Posted on April 14, 2008
This time last year, Hillary Clinton seemed hesitant to rely on her husband — and our former president — to build her political support. Doubtless he worked behind the scenes, taking advantage of the party’s powerful ties to the Clinton name, but he respectfully kept out of the limelight and didn’t pull focus from the actual contenders.
It seemed at the time that Bill Clinton could only be an asset to Hillary’s White House ambitions. After a time, Hillary announced her plan to send her husband around the globe, as a kind of emissary to rebuild the world’s faith in our fractious nation. Such a role seems perfect for a president who was popular, eloquent and, let’s face it, “slick.”
Regardless of how the Clinton clan strikes your political fancy, the “world ambassador” deal showed an admirable amount of restraint: Rather than staying to play in Washington, Bill would try to make amends with current world leaders and inroads with new ones. It’s a responsible way to channel his political power: working toward better diplomacy instead of infighting.
But desperate times call for desperate measures, and since last fall Hillary has all but hired her husband as a campaign spokesman. He has, at times, eclipsed his wife in terms of coverage. Barack Obama and John Edwards accused Hillary of shifting the focus and playing on ’90s nostalgia, but that’s not the issue of concern.
In his public appearances, Bill Clinton has been inflammatory (almost angry) and made several unforced errors, both political and factual. The image of the red-faced former president scolding the media — complete with wagging finger and invoking Michael Moore in saying “Shame on you!” — for their allegedly pro-Obama bias could become an iconic image from the campaign.
And when he called Obama, the rising star, a “fairy tale,” Clinton revealed his cynicism and outrage and injected vitriol into the race. The deeper message was that we cannot trust the newcomer, the one with a clean record.
Bill Clinton’s excessively public missteps can only hurt the current Clinton presidential campaign.
When he misremembered details of Hillary’s Bosnia sniper incident, she called to rein him in and consequently emasculate him. Breitbart.com reports that he replied with “Yes ma’am,” a characteristically charming response but also one that touches on the dynamics of the Clinton marriage, something voters perhaps do not want to hear about anymore. Every time Bill opens his mouth, he revives the past with all its scandal.
It’s politically harmful to Hillary, who has tried to build a case for her own qualifications and move forward in a campaign centered on change. Bill’s vehement support reinforces the notion of Hillary as a “legacy” seeking admission to the President’s Club. It provides support for right-wing pundits who ramble about the power-hungry Clinton duo, the Bonnie & Clyde of the Democratic Party (their ammunition being mud rather than bullets).
But at the end of the day it’s simply not the appropriate behavior for a former president.
Such controversial behavior should be reserved for pundits, celebrities and James Carville. As much as Bill loves the fight inherent in campaigns, he had his time on the stump and it’s best he let things be. If he’s going to speak, let him address important issues as a sober statesman, not an incendiary political operative. He’s not a hired gun out on a political hit-job, he’s the 42nd president of the United States of America with a record of service to his country that will soon be overshadowed.
He’s trading in his gravitas and legacy in the hopes that his wife might ascend to power. It’s a lose-lose situation: Either she loses and Bill Clinton goes out as little more than an ornery spokesman for his wife, or she wins and the bitter brand of politics continues for at least four more years.
Whitten Maher is a sophomore SMAD and political science major.
