A
AnAmericanCitizen
Guest
Is the right right on the Clintons?
Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.
January 26, 2008
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends,
co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same
thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this
is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in
liberal opinion of the Clintons.
The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the
campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of
millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she
might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less
irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any
conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.
The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for
acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed
the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely
claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than
Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.
This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New
Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that
Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no"
on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood
said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.")
Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking
"Barack Hussein Obama."
I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of
introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder
Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own
terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a
long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights
for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to
eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they
redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the
Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick
Morris, Marc Rich and so on.
The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about
negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's
what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't
the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.
Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It's a scary thought. Of course, to
conservatives, it's a delicious thought. The Wall Street Journal published a gloating
editorial noting that liberals had suddenly learned "what everyone else already knows
about the Clintons." (By "everyone," it means Republicans.)
It made me wonder: Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along? Maybe
not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him, but right about the
Clintons' essential nature? Fortunately, the Journal's attempt to convince us that
the Clintons have always been unscrupulous liars seemed to prove the opposite. Its
examples of Clintonian lies were their claims that Bob Dole wanted to cut Medicare,
that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, that Paula Jones was "trailer trash" and
that Kenneth Starr was a partisan.
Except Dole did vote to cut Medicare, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy and
Starr was and is a rabid partisan. ("Trailer trash" is, of course, a matter of
opinion, and it's a cruel thing to say, but as far as whether it's a lie -- well,
it's not like they called William F. Buckley "trailer trash.")
So maybe the answer is that the Clintons would have smeared their opponents in the
1990s, but lying is unnecessary when the other party is doing things such as voting
to slash Medicare to pay for a big tax cut for the rich.
But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's
affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary
pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his
approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.
If Hillary wins the nomination, most of us will probably vote for her because the
alternative is likely to be worse. But what happens if she's embroiled in another
scandal? Will liberals rally behind her, or will they remember the Democratic
primary?
Jonathan Chait, a contributing editor to Opinion and a senior editor at the New
Republic, is the author of "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got
Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics."
Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.
January 26, 2008
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends,
co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same
thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this
is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in
liberal opinion of the Clintons.
The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the
campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of
millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she
might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less
irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any
conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.
The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for
acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed
the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely
claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than
Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.
This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New
Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that
Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no"
on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood
said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.")
Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking
"Barack Hussein Obama."
I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of
introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder
Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own
terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a
long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights
for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to
eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they
redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the
Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick
Morris, Marc Rich and so on.
The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about
negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's
what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't
the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.
Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It's a scary thought. Of course, to
conservatives, it's a delicious thought. The Wall Street Journal published a gloating
editorial noting that liberals had suddenly learned "what everyone else already knows
about the Clintons." (By "everyone," it means Republicans.)
It made me wonder: Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along? Maybe
not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him, but right about the
Clintons' essential nature? Fortunately, the Journal's attempt to convince us that
the Clintons have always been unscrupulous liars seemed to prove the opposite. Its
examples of Clintonian lies were their claims that Bob Dole wanted to cut Medicare,
that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, that Paula Jones was "trailer trash" and
that Kenneth Starr was a partisan.
Except Dole did vote to cut Medicare, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy and
Starr was and is a rabid partisan. ("Trailer trash" is, of course, a matter of
opinion, and it's a cruel thing to say, but as far as whether it's a lie -- well,
it's not like they called William F. Buckley "trailer trash.")
So maybe the answer is that the Clintons would have smeared their opponents in the
1990s, but lying is unnecessary when the other party is doing things such as voting
to slash Medicare to pay for a big tax cut for the rich.
But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's
affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary
pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his
approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.
If Hillary wins the nomination, most of us will probably vote for her because the
alternative is likely to be worse. But what happens if she's embroiled in another
scandal? Will liberals rally behind her, or will they remember the Democratic
primary?
Jonathan Chait, a contributing editor to Opinion and a senior editor at the New
Republic, is the author of "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got
Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics."