Charles Krauthammer calls it “Early Onset Clinton Fatigue” and, for once, he’s on to something. During the original Clinton presidency, my defenses of the Clintons were restricted to the area around the coffee machine at work. But I’d be lying if I said that I’ve recovered from the effort. I’d be dishonest if I didn’t admit that I still resent having to defend that couple considering how we were repaid.
And I did have to defend them, because what they were accused of doing was never commensurate with what they had actually done. Their critics were bad people and they were unhinged. The media, including supposedly liberal bastions like the New York Times and Washington Post, treated them in a shoddy and occasionally downright unprofessional manner.
The upshot is that, today, I have no energy and even less inclination to do it all over again. If politics becomes reduced, once more, to pointing out that Hillary Clinton is being unfairly maligned, I think I’ll leave that job to someone else. Her cause is not mine, and if she takes up my banner and the responsibility to keep the Republicans out of the White House, I’ll feel like my work has been hijacked.
I’m a realist, which is why I haven’t spent my time railing against another Clinton candidacy. And I’m not doing that now. This is more personal. It’s how I feel.
Personally, there’s nothing “Early Onset” about this kind of fatigue. This is much more like the end game. Do I want one more moment of Clinton family drama?
I do not.
At the very least, we need a competitive primary season to keep Hillary on her toes and honest. While I don’t think all those groups pushing Elizabeth Warren into the race are gonna convince her to jump in, I do agree we need SOMEONE to offset the inevitable Clinton fatigue. And, we need to start building a bench of viable candidates. As one of the pundits on MSNBC pointed out last evening. it’s not even evident that HRC actually wants to run. I’m not sure I would either and I’m of her generation. It really needs someone a few years younger to run such an exhausting campaign. Remember how she looked at the end of her stint as Secretary of State? Very exhausted.
to keep Hillary on her toes and honest. Not her strong suits. I’ve commented before that even when I know Clinton is speaking the truth, she leaves the impression that she’s hiding something.
it’s not even evident that HRC actually wants to run. No doubt in my mind that she wants to be POTUS. The running part is an unavoidable necessity. Desire doesn’t wane much with age.
And. And, we need to start building a bench of viable candidates.
The bench is thin because DLC, “Third-way” Democratic politicians haven’t been competitive with Republicans over the past twenty years. Not at the state nor federal level. Even in solid blue states like IL and NJ, a Republican occupies the governor’s office.
One reason this happened was that Democrats over-read the success of a young Bill Clinton barely beating two old codgers. As if he had some super-magical political powers. Yet, Democrats in lower offices were getting pounded worse than ever. And except for the 2006-08 respite that was in response to GWB and other Republicans shooting themselves in their foots, it hasn’t stopped.
Vox has it right: We are having a primary, and there are a number of people in it, but Hillary is simply creaming everybody. Biden, Sanders, O’Malley, Webb, and Schweitzer are all running in the invisible primary, and in both the invisible primary and the polls Hillary is beating them all combined, and handily at that. There is competition, and many of these candidates would have a very respectable shot at both the nomination and the general if Hillary weren’t around, but Hillary beats them all very, very handily.
How much media coverage do all those other potential candidates receive? Combined possibly not more than 10% of what Clinton gets. Add it the coverage Bill and Chelsea get independently and it drops down to 1%. How can anyone, also without campaign war chests stuffed full by Wall St., compete against that?
The media is mostly about getting eyeballs. I really don’t think there’s a conspiracy to pump up Clinton. Actually, much of the media is conservative and it’s in their interest to tear her down and they’re doing their level best (e.g. Fox).
The media interest reflects the popular interest. People know Clinton, and they like her more than any other top active politician at present. She gets media attention because she draws it, not as part of a conspiracy, and it’s part of the reason she’s whomping everybody so thoroughly.
With you on this. It was exhausting. Also highly effective to keep liberals/progressives distracted from all the wretched neo-liberal legislation that he was all in with.
Molly Ivins nailed it for me.
Recommend Berstein’s book on Hillary. It’s well researched and written. He has more empathy for her than I do, but the book is fair.
I thought The Nation magazine’s defense of Clinton in the 90s, before and during impeachment, was weaker than bus station chili, as was their fairly muted criticism of Ken Starr and the GOP scandalmongers. Just my sense of it from reading their print editions (I was not online back then) — their columnists either despised Clinton (Cockburn and the late Brit crank who secretly gave info to Starr) or played progressive purity games to avoid saying much in his defense.
Generally they were a day late and dollar short the few times that publication could rouse itself to deliver a semi-tough piece on the appalling attack on democracy that was occurring.
The disorganized and balkanized liberal left was barely on the radar screen back then, with no blogosphere, while the moderate wing of the party was too embarrassed over Bill’s behavior and moderate in disposition to offer much of an attack on the Starrchamber crowd. An awful time to be a liberal and Dem. We had to rely on several of these lefty publications to give voice to our outrage at what was happening, as we were largely shut out or shouted down in the MSM, and I recall being severely disappointed by them. The Nation most of all.
It’s tough to be a lonely voice shouting in the wind.
To be fair, it wasn’t easy for Democrats/liberals to articulate a simple message as to why the BS rightwing attacks on the Clintons was bad for the country without also defending behaviors that were unsavory for many liberals.
No doubt it wasn’t easy. If it were, far more would have stepped up to defend Bill and denounce Starr and the GOP scandalmongers.
Perhaps an indication of how weak and timid the left and the Dems were in that depressing period. I’d like to think we’re beginning to pull out of that phase of tepid ineffectiveness now, but worry the process is still too slow to fit the urgency of the times.
We were being asked to defend adultery and some scuzzy, low-rent deals in AR. I don’t do that in my personal life, and professionally rejected scuzzy, low-rent deals in AR. Even when the latter would have been in the short-term financially advantageous for me.
Except, the “scummy, low-rent deals in AR” were essentially about nothing, and one can believe that adultery, while unseemly, isn’t really relevant to a politician’s day job without compromising any principles.
I judge a politician by how well they do the job that I send them for, not how awesome their home lives are, and it’d be tough for anyone to stand up to an 8 year, multi-million dollar delve into every aspect of their lives without something “unseemly” coming out (or at least something that could be spun to seem that way).
The ‘scuzzy, low-rent deal in AR’ were scuzzy, low-rent deals in AR. Nothing is nothing and not something.
Yes, I too prefer to evaluate actual job performance. Far too much of which was drowned out with the outrage, noise machines. The short-list for Clinton is NAFTA, capital gains tax reduction, DOMA, telecom dereg, Gramm-Leach-Bliley (repeal of Glass-Steagall), Commodity Futures “Modernization.” All legislation that elite Republicans and elite neo-liberal Democrats lover and I loathe.
Then there were all the times I bit my tongue as he threw good and competent people under the bus. Finally, we were left defending his pardon of Marc Rich! Wouldn’t have minded putting that much energy into defending a pardon of Leonard Pelletier — but Marc (tax cheat) Rich? GMAFB
is a self-inflicted wound. It looks bad, it smells bad, and it will produce 18 months of more blather. If she by some evil fortune gets elected, it will be 4 years of Whitewater again – we should call it “emailwater”. Rumors, innuendo (and out the other), endless garbage, and SHE caused the problem by NEEDLESSLY, RECKLESSLY, and STUPIDLY mixing the private and public emails together. In my office, we are told NOT to do that, but she did it anyway. It was stupid, and I hope it puts a huge knife in her candidacy.
Always wondered why there is so much backbiting in the Clinton campmcompared to other groups. I mean everyone will have some leaks but HRCs people apparently like to air every internal matter in the press via leaks.
Mark Penn. Lanny Davis. Dick Morris. Don’t forget Rahmbo came to prominence with their help. They have a habit of hiring awful people.
