Poisoned Penn – and Hillary’s Clinton Fatigue
True, campaign reputations are often circular. In the all-or-nothing world of politics, winning campaigns become brilliant; losing campaigns become mismanaged. Sometimes, however, candidates have run great campaigns and lost – such as Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, and Gerald Ford in 1976 against Jimmy Carter for the Presidency. Reagan left Republicans so keyed up, his nomination in 1980 was virtually assured; Ford forded a 30 point gap in the public opinion polls, falling just short of winning.
Win or lose – and the contest is still not over – Hillary Clinton’s campaign will be remembered as a series of miscalculations and missed opportunities. The arrogance of her operation, dismissing Barack Obama’s challenge as insignificant and failing to develop a strategy after Super Tuesday, is inexcusable. The sloppiness of her operation, failing to find the Reverend Jeremiah Wright videotapes in December and January when they could have killed Obama’s campaign, or holding on to failing leaders for far too long is unjustifiable.
In the continuing American psychodrama that is the Clintons’ public life, the contrast between Bill Clinton’s professionalism and Hillary Clinton’s amateurishness is striking. It highlights the fact that Bill Clinton is both a natural and a well-practiced politician, trained in the art of wooing Americans for over thirty years. Despite all her self-puffery as a leader for three decades, Hillary Clinton is a relative newcomer to the art of selling yourself to the American people. She lacks her husband’s natural grace and his years of experience – and it shows.
But watching the debacle unfold, it is hard not to wonder if, once again, we have all been given front row seats to the latest round of the operatic Clinton marriage. Does Bill Clinton’s fall in the campaign from revered ex-president as rock star to overbearing political hack reveal some kind of unconscious death wish he has for her candidacy? Does Hillary Clinton’s inability to manage her people more effectively and her odd choice to resume her identity as Bill’s partner after eight independent years in the Senate spotlight reflect a deep neediness disguised as aggressiveness or loyalty?
Such speculation emerges because the story is so full of pathologies – and of anomalies. Hillary Clinton’s operation should have been as formidable as her husband’s, even if she lacks his experience. Could the first serious woman candidate for the American presidency be undermining herself somehow? Perhaps Clinton fatigue has not only set in among so many Democrats – but among the Clintons as well.
comments powered by Disqus
Alonzo Hamby - 4/11/2008
Insightful column--to which I can only add that the disarray of the Clinton campaign tells us a lot about the disarray of the fading Democratic party establishment, which has become backward-looking, if not downright reactionary, in many respects--not least its stance on international trade.
Gil Troy emphasizes the personal dimension, and that's fascinating. But I think there is something else also.
Michael Glen Wade - 4/11/2008
Perhaps I missed it, but it seems to me that the most telling questions about the Penn affair might be these? Why was she not aware that Penn would be working at cross purposes to her on Colombia? If she was aware, then why did she hire him? In either case, one does not come away with the impression that she is very good on organization and management. We certainly don't need more deficiencies in this area following 8 years of secrecy, deceit, corruption and incompetence. Finally, in the previous eight years, i.e., those of her husband, where was Hillary as jobs were being shipped out of the country? Nowhere is the answer. This current posture seems just that, a pose in the hopes that people will have memories that range between short and non-existent.
Tim Matthewson - 4/11/2008
I can't say that I've been following this campaign as I usually do follow politics, i.e., like a news junkie in need of a fix. I've got WaPo and NTTimes bookmarked on my browser but I can't say that I follow the '08 campaign avidly. I read HNN more that I do the Post or Times and believe that I get better reporting and perspective from historians such as Gil Troy than I do from newspaper reporters. The truth is that the commentary on cable especially has been vapid and contradictory and ridiculous. I'm not sure that Gil Troy is right about the HRC campaign, but I think that he probably closer to the truth that any of the others I've listened to.
- Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we’ve misunderstood Stalin
- The Invisible Labor of Women’s Studies
- Lincoln University historian mourns decision to abolish the history major
- Hamilton College conservative historian questions diversity requirement
- Historians on Donald Trump: A Huge Hit on Facebook