First Gentleman Bill: A Legitimate Issue

CBS's Meyer Says A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For Bill, For Better Or For Worse

(CBS)  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."

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.

[mars4earth3]

Hillary will not have the same exact politics as Bill. Also, she will not let Bill be the President as she has spent the last 40 years working to be President herself. Bringing this up has to do with gender. The writer would not say this if the sexes were reversed. Soon we will have Super Tuesday and most voters will give their votes to Hillary. That will help prove that most of the media people were very wrong in their opinions.

[buddhabman]

Trapbreak - Nader is going to get his butt crushed in political tactics. He won''t make it on the ballot anywhere.

[tbweb]

Love em or Hate em, Americans better really think long and hard about being stuck in the loop of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Clinton again! Change is all encompassing, another Clinton term is really not change when you really think about! Are we really ready for Monica Lewinski part 2? Bill will have a lot of free time on his hands to roam around the Capital grounds! lol hmmm.

There is an awful amount of mind reading in this little piece of savage anti-Clinton vitriol. I am sick of this kind of blather!
Dear ***, Are you some kind of omniscient power who can look into people''s souls? Do you know for a fact the motives of someone else? Can''t Bill Clinton be just an overly zealous, very partisan spouse, like all the other spouses in this campaign? No, according to Mr. Meyers, he is a megalomaniac. Whatever Clinton''s motives may be, and I can''t read people''s minds and I doubt Mr. Meyers can either, this pontificating self-important palaver is tiresome and bloated!

[tbweb]

Posted by sesanders1 at 02:27 AM : Jan 31, 2008,,,

The real undercurrent of anti-Clintonism is the fact that the U.S. now has term limits in place limiting Presidents to 2 terms in office, a lot of that has to do with limiting the influence of former Presidents which over time can lead to too much influence and corruption. Since the Clinton''s are a team with a 2 for one mantra and Hillary is claiming credit for a lot of the successes from the Clinton''s first 2 terms in office, its possible to treat them as one in reference to running for a third term and technically deny them on the grounds they have already served and reached their term limits! It can be argued based on this that the Clinton''s are bypassing the "Spirit" of the 2 term limit law by now claiming Hillary is running solo when it fact and in effect she is not, especially since Bill Clinton is so active in her campaign and will probably be just as active in Hillary''s Presidency too. Americans should consider these facts with their eyes wide open because the reality is the Clinton''s are technically cheating even if they can get away with it. The Clinton''s can''t have it both ways, 2 for 1 means exactly that, in every context!

[spinster2]

One thing is for sure. Old Ted"whiskey breath" Kennedy has been around a long time knows how to make everybody happy.

He endorsed Obama to make his FAR left doners happy and he waited until it was too late to make a difference to make the Clintons happy.

If people really thought he carried the mantle for JFK it might be different but down south we have a distinct picture of him as as pro-gay alcoholic who still thinks affirmative action is the major problem facing the US today.

It would be nice if democrats would stop already with the seniority gig. All those old guard FAR left leaders should take a smaller role when it comes for speaking for the party because they only represent a small fraction of it. The far left is as icky as the far right is repulsive. How about giving the middle a chance to represent the party for a change. Did we not learn anything from Jimmy Carter ??????

[tato_4x4]

*** librul media

tbweb, I think the Clintons have always been important resources for each other, just like many other couples. This does not preclude Hillary from serving in any way. In fact, one could argue that seeking advice is a good thing, but, above all, Hillary would know that she is the president with the ultimate burden of leadership. Hillary has abundant self esteem and pride aplenty to steer her own administration and would resist being told what to do by her husband as a matter of course. If need be, I think she would tell him to butt out. After all, it will be her historical legacy that is at stake. Hillary has never shied away from taking responsibility; she has always been her own person and anyone who doesn''t see that simply does not understand a strong woman whose whole life has been devoted to advancing women in our society.

[jedi08]

Its official. If you are a male voter for Hillary you are fall into the least educated catagory of the population....

