Josh Marshall on the Clintons

[MBS]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-joy-and-the-drama
Like many of you, my formative political experiences were in my 20s. And for me, that meant the Clinton years. I was just shy of 24 when Bill Clinton was inaugurated in January 1993 and living in Washington in my early 30s when he left office. I don't think anyone could be a bigger Clinton diehard than I was in those days. And if it were still the mid- or late 90s, with all the frivolity and nonsense that characterized those years, I still would be. When I was trying to make my way into journalism in the late 90s, I considered writing a book at the phenomenon of Clinton-hating, which I still think would be a fascinating book because feelings about Bill Clinton, on both sides of the equation, are a fascinating way to explore intricacies of that decade.

On the merits, I think Hillary Clinton might make a good president. Obviously, I think she'd be infinitely preferable to anyone the GOP would nominate to challenge her. But the latest email blow up reminds me again - and I didn't need any reminding - why I also quietly dread her campaign and her presidency. In a word, the drama.
. . .
Though I have not plumbed all the depths of it, the email story is shaping up to be another classic Clinton scandal. On the merits, the hyperventilation seems way out ahead of the actual facts. It's not clear to me that any law in effect at the time was violated . . .. This is the thing with Bill Clinton, which I suspect anyone who has watched him closely over the years will grasp, that his political genius and skills are inseparable from his crushing flaws. If you were around in the 90s you've seen this movie before. The Clintons are great. But there is always something. Always. Always a dance, always drama. It's just inseparable from who they are.

[trumad]

2. Well Josh....

Its called the whoreization of the media.

[JHB]

3. "The drama" may not be completely inseparable from who they are, but...

...One thing that definitely is inseparable from "the drama" is the gallery of conservatives throwing balls of elephant dung at them, so much that even the stuff that has nothing to stick to piles up around them, generating a great fogbank of steam Conservatives then point the cloud with alarm and say "you know, where there's smoke..."

And the lazy, tittering, Village-gossip Washington media dutifully repeat.

And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat., etc.

[BeyondGeography]

4. As a passionate supporter/defender of Bill/Hillary thru the 90s

Josh speaks for me on this. Come 2008, I was not ready to go to the mat for them anymore. Eight years later, I am surprised to find myself prematurely exhausted by them again.

The difference was a real alternative existed in 2008. Josh's point on the "No Drama" brand is spot-on for me. This is inspired and truthful writing:

You can argue that his personality gives rise to various shortcomings as a president. But it's not just that finding out that President Obama was carrying on with an intern is probably less likely than a meteor colliding with Earth and destroying all life on the planet. It goes well beyond that. For all the Republican carping about IRS and Benghazi! (TM), the Obama years have been essentially scandal-less. There's just nothing to work with. Obama doesn't have weird hangers-on; staff don't surface disputes and ego battles in the press; things just don't happen. You do not get surprises.

Clearly this is characterological: it stems directly from the people involved and what they generate around them. I don't mean this as a "character" issue as the press like to put it. But people are just different; they live in the world differently; they have different patterns, which they generate and perpetuate again and again in different contexts.

I have my own theory about this with Obama. Whether it was chicken or egg, the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and the first black President of the United States was never going to be someone who was governed by impulse and intuition. It was going to be someone controlled, careful, deeply considered in his decisions. Obama never would have gotten where he did if he was not also capable of being daring and bold - but bold and daring after giving the available options a good deal of thought. I don't know if Obama was born that way or whether he shaped himself into that person. But the role, the job, was going to select for it. I have little question.

Has Obama been a more effective President than Bill Clinton? You could argue that he hasn't. You could also argue that his style and character is much more suited to the post-Clinton era than, say, the Clinton's. It is certainly, from this supporter's standpoint, much easier on the eyes, ears and mind.

[MBS]

5. Thanks for understanding why I posted this.

Josh Marshall is not just "the media", but a left-of-center, and pretty knowledgeable commentator, and --as he emphasized, with a history as a die-hard supporter of the Clintons. So he's not just someone out there looking for journalistic blood, by any means.
He's just noting that the Clintons come as a complex package. Which they do.

Which, arguably, we all do.

One of the more perceptive things he said, IMHO, is this about Bill Clinton: "that his political genius and skills are inseparable from his crushing flaws." In fact, I usually use Bill as the archetypal example that a person's greatest strengths can also be their greatest weakness. (For Bill, his genuine interest in people cuts both ways. -- besides his intelligence, it's what makes him a great politician, well-liked and effective ; but it's also gotten him into trouble ("women", some other less-than-honorable alliances/entanglements)).

[BeyondGeography]

6. Absolutely true; strengths and weaknesses are inextricably linked

There is no perfection on earth, which is part of the reason why we don't want to see the same people year after year. That the Clintons are still even in the national conversation, let alone within sniffing distance of the White House again, shows how strong they are. The reason why I'm glad Josh wrote this article is that the fatigue issue is real. Josh is not a hater, and neither are many of us who are worried about it.

[MBS]

7. yes, exactly. n/t