They have a habit of hiring awful people.
They don’t hire them because they’re awful. Like all bosses they hire those that are most like them.
They get hired because they will not say “no that’s a stupid idea”.
Always wondered why there is so much backbiting in the Clinton camp…
Insecurity? When politically expedient, the Clintons seem to more quickly throw people under the bus than other politicians do.
Dunno, Obama has thrown a lot of people under the bus really fast even when they don’t deserve it like Shirley Sherrod.
Obama definitely threw Sherrod under the bus. Two important distinctions. He hadn’t hired Sherrod. He apologized when he learned of his mistake and she was offered her job back.
Can’t recall an instance of Obama throwing one of his hires under the bus. He’s fired some folks, but those were warranted.
Some Congressional Democrats threw ACORN under the bus. No apology. And ACORN’s funding wasn’t restored.
Van Jones and Shinseki are possibles.
The whole email thing is a self-inflicted wound
As if in 2006 there was no public flak over RoveCo’s use of private email for public business. Or in 2008 that Palin didn’t get trashed for the same thing. Somehow I missed all the Democratic apologists for Rove and Palin’s behavior back then. Did they crawl out of the woodwork to lecture those who were outraged that it was “no big deal?”
Rove at least has the excuse that it hadn’t previously been a public issue. Palin’s excuse is that it was state and not federal business. Clinton’s behavior was after Rove’s and Palin’s. The excuse? “They’re singling out and beating up on poor Hillary again over a nothingburger.”
While it would have been wrong to let the Senate convict Clinton for lying under oath about an extramarital affair because that’s not even in the realm of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and would have set a very bad precedent, politically it have worked out better for Democrats. If a President Gore had fallen short and GWB replaced him, lying the country to war would have been a politically viable impeachable offense.
Neither of those were Secretary of State. You don’t consider Karl Rove’s role and Hillary Clinton’s role different somehow? Hillary was conducting the official business of the United States of America, and mixing it up with arranging for getting her hair done.
So, like Colin Powell and every SoS before him since email existed? Kerry’s the first who’s used the state.gov account primarily, so Clinton’s use of private email is hardly unprecedented.
Powell was SOS before the revelation and subsequent flack about Rove using private email for public business. Clinton set up hers years after it was deemed unacceptable.
The WH and State are both part of the executive branch; so, parsing this is nothing but an attempt to defend the indefensible.
I’m glad that you deemed it indefensible since you’ve been appointed arbiter of acceptable behavior in the world apparently. That clarifies things quite a bit.
Since you were so empowered, you should have issued an executive policy that mandated this, or passed a law to forbid it.
“While it would have been wrong to let the Senate convict Clinton for lying under oath about an extramarital affair because that’s not even in the realm of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and would have set a very bad precedent, politically it have worked out better for Democrats. If a President Gore had fallen short and GWB replaced him, lying the country to war would have been a politically viable impeachable offense.”
Don’t know that I agree with your political analysis there. Completing impeachments of two Presidents in four years would have set an insanely bad precedent re. the balance of powers. And if you believe the public, media, and political parties would each have reacted to such turmoil in the logical, calm and fair ways your example infers, I’d suggest your beliefs are misplaced. This would have normalized Presidential impeachments. Why wouldn’t Congresses just start running up impeachment votes and trials every single year the House majority is of the opposite party from the President?
Like I said the other day, we’re just one more email nontroversy away from having some major grumbling in the ranks occur, possibly enough to reach critical mass and force the emergence of a true alternative. (Definitely three such incidents would cause a mass exodus from the Hillary camp.)
But I doubt if it will be the rather wise social democrat Bernie Sanders coming to the rescue. We need another 20 years for small-s socialist types like Bernie and Lawrence O’Donnell to make their case to a rather dull-minded and easily scared public.
Walter O’Malley is just too bland in personality and uninteresting in policy. VP maybe.
