Hillary's Biggest Asset? - UK Guardian

Hillary's biggest asset? Now Bill is looking like a liability
The interventions of former president Clinton are turning Democrats off his wife and raising constitutional questions

Michael Tomasky in Washington
Monday January 28, 2008
The Guardian

<snip>

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 Bill Clinton's campaigning as a factor in determining how they voted. A majority, 58%, said that the former president's campaigning - he spent last week in the state lobbing volley after boorish volley at Obama (and at the media), while his wife was mostly elsewhere - was important. And guess what? Those 58% voted for Obama, 48% to 37%.

Granted, Obama won by far more among the 39% who said that Bill Clinton's role wasn't an important factor. But the fact that Obama carried the day among the 58% 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 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. Saturday evening, after it was known that Obama was cruising to victory, Bill 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 Obama as "just the black guy".

That could be written off as one more instance of Bill 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. Hillary Clinton spoke only much later - after 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 Bill - 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.

Think about it. A former president, who knows the inner workings of government intimately, would be back in the White House. He may have no official title or role. Yet he would, it's 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. Wills - who has written glowingly about Hillary in the past - directly compared Bill's possible role to the one being played now by Dick Cheney and concluded that "it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House".

<snip>

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2247991,00.html

Amen...

:shrug: