First Gentleman Bill: A Legitimate Issue
This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
Any notion that William Jefferson Clinton would not be prominent and influential in the potential administration of Hillary Rodham Clinton died of acute silliness in the mud pits of South Carolina last week.
The man's appetite for attention, politics, vindication and public love is both gargantuan and insatiable. Can you say, "compulsion"?
The wonderful thing about Bill's recent antics is the comeuppance he got. His vilification was almost universal. Teddy Kennedy tried to reason with him, and then endorsed Barack Obama. Longtime defenders of the rascal from Hope gave up in disgust.
The awful thing about Bill's recent antics is that you know somewhere in Clintonia - that secret land inhabited by Bill, Hillary and their most trusted lieutenants - there is joy. Sure, Hillary lost South Carolina by the widest margin of any 2008 contest so far. But they got Obama into the gutter. They got Mr. High and Mighty riled like any other politician on the stump. They got race into the arena.
Mr. Boss took a dive in South Carolina so Mrs. Boss can go the distance on Super Tuesday.
You also know that the Clintons, as always, feel wronged; by the press, by Obama, by the Kennedys.
In Bill's now-famous scolding of reporters in South Carolina he insisted he didn't bring race into the race, then walked away saying, "Shame on you, shame on you." That's as sincere as his insincerity gets.
Bill Clinton's belly-fire reaches maximum heat when he feels shafted and up against a wall. Whether it's Gennifer Flowers, Newt Gingrich, Monica Lewinsky or Barack Obama who is the threat or enemy, Clinton's mojo bursts forth most when he feels wronged.
To think this will not happen when he is First Gentleman is nuts.
Democrats - the same ones who were disgusted by his anti-Obama stick work - can go back to pretending he will be an asset; the world's greatest strategist and also a terrific policy wonk. But this First Gentleman will become the news at some point, whether through cold calculation or pure appetite. He will be a force in American government.
It is legitimate for voters to factor this is into their thinking. It isn't sexist. It isn't a double standard. It is obvious and it is common sense. As Mitt Romney said, "The idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I just can't imagine."
Barber categorized the character of leaders on two planes.
The activity-passivity plane describes the energy a leader brings to office, the drive to do, to accomplish, to forge and control; Lyndon Johnson was a whirling dervish every day while Calvin Coolidge napped most afternoons.
The positive-negative plane describes whether a leader enjoys power and responsibility, flourishes with it and has healthy fun as a leader. The Roosevelts and John Kennedy, for example, were active-positive presidents.
I think Barber would have tabbed Hillary Clinton an active-negative leader in the mold of Wilson, Johnson, Nixon and Carter. These are leaders who don't seem to take joy in power, who wear it with difficulty. They are driven both by a sense of duty but also by a striving to fill an ambition or emotional need, by perfectionist self-scolding and by a chip on the shoulder.
Somehow, the idea of the Bill Clinton we have seen over the past two weeks in the White House of an active-negative President Hillary Clinton seems highly flammable.
If you don't like this kind of psycho-babble, well, tough. The Clintons have committed themselves now to campaigning as a couple and Bill Clinton has committed to making news. A potential Clinton II administration must be assessed with that in mind. And with couples, you have two psychos to babble it, not just one.
Psycho-babble is one way most people sort out their votes. It is legitimate. And so is factoring in Bill Clinton.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. Any notion that William Jefferson Clinton would not be prominent and influential in the potential administration of Hillary Rodham Clinton died of acute silliness in the mud pits of South Carolina last week.
The man's appetite for attention, politics, vindication and public love is both gargantuan and insatiable. Can you say, "compulsion"?
The wonderful thing about Bill's recent antics is the comeuppance he got. His vilification was almost universal. Teddy Kennedy tried to reason with him, and then endorsed Barack Obama. Longtime defenders of the rascal from Hope gave up in disgust.
The awful thing about Bill's recent antics is that you know somewhere in Clintonia - that secret land inhabited by Bill, Hillary and their most trusted lieutenants - there is joy. Sure, Hillary lost South Carolina by the widest margin of any 2008 contest so far. But they got Obama into the gutter. They got Mr. High and Mighty riled like any other politician on the stump. They got race into the arena.
Mr. Boss took a dive in South Carolina so Mrs. Boss can go the distance on Super Tuesday.
You also know that the Clintons, as always, feel wronged; by the press, by Obama, by the Kennedys.
In Bill's now-famous scolding of reporters in South Carolina he insisted he didn't bring race into the race, then walked away saying, "Shame on you, shame on you." That's as sincere as his insincerity gets.
