Frank Rich’s column in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times gets to the core of why a large number of Democrats are concerned with the potential Hillary Clinton candidacy, especially if he ends up facing off against Sen. John McCain.
His point is that the “two for the price of one” that a Hillary Clinton candidacy implies — her 35 years of experience schpiel only makes sense if her years as first lady are included as a prime component, which begs the question of why the former president would play any less of a role in her White House than she says she played in his — will inject the fall campaign (which will start well before the conventions should she distance herself from Barack Obama next week) with all of the baggage that the former president carries.
And Rich is not talking about Monica Lewinksy and the rabid hatred on the right of the Clintons, though that will be a factor. Rich points to something else — Bill Clinton’s post-presidential activities.
Yes, Clinton has seemed a positive force, working with the senior George Bush to raise money for a number of causes. But we shouldn’t let that overshadow the more questionable activities:
To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.
Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.
The question of who has contributed are important because they can be viewed as an effort on the part of contributors to skirt campaign-finance rules and win influence via other means.
The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.
Rich goes on about this and other matters, including the contrast between Clinton and McCain, a contrast that strips Clinton of the central plank of her campaign — her experience. In fact, the intersection of change and experience that she has lately been touting will not play against McCain, who can offer the same argument — along with his (undeserved) reputation for independence.
Democrats, who have been so concerned about electability (overly concerned, I’d say), really need to consider how a so-called Billary candidacy will play in the fall. This is not about a woman candidate, but about this candidate and whether the country is ready for a reprise of the Clinton years.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 