Jimmy Webb should stick to writing songs or books or whatever. He’s barely a 5%er, and isn’t the type to make a good, loyal Veep. Smart though, and likely to score points in debates.
Compared to the above, Eliz Warren despite her relative inexperience in politics stands a far better chance of actually winning it all. And she’s the only one with major star power the party has other than HRC. But we haven’t reached critical mass yet.
Warren isn’t encumbered by twenty years of following the Democrats ducking under their desks and cowering whenever Republicans start shooting and Democratic weasel-speech. There’s an advantage to being a newbie Democratic politician if one is also articulate and passionate about traditional Democratic “New Deal” public policies.
OTOH, newbie Republicans ignore the posted warning signs and jump right into sticky morasses like toddlers checking out electrical outlets.
Anybody recall the 2008 Person of the Year? Team Obama caught that wave which was in contrast to the alternatives of it’s about “me.” Warren has been riding it for decades because in her case it’s authentic. There are others — Sanders, of course. Sherrod Brown. Sen Schatz appears to be the youngest floating on it. (Maybe it’s time to do a thorough survey of the Democratic party talent pool.)
Um, not likely. Will republicans gin up anything at all that they can get into a “CONTROVERSY”? Yep. Will the press amplify it in their usual breathless and context free way? Yep. Will “the ranks” care? Nope. Will voters? Probably not.
If you want someone other than Clinton, great, push for that, but enabling pseudo scandal mongering against her is a pretty dumb idea given that she’s still likely the candidate.
If there’s a real, actual, scandal, then go for it, but there’s going to be a never-ending stream of these pseudo scandals out of the various oppo groups, so if that makes you queasy, I’d suggest that you take up a hobby or something so you don’t have to see it.
P.S.
This holds for any Democratic candidate who could win, and if there’s not anything to hang a pseudo scandal on, then I expect that some creative types will make up something and run with it. It’s not like the press will call anyone on that sort of thing nowadays.
To clarify my position, I find the email nontroversy just that, and is indeed being ginned up wildly by a scandal-hungry, bored and Clinton-averse MSM.
That’s 75% of the situation anyway. The other 25% of the blame has to lie with Hillary both for the unforced error on the original email process decision and for being rather slow and late to respond to the media firestorm. And she allowed these things to occur knowing how her opponents — the GOP and MSM — have a long track record trying to make something Clinton did look worse than it probably actually was.
Some of her defenders have noted she really doesn’t have much of a campaign team put together, as she hasn’t yet declared, so can’t be judged too harshly for a lack of rapid response, a fair point mostly.
I wouldn’t doubt the corp media would go after any Dem front runner if not Hillary, just that I doubt the faux scandalmongering would be as frequent or severe. The Clintons, for whatever reason, seem to set off something ugly in the press. Not so much the rest. As for instance the media’s rather cushy soft coverage of the Obama campaign throughout 2008, with a brief timeout for Rev Wright coverage.
It’s hard to say; it depends on how well the “press” collectively likes a candidate, and what “NARRATIVE” that they lock into for said candidate. The coverage will bend to that. As you note, the Clintons have a history here, so we quite well know how the press is going to go about things.
The advantage is that the public also knows the Clintons quite well, so they’re really not so prone to being “defined” as a relative unknown candidate would be.
So, while the press is likely going to hammer Clinton, it’s less likely to have the impact that it would on other, less known, candidates.
What family drama? The blue dress was 20 years ago. It’s been a long time since there’s any family drama out of the Clintons, and it all came from Bill anyway.
The “Clinton fatigue” is just the result of the right-wing wurlitzer bleating out its usual nonsense. Are you going to let them win? You’ll get the same bleats about any Democratic candidate, and within 6 months of any other Democrat winning the nom you’ll be just as sick of the manufactured “drama” about them.
Funny, I’ve been through 4 presidential elections since 1996 and I never got tired of defending any of the Democrats in those elections. Wonder why?
