Will Hillary ever get to run for president in her own right? The scary noun of the past week is “co-presidency”. Bill is not really helping with that impression as he chews the scenery, sometimes slipping into speaking about the presidential race in the first-person.
Thing is, I think this may be the moment for her. I should be clear. I am totally undecided on who I personally will vote for. But let’s look at candidate Clinton. She has a lot on the ball. A quick tally:
- Long-time activist
- One-time Republican — adds to the centrist credentials
- Spent a total of twelve years in the Arkansas governor’s mansion
- Spent eight years getting battle-hardened in the environment of a White House that was under siege, sometimes justifiably. She should have fairly thick skin by now.
- Worked as a policy-maker on the health insurance issues. Made mistakes. But that actually adds to the experience quotient.
- Spent the last eight years as a law maker
I actually find the term “co-presidency” a bit ironic. It was a criticism applied to Bill Clinton’s administration once it became clear that Hillary was no wallflower first lady. There were murmurs then of a two-for-one package and complaints that she was not the one elected president and that she had too much influence.
I have had my own misgivings about Hillary. For one thing, we are facing the distinct possibility of the dynastic presence of a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 28 years. Then, after two Billary terms, Jeb Bush could always jump in. Eight years after that Chelsea would be ready to go. My grown and married kids (born starting in 1980) have already never known a time when there was not a Bush or a Clinton in the White House or Number One Observatory Circle (the Vice President’s residence at the Naval Observatory). Their kids could grow up thinking that “Bush” and “Clinton” are honorifics that are used interchangeably with President.Â
However, this race is about who is qualified to lead this country regardless of the last name. I have been impressed with Hillary in the debates. While the other candidates often strummed the single string on their stick-to-the-message guitars, Hillary would give bigger picture answers. For example, in the ABC debates, the candidates were asked about their stand on pulling the troops from Iraq… with predictable results. Each candidate parroted the standard script. Then Hillary laid it out: we can’t just leave precipitously because:
- We have thousands (I think I heard 100,000 but can’t verify it) of civilians from various nations over there rebuilding the country.
- Many Iraqis work with us as translators, guides, informers on insurgents and in other ways that could invite retribution from those that consider them collaborators.
I think she made a couple of other intelligent points. But there were several issues like this where she demonstrated a grasp of the big picture complexities, where emotion-based decisions could create disastrous consequences. I was also impressed when she finally responded to the double-teaming of Obama and Edwards. I respected her somewhat annoyed response that she didn’t just talk about change, she had been actively doing it for 35 years, even acknowledging that she had pushed a bit too hard for change in health-care such that she had not been able to make it happen 15 years ago. But she said she had learned some lessons in the process. And I believe she has.
Her initial support of the war and her unwillingness to completely disavow that decision has hurt her with many voters. But I remember the day Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations. I had been uneasy about the prospect of losing our focus in Afghanistan. Though I was irritated at Saddam, I figured we were too thin on the ground and the economy needed some time and distance from 9/11.
It has been six and a half years. But remember what it was like right after 9/11? In fact, it wasn’t just 9/11. The anthrax attacks happened almost immediately afterward, placing a magnifying glass on the threat of biological weapons. That coupled with the fact that Saddam was known to have used such weapons on the Kurds made the notion of a preemptive strike much more palatable to a lot of Americans in the patriotic fervor following 9/11.
I suppose we should consider electing a psychic president. Edwards recanted his vote for the war. Obama says he was always against it but he was in no position to vote because he was not in the Senate at the time. Considering that the target of the anthrax attacks was civilian legislators, candidates who are staunchly anti-war now may have been a little less adamant about their opposition at the time. After all, the vote passed both houses with an overwhelming majority.
I think it’s clear now that some in the Administration engineered the selective focus on intelligence to support a predetermined course toward war. A lot of smart people were fooled. Everybody (well, almost) wants the troops to come home. We want to get on with being a peaceful economic engine with friendly ties to other countries.  I still respect the fact that sometimes we do have to show our teeth and I think that is one reason that Hillary refused to join Edwards in stating flat out that the war votes were a mistake. Given the facts presented and without the benefit of seeing how it all turned out she might have made the same decision. I very much respect that. The next president should not be so gun-shy that we get bullied. It’s a balancing act.
Hindsight is for historians. Foresight is what makes presidents great. I am not sure I see a “great” president in this field. But I do feel like there are some qualified candidates on both sides of the aisle. Hillary has been in the environment of governance for nearly 30 years and not as an idle bystander. That counts for a lot. If she has a voice of experience whispering in her ear is that really so bad? Her husband had one.
