I’d like to think that our side — by which I mean Obama supporters, not the larger our side of the Democratic left — would be above saying the kind of stupid things that their side — the “their side” of our side, Clinton supporters — have a habit of saying. If I did think that, I’d be wrong.
Over at HuffPo, Flavia Colgan writes about the recent flap regarding Bill Clinton’s shady dealings on behalf of Colombia’s neo-fascist government.
I would expect, and even welcome, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton arguing about policy behind closed doors. It can only help the senator form a more informed, wise position on critical issues. […] At some point, when Sen. Clinton claims she was trying to defeat the Colombian free trade deal, Bill Clinton must have told her that he was planning on making some money to promote the deal, and helping the Colombian president deflect attention from his offensive record. What did Sen. Clinton tell the former president at that point?
Fair enough. It’s not a bad thing for the Clintons to disagree, but it is a bad thing if they really do agree and Hillary Clinton is deceiving us. But then Colgan goes off into la-la land.
Whatever the case, this is problematic. In this critical time, we cannot afford to have a president who says one thing, while the first spouse publicly works towards an opposite end. Sen. Clinton must better explain to voters why the former president goes off on his own like this, and how she will better control him if she should find herself in the Oval Office.
Excuse me? Despite popular belief — for which we have, ironically, the Clintons to blame — the role of first spouse is not a government office, and it has absolutely no official role or statutory recognition. Being married to the president carries with it some traditional expectations but no actual obligations. And we can safely assume that a First Gentleman pretty much does away with traditional expectations, can’t we?
Colgan’s concern about the honesty and candidness of Hillary Clinton is fully warranted in this case, but if elected president, Hillary has no more obligation — or right — to control Bill than, say, Jimmy Carter had any obligations with respect to his wacky brother Billy or any other relative. (We leave aside for the moment the question of whether Hillary can control Bill.) If Bill is involved in business that could be influenced by a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, then we ought rightly to insist on some transparency, but Bill can do whatever the hell he wants. He would be no more constrained by his wife’s presidency than you are I would be.
Now I know that the three ring circus of Clinton family buffoonery is often an irresistable spectacle, but can we please rise to the occasion (and above the opposition) and focus on the issues? At the end of the day, it’s what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do and say that matters — not whatever their spouses are doing within the limits of the same laws that apply to everyone else.
