 |  | | April 15, 2015 |  | No. 167 | | By Jonathan V. Last | |  |  |  | | | | COLD OPEN |  | | | Look, this is happening. It's a thing. Remember the jokes that started in 1992 with "two Clintons for the price of one"? Remember the incredulity of people in 1999 when it was quietly suggested that the first lady of the United States might decamp to New York and place a Senate seat into her carpet bag? Remember when is was only the crazies who said, "Don't you get it? She's trying to run for president!"
Well, here we are.
As always, I'm more bullish on her prospects than a lot of my conservative friends. My buddy Mollie Hemingway, for instance, thinks that Hillary isn't as strong as people assume. She argues that Clinton has no accomplishments, is a liar, lacks her husband's political gifts, and hasn't won a single tough election.
But while each of those charges is true, I see them very differently. Clinton is loads more accomplished than, say, Barack Obama was in 2008. And things worked out pretty well for him.
Does she have a track record of lying? Yes, but she lies about relatively petty subjects tied to her own political viability. As I argued a couple weeks back, would you rather have a president who lies about her email protocols, or a president who knowingly lies to voters on issues of enormous import during the course of a contentious public debate in order to thwart the will of the people? Which is worse: "I didn't delete any emails" or "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"? Compared with Obama, Clinton's lies are almost charming.
It's true that Clinton has lost the only tough election she's faced. But people forget that she actually got more votes than Obama in the Democratic primaries. And as for her gifts as a politician, while it's true that she's not especially charismatic or intuitive, I think it's also undeniably true that she's tough, gutsy, and adaptable.
I spent a good part of the winter of 2008 following Clinton and Obama across the country, and it's easy to forget how strong the headwinds were against her. By January Obama had the money, the establishment, and the media all on his side. After Iowa, Hillary was forced to reinvent herself as a populist underdog, and she did so with remarkable effectiveness. She kept fighting and coming back from the dead.
After Iowa, she came from behind to win in New Hampshire. After Super Tuesday, the Obama campaign claimed victory was inevitable and the bottom fell out of Hillary world. She had to lend her own campaign $5 million. But then she won Texas and Ohio in early March. Obama kept padding his delegate advantage with small-state caucus wins and super delegates while Clinton got a preview of what life would be like for John McCain in the general election as the media and money went crazy for Obama. And what did Clinton do in the face of this? She won six of the last nine primaries.
And again-this bears repeating-she crossed the finish line with more votes than Obama.
Hillary Clinton isn't a natural. But she's a grinder and she's tough. You disrespect her grit at your own peril.
This isn't to say that she's inevitable. Her candidacy does present exploitable weaknesses for a bold opponent. But she's going to be trickier to attack than you might think.
For example, over at weeklystandard.com, Adam White has a look back at how James Carville described President George H. W. Bush in 1992 in the War Room. "The idea is, he reeks of yesterday," Carville says. "He has the stench of yesterday. He is so yesterday, if I think of yesterday, if I think of an old calendar, I think of George Bush's face on it."
And boy, howdy, does Hillary Clinton reek of yesterday, too.
But the Clinton campaign never "attacked" Bush for being yesterday's news. They realized that voters liked the president and respected him. So they took a more nuanced approach. Here's Paul Begala describing the line they took in his fascinating conversation with Bill Kristol:
[I]nternally-we didn't say this in public a lot, we tried not to because it's disrespectful-but we would talk about him as yesterday's man and having a gold watch strategy. He's of the past and a heroic past and good for him, let's give him a gold watch, but now we have to fix health care and create jobs and that's for a different generation, a different mindset. And I think that's how we approached it strategically . . .
The problem with using the gold watch strategy against Hillary Clinton is that it conflicts with another obvious line of attack-that she's a power-mad Nixonian robot. All of which is to say that even her weaknesses present strategic challenges.
That said, I think the 1992 race is probably the best analogue to 2016. Clinton will be a near-incumbent and a figure who's been present in American politics for a generation. She is not beloved, and she lacks any great vision for America-but she is widely respected and the fundamentals of the race favor her slightly, at least.