That explains your ignorant racist post spinster2

[jedi08]

If Ralph Nadar gets in the race he will take 10 percent of Clintons support!

Go NADAR

[spinster2]

Yep, that explains white males who support Hillary. White males that support Obama are too young to know what their talking about or just the typical far left liberal pushing for gay rights.

Obama at his best has only gotten twenty percent of the white vote in the south and when it comes to white men,,,well, white men just don''t vote like that.

[jedi08]

We all know Bill will be running the show. Hillary can''t even run a campaign with out her hubbie coming to the rescue. She stacks up real well against McCain.... ya right.

Lets do a Hillary vs McCain check list

50 percent of population would not vote for Hillary no matter what: Check for McCain

McCain led the charge for Amnesty, while hillary abstained on the vote and flubbed the drivers licence question. The spaish vote: Check for MCCain

80 percent of independents polled nationally would vote for McCain over Hillary: Check for MCCain agian.
McCain has led the fight for climate change:check for McCain

while most of these issues make McCain out to be as big a lib if not bigger the Billary, usually the republicans wouldn''t show up for McCain but nothing will unite the party more then Billary Cunton winning the nomination.

She loses the spanish vote, the independent vote and if she doesn''t keep a leash on her meal ticket Bill she will lose the black vote in november too

[jedi08]

White men in the south don''t vote dem anyway so who cares what racist in the south do in the general election. What state could she win that he couldn''t. Plus you are underestimating the pure hattred that exist for the Clintons out there. You can play all the spin games you want, but Obama is way more electable.

You say what about white racist men in the south, well they wont be voting for a women either.

Don''t forget, there are just as many men who secretly would never vote for a women who is only where she is becasue she got cheated on as there are men who wouldn''t vote for Obama becasue of the color of his skin

jedi08, we haven''t missed your hatred at all. It is abundantly clear!

[spinster2]

The racist in the south are the ones who pick the president of the United States which is why a yankee hasn''t been elected in forty years.

As for Hillary and fifty percent of the vote, her husband won the white house without getting fifty percent of the vote in any state.

Your very naive if you think hispanics are going to vote for ANY republican regardless of what they say which by the way has changed.

Regardless of who independants vote for, they aren''t McCain''s problem, conservative are who will stay home this election if McCain wins.

If the polls were right, it would be John endorsing Rudy instead of the other way around.

I suppose that we''re to beleve that the GOP has been beating up on Hillary to help the one that can defeat them in the general election. Ha Ha, yea, when pigs fly!

[jedi08]

Bill only won becasue of Ross Perot.

Answer me this question spinster2 and I will see if you are an honest person or not.

Put your politics aside. Who deserves when looking at what they have done in their life for this country to be president more?

[spinster2]

PS: I might add that I origionally support Barrack and still think he''s a good guy. What changed my mind is when the far left and far right media started double teaming Clinton to the point that her hands were tied behind her back.

When it gets to the point that you can''t point out what someone said, or that they won due to the black vote in a particular state, it''s gone too far.

I didn''t hear any outcry in the media when they claimed that Clinton won due to women voters in New Hampshire or when Obama was calling her names.

Obama hasn''t been pounded for being the bring people togeather candidate who wasn''t big enough to shake his opponants hand.

It was gloves off when ran television ad''s in Florida and I''m just tired of the far left and the far right choosing our politicians. I don''t belong to either of the wing nut groups.

[jedi08]

The south wont vote for Hillary either. what state can she win the Kerry didn''t in 04. Answer: None

[ontheleft]

"Obama at his best has only gotten twenty percent of the white vote in the south and when it comes to white men,,,well, white men just don''''t vote like that.

Posted by Spinster2 at 03:14 AM"

You are a racist. Doesn''t surprise me based on all your other comments. I''m white, I''m from the South and I will vote for Obama.

[spinster2]

I''m not sure whos done what for their country but I can tell you that Hillary Clinton was in politic''s way back during the watergate scandal.

I also know that she used to be a republican (a little known fact) but changed party''s after she heard the behind the doors racial talk. That sounds pretty honest to me.

