the statement that I find troubling is the repeated mantra of "cluelessness," "empty rhetoric," "kool-aid toting pie-in-the-sky" and similar diminishers. Certainly there are rational and defensible arguments for and against the stated policies and positions of all of the candidates. Certainly McCain's initial economic speech was less than encouraging (and his subsequent attempts to provide more information are not particulary inspiring either). Certainly one could take issue with specifics of Obama's and Clinton's economic proposals as well. And we should. We should listen to what they have to say. We should listen between the lines to get a sense of the thinking behind the statements. These three candidates (as were most of the other candidates) have reached a level of achievement that allows them to be viable candidates for President of the United States. We may disagree on their abilities, their levels of experience, and their potential for addressing the issues that matter most to us. But I believe we do them - and ourselves - a disservice by not taking the time to debate their positions.
I'm not sure what "en masse" means. Clearly most Republicans have voted in the Republican primaries. But yes, some Republicans, or former Republicans, have voted for Obama. As have many Independents. Some Republicans have also voted for Hillary Clinton, though perhaps more to confuse the Democratic race than out of any ideological similarities. But Obama has been appealing to moderate Republicans and Independents, which is a good thing for the Democrats, especially if many of the far right conservatives stay home in November because McCain is too "liberal" for them. [Ironically, a Hillary Clinton nomination would actually stimulate the conservatives to come out and vote against her, as all the hard feelings from the Bill Clinton days rise to the surface.]
As for McCain's attitude, there would be a clear distinction between him and Obama that would be less obvious if Hillary were the nominee. Many Independents (including myself) would consider McCain as a viable alternative if the choice was between him and Hillary in the general election. Keeping in mind that this is a "change" election - and all feedback clearly shows this to be true - the three candidates would easily fall into a continuum. Obama clearly represents change. You may argue over whether that change is good or bad, but nonetheless he clearly is a change from typical Washington politics. I would put McCain next in line on the continuum, despite the likelihood that his Iraq policy would not change dramatically from Bush's. McCain, while pandering to the far right in the primaries, could very well be someone who would work with both parties in Congress. This is a little iffy, but he does retain some of his independence. Hillary, on the other hand, clearly falls to the end of the continuum that represents status quo. By this I don't mean she would continue with the Bush policies per se (though she did seem to support some of them). Rather I mean that she would continue the partisanship that has characterized the two Bush terms and the two Bill terms. Both have been constant battles. Hillary herself claims to be "battle tested" and ready and willing to "do battle with the Republicans." And so we would virtually guarantee that her term as President would be constant "drama," as Bernstein puts it.
I personally am tired of the melodrama. I'm tired of the "vast right wing conspiracy," the "media plays favorites because they always ask me the tough questions first," [disproven by video tape], the "we were ducking sniper fire" [disproven by video tape], the "sexist coverage" of her campaign [which actually is because she has exploited her own sexism in an attempt to maximize the percentage of women who vote for her], ad nauseum.
As for the "elite academians," perhaps a President who actually thinks is a good thing. A President who governs by addressing the tough issues and listening to all sides rather than pushing their own personal and/or ideological agenda is exactly what we need for a change. That's the key thing about change - you actually have to change the thinking if you want to change the results.
I've gotten positive results when I have contacted her, even though, I don't belong to her' Party and am opposed to certain key issues that she endorses.
She is very effective and highly accessable. I, in fact, would prefer for her to remain in New York, because she gets things done. Yet, given the other two candidates...I think she is better than both. When the primaries began...McCain and Obama...were among the candidates that I eliminated as options, along with Duncan what's-his-name, Tancredo and Giuliani. That hasn't changed. Hillary was on my 'maybe' list...if my candidates of choice were eliminated...this occured (Hagel didn't run, Ron Paul fell short, Kucinich never got out of the starting gate)...now there are only three left...for me, Hillary...is a no-brainer.
"cluelessness," "empty rhetoric," "kool-aid toting pie-in-the-sky"
To me this is not a mantra...I firmly believe it. Obama is a phony...that's how I see him. You obvious don't see him the same way. We disagree. Even McCain is preferable...though I don't think I could ever vote for either of them. I find troubling...the blind, cultish followers of Obama...reminds me of the Bush brown-nosers. People can attack Ron Paul...without my having to jump and start defending him. They may dislike him for the very same reasons that I like him...that's their' prerogative.
I have listened to Obama enough...he is still a scratch off. McCain needs to show that he is more in tune with his' conservative base. As for Bill...I think he would be best used at a diplomatic level. Try to mend some of the international fences Bush tore down.
Follow your' leader...I'll not be joining you.
The more I listen to the Obama followers...the better McCain looks.
So we can agree to disagree. I appreciate the informed discourse.