This is precisely the situation Democrats faced in '92. In response, they nominated the best political talent of his generation, and he ran a policy-heavy campaign focused relentlessly-and specifically-on the future. Republicans could do worse. And it's entirely possible that their Bill Clinton declared his candidacy on Monday night. | | | | LOOKING BACK | | | | | "Barbra is at it again. Last week the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call published a 'memo' Ms. Streisand recently sent to every Democrat in Congress. It is an astonishing mix of New Age boosterism and Old Left knownothingism, blended into a flaky litany of insults directed at George W. Bush. Entitled 'Nice Guys Finish Last'-this is, after all, advice from Hollywood-Ms. Streisand's opus brings to light the dreariest side of Democratic soft money: the gruesome requirement to suffer rich fools, no matter how chowder-headed their opinions."
-Mike Murphy, "The Streisand Democrats," from our April 16, 2001, issue.
Remember you get full access to THE WEEKLY STANDARD archive when you subscribe. | | | | | | | | THE READING LIST | | | | | Inside the Kremlin's hall of mirrors.
* * *
You know what was a really disruptive technology? Railroads.
* * *
Who's afraid of the little red "s"? | | | | INSTANT CLASSIC | | | | | "[T]wo American runners, one a renowned champion and the other a gutty underdog, going at each other for just under two hours and nine minutes. Other famous marathons have featured narrow margins of victory, but their suspense developed late in the race, the product of a furiously closing challenger or rapidly fading leader. At the '82 Boston, by contrast, Beardsley and Salazar ran in each other's pocket the entire 26.2 miles, with no other competitor near them for the final nine miles. They were so close that, for most of the last half of the race, Beardsley, while in the lead, monitored Salazar's progress by watching his shadow on the asphalt.
"Neither man broke, and neither, in any meaningful sense, lost. The race merely came to a thrilling, shattering end, leaving both runners, in separate and ultimately phyrric ways, the winner. The drama unfolded in the sport's most storied venue, at the peak of the first running boom, when the United States produced world-class marathoners in the profusion that Kenya does today. . . .
"Since Beardsley was just 26 and Salazar 23, everyone assumed that this would be the start of a long and glorious rivalry, one that would galvanize the public and seal American dominance in the marathon through the 1984 Olympics and beyond.
"But rather than a beginning, Boston '82 represented a climax. After that day, neither man ran a marathon as well again. And from that day since, incredibly, only two more of the world's major marathons have been won by a native-bred American man. On that day, 156 runners, virtually every one an American, finished the race in a time of 2:30 or faster. At the 2003 Boston Marathon, by contrast, just 21 runners logged 2:30 or better."
-John Brant on the greatest marathon ever run. | | | | THE LAST WORD | | | | | Before we get back to Hillary-do yourself a favor and read that piece just above on the 1982 Boston Marathon. It's about the apex of American distance running, a race in which two men gave such heroic efforts that they sacrificed the lifeblood of their careers on the course. It's one of the best sports essays I've ever read.
Okay, so: Hillary. As I said up top, Clinton's grit is underrated by Republicans who would, in their heart of hearts, be thrilled to have a nominee as tough as she is. But that doesn't mean there won't be a lot of unintentional comedy from her campaign. And to start, there's this inspired bit: "Let's get this over with." It's hard to think of a better slogan.
If you want another laugh, have a look at Chelsea's Elle launch propaganda, which is a nice piece of counter-programming to Hillary's road trip to Iowa. It reassures a certain segment of the Democratic party that her mother isn't really simpatico with those bitter clingers-she's dynasty all the way.
And if you really want to laugh, there's always the Hillary Laugh Button. (Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that Hilly Clinton's "laugh" may induce anxiety and terror in small children, and women who are, or may be, pregnant.)
But if you want to understand the Clinton dynasty, you absolutely have to read Daniel Halper's Clinton, Inc. It's the indispensible book for the 2016 election.
Better buckle up. It could be a long nine and a half years.
Best,
Jonathan V. Last
P.S. To unsubscribe, click here. I won't take it personally. | | | | | | | | | MORE FROM THE WEEKLY STANDARD | | | | | | | | |  | | | Online Store | | | | Squeeze the head to the left to relieve stress. Yes you can! Only at our store. | | |  | | |  | | | | |  | | | Subscribe Today | | | | Get the magazine that The Economist has called "a wry observer of the American scene." | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | Read probing editorials and unconventional analysis from political writers with a
dose of political humor at weeklystandard.com. | | | | | |
|
| | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment