Can she win? First Let's Ask, Should She Win?

[illinoisprogressive]

A
s Hillary Clinton's campaign machine lumbers along, crushing everything in its path, it's worth considering a little-noticed story that politico.com ran a few weeks ago. It speaks volumes about why the notion of her reaching the Oval Office is so disquieting to many.

It seems that the men's magazine GQ had a writer working on a long-scheduled cover story on political megastar (and sure-fire magazine seller) Bill Clinton. Then the former first lady's campaign honchos learned that the magazine was also in the process of wrapping up another piece on reports of dissent and disagreement in Hillaryland, as her tight-lipped inner circle has long been dubbed. Showing weakness of any kind is anathema to Sen. Clinton and her disciplined cadre of close aides. It is a theme that runs through Her Way, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta's exhaustively researched and illuminating profile of the former first lady. And so, within days of the Clintons' learning of the pending campaign exposé, the magazine's editor got a message, reportedly delivered by one of Bill's associates: Kill the Hillary article, or forget the cover story. The disagreeable disclosure of inner campaign strife disappeared. Presumably we'll be seeing Bill's mug on GQ's cover in a few months. What was particularly telling about the politico.com piece is that not one person involved in killing the article went on record denying the unsavory tale of naked abuse of power in action.

A raft of Monitor letter writers have waxed almost poetic in recent months about Hillary Clinton and how much she will do to lift ordinary people up out of the muck they've presumably been mired in since George W. Bush, with his obsession with control and secrecy, took office. And they want us to replace him with someone else obsessed with control and secrecy? But the issue is more than Hillary's weird resemblance to the current occupant of the Oval Office, and it's more than the question bedeviling the Democratic faithful, can she win? A better question is, should she win? Hillary Clinton, after all, isn't just any candidate. For the last 16 years she has lived a life of unimaginable power and privilege, traveling on private jets supplied by those who would curry favor or friendship with her and her husband. She moves in a protective phalanx of Secret Service men and women. She is surrounded by acolytes who tend to her every need. If George Bush is in a cocoon - and he certainly is - Hillary would seem to be in something awfully similar. She is also has the fervent support of her husband, eager to use his considerable power and influence to help her. That is admirable spousal loyalty - a quality one wouldn't necessarily associate with Bill Clinton.

But it's a little disconcerting in a country where we expect our former presidents to stay a bit above the fray. It also raises difficult questions, much like those we've encountered with the current Bush, who has withheld records that might reflect ill on his father. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary wouldn't be equally protective of her husband's administration's history? Especially since his history is hers as well. After all, it was her proposed health care overhaul, conceived in secrecy and arrogantly handed to the Congress, that effectively killed health care reform for at least a decade.

Last month, the subject of Bill Clinton's $165 million (!) presidential library came up and clearly illustrated the potential for troubling conflicts of interest in a second Clinton administration. Who are the donors?, asked Tim Russert in one of the Democratic "debates." It was a good question. Hillary was coy, archly informing Russert that "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband." But Russert wasn't asking about the couple's pillow talk. He wanted to know who contributed some of the many millions of dollars that built the Little Rock library. By law, foreigners cannot contribute to U.S political campaigns - but there's nothing stopping them from lavishing money on former presidents and their monuments to themselves. In the case of Clinton's library, the former president is adamant that he will not disclose the names of those contributors - even though we do know, thanks to a computer glitch when the library first opened, that the heavy hitters currying favor include the Saudi royal family, Kuwait, Brunei and the Embassy of Qatar. What kind of access might their largesse buy them in a future Clinton administration?

And do we really want Bill Clinton - despite his boffo performance in recent years as a silver-haired fox devoted to good works and brimming over with charm - back in the thick of things? Because he will be. There is no way that the prospective First Laddie, as he dubbed himself, would be content with solving crosswords and being a graceful host at the annual White House Christmas festivities. The man is an inveterate meddler, unable to keep his hands off anything.

Which, if I may bring up a subject nobody wants to talk about anymore, he proved when he was president. With his own astonishing reckless behavior, he lost control of the national agenda. He betrayed all those who voted for him in the hopes of improving their lives, and he scuttled the potential of his presidency. The Clinton years were decidedly not a period of unalloyed progress and prosperity. In fact, one could credibly argue that George W. Bush's ascendancy to the Oval office was given a large boost by people who regretted replacing his father with a guy who turned out to be a phrase-parsing philanderer.

Now, I suspect, understandable disgust with the mess Bush the younger has made of virtually everything he's touched has stoked a wave of Clinton nostalgia that Hillary hopes to ride straight into the White House. Dynastic succession is inherently undemocratic, un-American and just a little creepy. It was a bad idea in 2000. It's a bad one today

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/OPINION/710140366/1028/OPINION02

[hedgehog]

1. This is a very succinct explanation of my own misgivings. nt

[pnwmom]

2. Bush got into office because of election fraud, hanging chads, and

progressives who voted for Nader -- in Florida alone, which was decided by less than 600 votes, there were 97,000 Nader voters.

Even so, as the independent vote tallies confirmed, Gore actually won both nationally and in Florida. Neither Hillary nor Bill were responsible for the election ending up in the Supreme Court.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Tabloid Trash-Just Say No

DSB

[AtomicKitten]

4. There are a myriad of reasons not to vote for Hillary.

Thanks for posting.