Bill Clinton's belly-fire reaches maximum heat when he feels shafted and up against a wall. Whether it's Gennifer Flowers, Newt Gingrich, Monica Lewinsky or Barack Obama who is the threat or enemy, Clinton's mojo bursts forth most when he feels wronged.
To think this will not happen when he is First Gentleman is nuts.
Democrats - the same ones who were disgusted by his anti-Obama stick work - can go back to pretending he will be an asset; the world's greatest strategist and also a terrific policy wonk. But this First Gentleman will become the news at some point, whether through cold calculation or pure appetite. He will be a force in American government.
It is legitimate for voters to factor this is into their thinking. It isn't sexist. It isn't a double standard. It is obvious and it is common sense. As Mitt Romney said, "The idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I just can't imagine."
It is also obvious and common sense for voters to vote based on their assessments of the candidate's character. Our foremost scholar of presidential character was political scientist James David Barber, author of "The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House." Barber died in 2004, but I think he would instruct us to pay close attention to Bill in this campaign.
Barber categorized the character of leaders on two planes.
The activity-passivity plane describes the energy a leader brings to office, the drive to do, to accomplish, to forge and control; Lyndon Johnson was a whirling dervish every day while Calvin Coolidge napped most afternoons.
The positive-negative plane describes whether a leader enjoys power and responsibility, flourishes with it and has healthy fun as a leader. The Roosevelts and John Kennedy, for example, were active-positive presidents.
I think Barber would have tabbed Hillary Clinton an active-negative leader in the mold of Wilson, Johnson, Nixon and Carter. These are leaders who don't seem to take joy in power, who wear it with difficulty. They are driven both by a sense of duty but also by a striving to fill an ambition or emotional need, by perfectionist self-scolding and by a chip on the shoulder.
Somehow, the idea of the Bill Clinton we have seen over the past two weeks in the White House of an active-negative President Hillary Clinton seems highly flammable.
If you don't like this kind of psycho-babble, well, tough. The Clintons have committed themselves now to campaigning as a couple and Bill Clinton has committed to making news. A potential Clinton II administration must be assessed with that in mind. And with couples, you have two psychos to babble it, not just one.
Psycho-babble is one way most people sort out their votes. It is legitimate. And so is factoring in Bill Clinton.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
This is something I can imagine only too easily. I see Hilary spending half her time in office covering up Bill''s misdeeds. Is that really how we want to spend the next 4 years?
%u201CWhat is governing to him who cannot rule himself? Who cannot rule himself, how should he rule others?%u201D
GO ASK MONICA
A - G
Posted by IRLiberal
Sorry, I do not fit in any of your A-G categories. I dislike phonies and liars so naturally I dislike Hillary and Bill. To trust a phony or liar that lies for his/her self-gain for "my" own self-gain? I don''t need to prove anything, nor do I need more than what I already have. However, for the country''s future and America''s children, no liars and phonies, please!
%u201CWithout truth I know not how man can live.%u201D
Allowing Hillary and Bill back into the White House means RUIN TO EDUCATION.
%u201CKnowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous.%u201D
%u201COne atom of the plane where He functions would shatter the world.%u201D
Those who hate Hillary are:
A) White males who feel inferior before a woman of obvious power.
B) White females who think they should stand by their man, at least as long as it doesn''t interfere with getting their hair done or interrupt their shopping.
C) Republicans, because she would end the Iraq war, balance the budget, and set this country back on the right course it was already on when Bill left office. If all that is possible to do in eight years anyway. You see, a single Hillary term would do much to illustrate to the world what fools the Republicons are and yes, they fear that. They fear it desperately.
D) Religious zealots of all shapes and sizes, who know that Hillary will preserve the line between Church and State, and that the tax free money that flows to pad their coffers and build mega churches and pay for *** scandal lawsuits will likely stop.
E) Hunters, because the NRA tells them to think that way. Sure, those independent and fiercely free gun owners, true cows that they are.
F) The rich, who know that they will have a LITTLE LESS money than they do now, because they will be taxed at a higher rate. They might run a little short of cash for that second sailboat or that little villa in France and that JUST WON''T DO!
G) The military establishment , who no longer will get unlimited money to pursue pointless wars. Hillary would make sure the vets were properly taken care of though, something GW Bush OBVIOUSLY doesn''t care about.
Amnesty for illegals. How do you think the people who have tried to immigrate legally, waiting many years to do so, would feel? Is that fair?
And, McCains plan to continue the Bush policy and stay the course in Iraq. Do we want what is clearly a civil war, to be the dying fields for more
young Americans?
I don''t.
Think about it before you vote.