[jedi08]

You didn''t hear an outcry when Hillary won because Obama''s campaign didn''t make it a big deal. She won that state becasue she cried and got ganged up on in the debate.

She tried to double team Obama with edwards and Edwards flipped it on her and came after her instead. how is that Obama''s fault. Your right, he won in South Carolina because partly the black vote. She won in New Hampshire partyl becasue of the women vote. But who made a point of that, the clinton people.

Obama has stayed above most of this stuff, if you want to blame someone for bringing up race, blame Hillary''s suragates and morning joe and chris mathews

[jedi08]

John McCain has more honor and has done more for this country then all the other canadates combind

[spinster2]

"Obama at his best has only gotten twenty percent of the white vote in the south and when it comes to white men,,,well, white men just don''''''''t vote like that.

Posted by Spinster2 at 03:14 AM"

You are a racist. Doesn''''t surprise me based on all your other comments. I''''m white, I''''m from the South and I will vote for Obama.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ontheleft

No, that''s where your wrong. That is simply stating a fact and it''s a racist who reads racial interpertations into everything. That much I know.

[jedi08]

Let me explain why I like Obama and McCain.

They are the only two honest people to select on either side.

Here is a perfect example.

Dem Debate.

Moderator question. "each of you answer this question, please tell me somthing about yourself that is a flaw?

Obama" I have a messy desk that isn''t organized.

Hillary "I have too much passion for bringing about change." hahahahaha

you have to admit that is a perfect political response and she is a perfect political machine and that is why I can''t stand her.

[jedi08]

Obama gets whites in the south, but only the educated ones. To say that someone who is for hillary and white is racist is wrong but when you look at the older people and how they are voting it is sad to see the obvious racism. Its a gererational thing but there is defently a lot of people over 60 who walk around saying I would never vote for a black guy

[spinster2]

The honesty of Obama''s messy desk makes all of wish that we could rise to that level. Who would have thought that a mere mortal could set the bar so high. I''ll have to keep that in mind when someone ask me what my biggest weakness is.

Here''s one just as honest as that. Yesterday, I forgot to take the trash out! There I did it. I feel so much more honest now!

[brianbwb-2009]

"Put your politics aside. Who deserves when looking at what they have done in their life for this country to be president more?" Posted by jedi08

Me.

After me, most other working class Americans. After that, most unemployed Americans. After that, Dennis Kucinich, then Bill Clinton. After that, Barack Obama, Steven Colbert, then Hillary Clinton.

Down the line, after several barnyard animals, reptiles, insects worms, then bacteria, Ebola and AIDs virii, then a Republican.

[spinster2]

Obama gets whites in the south, but only the educated ones. To say that someone who is for hillary and white is racist is wrong but when you look at the older people and how they are voting it is sad to see the obvious racism. Its a gererational thing but there is defently a lot of people over 60 who walk around saying I would never vote for a black guy.

Posted by jedi08

I will not deny that there is a lot of truth to that but there are a lot of other reasons as well. Southerners do not vote in numbers for yankee''s or far left candidates of any color. We learned our lesson with Carter and not many of like Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy. Their just not concerned with the same things that we are.

[spinster2]

Dan Abrams is on CNN right now talking about the media''s downplaying of the Florida Primary.

It reminds me of what I heard on Bill O which was John Kerry called up Kirston Powers and warning her that Hillary was going to make a big deal about winning Florida.

I have never seen the media on both sides snub a canidate like their doing her and I actually think it''s beginning to help her.

[ioweign]

John McCain has more honor and has done more for this country then all the other canadates combind

Posted by jedi08 at 03:45 AM : Jan 31, 2008

Then why are so many of the veterans that were captive at the same time as him against his candidacy ??

[cbs_oliver]

It''s good to see *** Meyer''s dominant sneering right wing side getting out and about in public.

His shtick about being in the middle has been really tiresome.

[tbweb]

tbweb, I think the Clintons have always been important resources for each other, just like many other couples. This does not preclude Hillary from serving in any way. In fact, one could argue that seeking advice is a good thing, ...

