Geoffrey Wheatcroft: The Clinton bubble has burst, and not before time (The Independent)

[arenean]

The Clinton bubble has burst, and not before time

At last the Clinton bubble has burst. Her sheer fraudulence has finally registered while the Democratic party, in the words of the columnist Michael Kinsley, has "turned on Bill Clinton with the ferocity of 16 years of pent-up resentments". The surprise is that it took so long. President Clinton's career was an imposture, concealed by partisanship. Even now liberals seem unable to grasp what serious historians on the left have written: Nixon's administration was markedly more progressive in domestic politics than Clinton's, whose main legacy was its assault on the welfare system.

Critics of Hillary have been accused of misogyny, yet the feminist boot is truly on the other foot. Clinton is an affront to feminism. Hers would not be a victory for sexual equality but a throwback to the dynastic politics of the ancien régime, or to Third World nepotism. Hillary resembles not Golda Meir and Angela Merkel but the queen who expects to succeed her husband the king, or those female leaders in the Philippines, Pakistan and Argentina who have followed husbands or fathers to power. Every American knows that Hillary is where she is because she is her husband's wife. Eight years ago, she turned up in New York, a state with which she had almost no connection, expecting to be made senator by acclamation.

At that time she had never run for, let alone won, a seat. The only political job ever entrusted to her was her husband's healthcare reform, and she made a complete hash of that. For all her claque of admirers (and they include some pretty obnoxious people), Hillary has always been the less impressive the harder you look: "the most plodding and expedient politician in America", as the Washington journalist Leon Wieseltier puts it. Think of the way she voted for the Iraq war and, worse, her subsequent attempts to wriggle out of that disastrous decision. Her claim to be more "experienced" than Obama is ludicrous. In the words of Dick Morris, Bill's sometime campaign manager, it only highlights the fact "that Hillary's experience is derivative of Bill's and her claims to his achievements are largely invented and spurious". Hillary's greatest achievement has been putting up with her husband. It's no wonder that her core constituency has been betrayed and embittered women of her own age.

[saltpoint]

1. A scorcher of a piece.

Sixteen more states/territories are yet to vote and there are in the history of events a lot of unexpected and out-of-the-blue developments that change things quickly and permanently. So her campaign cannot be counted out of those considerations.

On the author's points, I feel that Clinton would have been a far stronger candidate if she had hired strategists who were vehemnetly unaffiliated with her husband, and had asked Bill to just sit this one out until the general. Removed from the context of her husband, HClinton is a far more appealing candidate personally.

Politically, I have not been impressed with her blurry positions but have been even less impressed with any of the media's efforts to draw poisition responses from our candidates.

[ljm2002]

5. While I do not like Hillary much as a candidate...

...(ditto Barack)... I found that the following quote just jumped out at me, and caused me to dismiss the whole piece:

"...her core constituency has been betrayed and embittered women of her own age."

Oh. Really.

Now if he had said, "...her core constituency has been women of her own age" -- who could argue?

He had to add "betrayed and embittered".

As a woman in that age group, I found that turn of phrase deeply offensive. As if 50-something women are by definition betrayed and embittered. And as if only betrayed and embittered women could relate to Clinton. And as if her supporters had no policy issues they were drawn to.

So anyway, I re-read the article. Noted the claim that "everyone knows" she rode her husband's coattails into the Senate. Apparently saying this allows them to stuff all of her accomplishments over to the side, as not "legitimate". Never mind that she did have to win an ELECTION to get into the Senate. He also says that Bill is "offering the U.S. Presidency" as payback to Hillary for his transgressions. As if he had that power...

Ultimately, this article is just typical sexist claptrap.

[krkaufman]

7. Yeah, the author jumps all over the place and is over harsh ...

... and *does* border on sexist. The few grains of truth in the commentary are vastly overshadowed by the bile.

(This is the sort of stuff that makes even anti-Hillary folk empathize with her.)

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Patently Unfair

I disagree strongly that Bill Clinton's "main legacy was its assault on the welfare system". The author has conveniently forgotten outsourced jobs and outsourced torture.

[thereismore]

3. Does even she deserve it? nt

Leave Hillary alone!! :evilgrin:

[Demeter]

4. Bill Clinton's Legacy Is a Mixed Blessing

He left the country in such good shape economically, that it's taken W 7 full years to bring the place crashing down. On the other hand, Clinton pulled a lot of the safety net out from under us all, so that when W brings the whole thing crashing down, more people get hurt more badly. The only silver lining I can see is that this time, the wealthy are gonna really feel it, and not just in the wallet.

[katty]

6. consider the source(writer) a snooty, hit piece basically

stating that Hillary is ONLY where she is today because of Bill Clinton, really? I would venture to say that Bill attained the WH largely due to the influence and efforts of his extremely smart and ambitious wife. Master Geoffrey whines like a classic prigish bore.