I personally think Hillary Clinton could be a great Senator if she chooses to stay in the Senate after the election. I've heard talk of a possible Governors run in NY, and think she could also do very well there. Perhaps I've gotten a little too adamant in my discussion of her presidential campaign tactics, but I do very much believe she is a capable politician that can continue to do good things if she chooses to do so. I just don't think she is the right person for the Presidency.
Right on the articles and comments. Just wrote one supported by the LA times article on bubba and his dealings with that Chinese firm, Alibaba. Check it out.
It's a circus, a sitcom. Are we shocked? Hell no. They bring drama wherever they go. Tell me this is not drama. When was the last time we had anything close to this? That's right December 1998, January 1999. The media loves it. What will they do when she stops?
On another note, which that article touches, the conflict of interests, therefore potential drama, are on every corner you look. Because they've been in the WH for 8 years, they expanded their circles of collaborators/dealings/favors all over the world. And Bill did not slow down one bit. This is a bad think in my opinion. The bad kind of experience. They owe so many favors back. And...whoever endorsed Obama better watch out. They don't forget or forgive. And the Ken Starr and all that gang. It will be pay back time, that's a Hillary presidency.
I personally think she is smarter than Bill, but am somewhat surprised at her gaffs, though I suppose I shouldn't be. 99% of them have been unnecessary, like the Bosnia thing. There was no need to make up stories about it to sound better, that she was there was actually enough to make her point, and she should know people are going to try and verify. Where she blows it is from the past, before nobody cared if they lied... they still loved them? Today, a whole new reality she's not used to.... I dunno.. ;-)
Take care.
It's been good discussing this issue with you, sir.
I've never been sure why someone would want to be President, but especially moreso under the current circumstances. I have to give credit to anyone willing and capable of taking on the pressures of the job.
"First, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. Clearly this is so. So any benefit you may find in a Bill Clinton presidency cannot - and should not - be assumed to equate with a Hillary Clinton presidency."
Odd concepts like Ms. Clinton somehow not comprehending the actual economic policy approach of her husband, and its blatant positive results, even with that man right there to explain what he thought, and did, and why; set off rationality alarms. They are so utterly counter-intuitive, that I begin to hear the "fantasy" aspect of what the speaker is saying a bit more intently. There's a lot to listen to.
Like Felix, it makes Mr. McCain sound more believable, though unlike Felix, I believe electing him will be a catastrophic error, and would vote for just about any functionality qualified human being, if I thought it could prevent that. I know far too much about his past, and hear far too much coming out of his mouth lately, to believe he is not a very dangerous man to have in the big house, certainly at this moment of history.
That the press has clearly favored Mr. Obama, is a second alarm ringer. If they want him in the contest, the established powers want him in, it's as simple as that. Coupled with the blatant attempts by the Republican party biggs, to encourage their pack to vote for him where they could, in the primary season, is for me, the clincher; The movers and shakers on high, are completely confident that Mr. Obama will be easily dealt with, and are not so sure about Ms. Clinton.
I actually prefer Mr. Obama, as a personality, but I don't see the Presidency as a sort of 'American Idol' for politicians, so that has little weight.
"Odd concepts like Ms. Clinton somehow not comprehending the actual economic policy approach of her husband, and its blatant positive results, even with that man right there to explain what he thought, and did, and why; set off rationality alarms."
I didn't say that Hillary didn't comprehend the policy approach of her husband, nor that she wouldn't listen to his advice. She herself has noted where she differs with him on economic and other issues. He led through personality, she is more of a micromanager of details. As a team perhaps they worked well, but do we really want to hire a "Team President," even with (and perhaps especially with) the roles reversed?
"That the press has clearly favored Mr. Obama, is a second alarm ringer."
And how is that? Because they haven't reported that he lied about sniper fire? Because they haven't reported that his advisors admit publicly (and proudly) that they intend to use every trick in the book as part of a kitchen sink strategy to discredit him? Because they report the gamesmanship of his opponent? Or perhaps because they failed to report endlessly the Rev. Wright inflammatory comments loop? Or perhaps because they are lying about the amount of people that have donated money to his campaign?
"Coupled with the blatant attempts by the Republican party biggs, to encourage their pack to vote for him where they could, in the primary season, is for me, the clincher;"
I must have missed this. I did, however, see and hear Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio folks encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to muddle the Democratic primary race. About 25% of the people who voted for Hillary in Mississippi, for example, were Republicans voting in the open primary. I agree there are Republicans, ex-Republicans, ex-Reagan Democrats, and Independents that are supporting Obama. I suspect most of them don't listen to the conservative wing of the Republican party.
As for the "American Idol" concept, I do see some of that with Obama followers, but I also see it with Clinton followers (and a little with McCain followers, but not nearly as much). I generally do not consider myself to be a groupie type, as my friends and colleagues would attest to. But Bill Clinton was definitely a "personality" President. And much of the Presidency is about leadership, i.e., being able to inspire. So I see nothing wrong with having that ability.
You got change all right.