Posted by sesanders1 at 03:05 AM : Jan 31, 2008,,,

I disagree! On the campaign trail Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is claiming she is ready to be President on Day 1. How is this possible, based on what? Its based on Hillary''s claim of being a part of a co-Presidency with her husband former 2 term President Bill Clinton! If thats the case then the Clinton''s are in fact violating the "Spirit" of the Law that a President can only serve 2 terms! The Clinton''s can''t have it both ways, either Hillary was serving tea and thus has limited experience or she was co-President and is ready on Day 1 like she claims! If a former co-President like she claims then a third Clinton term is in violation of the Law! I bet the U.S. Supreme Court would agree if they heard the matter based on Sen. Clinton''s public claims of a co-Presidency!

[alanrobisch]

It''''s good to see *** Meyer''''s dominant sneering right wing side getting out and about in public.

His shtick about being in the middle has been really tiresome.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CBS_Oliver at 07:53 AM : Jan 31, 2008

I guess its in the eye of the beholder but he is a liberal through and through. I suspect you don''t like this article because it points out the truth about the clintons. I see no ideology in it just legitimate criticism

[creeper00]

Thanks for helping me make up my mind, Mr. Meyer. I''ve gone from Gore to Richardson to Edwards and am now searching for another candidate.

You''ve just reminded me that the Clintons know how to play hardball. That''s exactly what we need in the White House to undo the travesties of the Bush "administration."

Obama may be blessed with a lot of warm fuzzy characteristics but he doesn''t have the guts Bill and Hillary do. We don''t want to go from a lawless, vindictive president to one who believes "hope" is all we need. Forget bipartisanship. The goalposts have been moved too far right. The bipartisanship Obama touts will leave Republicans firmly in charge, even while they''re a minority.

Thanks again making me think.

[cbs4me3]

Of course it is a legitimate issue. Sooner or later; after, this country has moved ahead, albeit slowly, in granting women the right to vote and granting blacks the right to vote. Yes, progress has been made and society has changed. As a Nation, we are accepting now of things that were once forbid. We have grown as a Nation, and that is a good thing.

[quatrops]

The black electorate has long had a love affair with Bill Clinton. My opinion is that he muddied the waters in order to neutralize the black vote come super-Tuesday - - and it may well work!

I''d like to see some current polls on a Clinton/McCain race. I suspect it will be much closer than most Democrats are comfortable with. Hillary may make a good president, but can she defeat McCain? Democratic voters best give that some thought come 2/5.

Interesting to see alanrobisch declare Meyer''s piece as "not ideological" and that it''s "just criticism". When Meyer is more typically critical of the right, robisch has NEVER viewed him as "fair" or "critical", but as a biased ideologue. C''mon, Alan . . . you can''t have it both ways!

[marcodele]

Good points Creeper. Although I think Obama could be a great president, I don''t think he can survive the Swift Boat party''s ruthless attacks that will surely come. Hillary has already survived every one of them and has been investigated, to the tune of 60 million taxpayer dollars, only to result in no smoking guns. The neocons will seek and destroy whoever runs against them, and I think Hillary could survive that but Obama cannot.

[rowdytexan2]

The Clinton''s were a great team in the 1990''s and together got some great legislation passed that were a huge benefit for the people. And they''ll do it again!

In every presidential term there is good legislation passed and some not so good that has to be repaired later when it doesn''t pan out. They certainly did more good, and they have the ability to push and prod to get it done.

Obama can''t even articulate an intelligent answer on an issue. He just stands there and preaches great words! Words aren''t going to do it!!!! The fact is, we are already a great nation. We don''t need to be CHANGED! We need to FIX what''s already there and restore our Constitution. THEN move on to pass legislation that will restore our government and allow us to regulate the profiteers that are stealing from us! Hillary is already talking about regulating insurance companies to keep them from denying health care...that right there is a total step in the right direction for the people. And she will stop beating the tom toms of war and has pledged to bring our troops home at the first possible moment it is safe to do so.

Go HIllary!!! Keep up the good fight!

[alanrobisch]

When Meyer is more typically critical of the right, robisch has NEVER viewed him as "fair" or "critical", but as a biased ideologue. C''''mon, Alan . . . you can''''t have it both ways!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Quatrops at 10:07 AM : Jan 31, 20

Actually you don''t know me before the comments page I have written e mails to him in which we have concurred on what is right. I may come accross as a rigid ideologue but I am not. I still stand by my comments the criticism of the clinton campaign for their actions in the south carolina campaign came from all sides I have seen criticisms by Maureen Dowd in the NYT who is the liberals liberal and usually beats on bush like a drum. She objected to the clinton''s tactics. this is why I stated that this was not ideology but a fellow liberal critical of the clinton''s behavior. *** Meyers is a liberal no question but despite this it does not rob him of what I see as objective criticism at times

[alanrobisch]

The Clinton''''s were a great team in the 1990''''s and together got some great legislation passed that were a huge benefit for the people. And they''''ll do it again!
Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 10:33 AM : Jan 31, 2008
+ report abuse

I followed the clinton administration closer than any in my lifetime. I am a political junky. PLease tell me what great laws they passed together. We both know they they failed to pass the health bill. we both know they passed a welfare reform that liberals strongly objected to. Otherwise I can remember no great laws passed. Oh maybe you meant the tax increases.

[fralene-2009]

Well said, creeper00. I''m in perfect agreement.

[mudrose-2009]

THAT AIN''T NO GENTLEMAN. THAT''S A PANTS AROUND HIS ANKLES PHILANDERER WHO WILL BE A PREDATOR UNTIL THE DAY HE DIES.

[truthspeake2]

OBAMA 2008...

[one_american]

It is nice to see the liberal press come around to the truth about Bill and Hillary Clinton - that the rest of us knew well before he became president.

There is some evidence now that liberals can, in fact, learn from their mistakes...and the hope is...they won''t continue making the same one again.

[dan9111]

This kind of article is about as relevant as psychic spoonbending or the National Inquirer''s 3-headed aliens.

If you are seriously considering voting for a Democrat, you should first consider that none of them are actually trying to decrease state-sanctioned violence. They will all take more and more of your money and pretend you are thankful to have it used for paying for murder (in Iraq and elsewhere). I am on my hands and knees here begging you to reconsider. We do not have time for another anti-freedom "administration" from either party.

[againdtz]

GROVER CLINTON must be stopped!!

We need to update the Constitution to include spouses and families (no more Bush''s) from running for more than 2 terms as President!!!

[emma915]

It is my hope that after Hillary is elected she will appoint Mr. Clinton to serve as an envoy to the Middle East. I also hope she picks John Edwards to serve as VP. He could put his time into working on all those programs he promised to the workers of America.

[inventagod]

With today''s crop of RepubliCon terrorists, I miss old disgusting sexist throwback Clinton...

At least he knew how to be president.

[notopennshut]

Power for the sake of power is wrong, and that is so evident of the Clintons. Now that Kazakhstan has come into play, let us see how it plays out with the Clintons benefitting millions from this dictator and his most corrupt country. Slum lord? Slum president of Kazakhastan and an ex-president of ????

[pepperp1]

I think we all need to be beware of the Liberal and the Liberal Neo Con Press this same crowd slander GWB opponent and sang his fresh face praise and just like Osama they never examined his record or personal history or doctrine or political patrons.

Hillary is the one running the righteous campaign, what Kennedy Clyburn Kerry and Obama have done is to exploit old identify politics and victimize through what they knew were old group grievance to inflame against not rally for and in so doing they just walked on the graves of the true dead heroes MLK and JFK using their legacy their lives their sacrifice as a weapons a lie against another who Herself has spent a life championing the causes they believed in and it is disgraceful and desperate and wrong. I do not believe for a second either man would be proud to be so violated as pawns in a campaign. Hillary has the honor here; I do not believe for a second that JFK or MLK would be pleased with the manner that they have been used.

SHAME SHAME SHAME