Maybe you’re burnt out? Clinton has yet to do anything objectionable in this campaign. Really, would you rather she kept her diplomatic emails on a private server – and thus out of the hands of our foreign opponents – or appointed Lieberman for VP?
….the victim here is Hillary Clinton.
Now, she probably will be the nominee, the score for women in the history of the country is 44-0, but you know…we’re all too weary.
C’mon! Have some damned caffeine. Fight the media hatred.
LOL!! I’ll be a “victim” too if it’ll make my net worth 8 or 9 figures.
You mean like, say, Al Gore or John Kerry?
What do you think Obama will be worth in decade – anybody want to place the over/under?
I’m just saying – let’s be 1. realistic and 2. fair. It’s politics. There are no saints involved, nary a one.
Of course not. But lets not act like Hillary Clinton is a victim. Not when they do stuff like this:
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6550109-74/clinton-scaife-differences
So that’ s the Hillary talking point, is it? and you know that because he’s president Obama will do the same.
usually I just laugh at your talking points spiels, but I must say I pity you not being able to recognize a quantitative difference in integrity. I guess it’s because Obama didn’t face any hardship or discrimination in his life, he didn’t have to cut corners
here’s a nice story from Obama’s student days (he earned plenty of $ as a community organizer so he could afford to give some away). now that he’s a bitter self serving pol I guess this wouldn’t happen
http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html
Booman…your apparent mystification about all of this would instantly evaporate if only you would accept the depth of penetration that the PermaGov has managed to achieve in the mass media and the apparent fact that said Permanent Government simply did not want for some reason(s) to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. This was apparent quite clearly in the “shoddy and…downright unprofessional manner” that so-called liberal rags like the Times and the Washingtoon Post treated HRC during that primary campaign.
The questions remain. Why not HRC? Why Obama? And why is “Operation ABC” (Anybody But Clinton) quite clearly still in effect considering the latest tempest in a teapot over her emails, spearheaded by the same so-called liberal media that took her down the first time.
Why? The answer lies in our stars.
Our political stars.
I cannot believe that the people who control the media…I call them the Controllers, and they are both legion and quite secretive…thought that they could not hype her into the White House if they so desired. Then or now. Any group of people capable of foisting two terms of idiot boy Butch II on the population of the U.S. could sell refrigerators on Pluto if they so desired, so there has to be another reason. Is it that they found…and still find…her too weak to be President? I doubt it. She has proven her strength and stamina hundreds of times over. Sure, she’s getting older, but they continued hyping Reagan right on into Alzheimersville. A confused and weak president is even easier to control than is a smart but compliant one.
The following is not a “defense” of Hillary Clinton, but rather an attempt at understanding the underpinnings our our real, media-driven political culture.
I believe that she refused to make certain promises to those that pull the levers of power here. Obama…on the evidence of his entire term…apparently did not refuse, because the criminals behind this wonderful U. S. of A. (United Scam of America) are still one and all walking freely from their armored limousines to their well-guarded
Whorehouses and Mansons…errr, ahhh, I mean penthouses and mansions.I see no other possibility, myself. She knows where a lot of bodies are buried and they were afraid that she’d start exhuming some of them as soon as she took the oath of office. Why? I dunno. Maybe some vestige of the real idealism with which she started this dirty business of politics or maybe they just pissed her off when they took advantage of poor Bill’s uncontrollable dick. Whatever. Obama, on the other hand? His mama didn’t raise no fools. In and out after 8 years, a made man, The Silent Omertican right to the end.
And here we are once again, watching the fix assemble itself in innocent wonder at it all.
WTFU.
The Age of Innocence officially ended the day Snowden’s papers became public.
WTFU.
AG
The view you express here of Hillary Clinton is a lot closer to mine than I would ever have expected, judging by some of your writings a while back. If anything, I’m less enthusiastic about her than you are, if you can imagine that. But you’re probably more of a realist than I am.