Division between the Clintons?

Mona Charen writes at the Corner:

It was only a matter of time before Bill Clinton did or said something to undermine and/or sabotage his wife’s campaign due to his own overpowering narcissism. Today he told an audience that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning thus undermining his wife’s position, namely that she was for it but lost confidence when Bush supposedly screwed up the conduct of the war.

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

I suspect that Bill Clinton would not be all that upset if Hillary fails to win the Presidency. Think of how the dynamic in their relationship would change if Hillary wins. He would make the best of it, but I believe Bill Clinton would like it better if he was able to win the White House and Hillary could not. She does not have her husband’s political talent anyway.

Aside from this, seeing Bill Clinton just may remind people that electing Hillary won’t mean a “change. We have had either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for 20 years. This is one reason why Hillary is anything but inevitable in 2008. Mitt Romney would be for more of a “change” than Hillary would be if that’s what the voters want in 2008.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

My instincts on matters of electoral politics are, as a rule, not to be trusted. It’s just not a talent of mine. But here’s how I read the Clinton situation:

While every presidential candidate faces the problem of having to win his primary, while leaving himself wiggle room to shift toward the center in the general election, the problem is especially acute for Hillary Clinton. She is only really well liked among dyed in the wool leftists, and keeping them on board while presenting herself as a viable candidate for the general election is a difficult trick.

But Bill is her ace in the hole. He is wildly popular on the left and can go around telling the left wing of the Democratic base anything they want to hear, and after all, he’s who they’re really voting for anyway. Hillary the Candidate can continually beef up her tough-girl, ready-to-lead-the-free-world credentials, while Bill (who holds no political office) can say whatever he wants to say to excite those people who find her carefully crafted position on the war objectionable. This is Clintonian triangulation on steroids.

Then again, maybe I’m just making it all more complicated than it really is, and Bill is just more interested with protecting his own reputation among his admirers than he is with helping his wife. Sounds plausible to me.:)

Ken Hechtman writes:

I don’t buy it. Nothing the Clintons say in public is spontaneous or unscripted or uncalculated, ever. If Bill said it, Hillary’s campaign had a good reason for wanting him to say it. Here’s my guess what the reason is: Hillary’s early support for the war and her continuing refusal to admit she was wrong about it are sore spots among some Democrat primary voters. She wants to neutralize Edwards’ and Obama’s ownership of the issue because there are a fair number of Democrats who would back her except for that. She’s giving them a reason to believe her campaign is on their side but she’s doing it in a way that doesn’t open her personally to charges of being a Kerry-style “flip-flopper.”

Paul K. writes:

I have to disagree with Ken Hechtman’s assertion that everything the Clintons do is cleverly thought out. Without belaboring the first thing that comes to mind, let’s just say that Bill has a powerful need to skate along the edge. I believe it’s perfectly possible that his ego may lead him to torpedo Hillary, just as Bob Dole couldn’t help torpedoing his wife’s campaign.

Anyway, the Democrats are doomed if they pick Hillary, for the same reason they were doomed when they picked Kerry: most of the country will not vote for a Democrat from Massachusetts or New York.

LA replies:

Kerry—the most unsuitable, the most obnoxious, the worst presidential candidate ever—came within 50,000 votes in Ohio of being elected president. Hillary only has to a little better than Kerry to be elected president. I do not see the grounds to state so positively that a Hillary nomination dooms the Democrats.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 28, 2007 01:13 PM | Send