Below are the most germane sections Eugene Robinson's op-ed. Hillary and Bill would certainly have to answer Robinson's questions eventually and try to put them to rest. The question is, would Clinton haters believe and accept their answers? And how much distracting noise would be made, and political damage be done, in the the meantime?
Fair or unfair, Hillary Clinton's nomination would initiate an exhumation and post mortem of the Bill Clinton years. Her campaign wouldn't be a debate about the future, but rather a constant defensive reaction to her critics' re-hashing arguments and scandals from the past. And meanwhile, the real tragedy of 8 years of Bush-Republican rule would be set to one side. Do we really want that?
Contrast that with an Obama nomination. We'd leave all that Clinton junk behind us. We'd be hopeful for real change. And Obama would have the moral authority to take on Bush's record and offer us something better.
The Baggage Hillary Bears
By Eugene Robinson
February 5, 2008 | Washington Post
[...]
That's the unfair part -- mostly unfair, at least. There's no way that Hillary Clinton would go to the considerable trouble of running for president in order to let her husband make the decisions, as if the Clinton marriage were out of a 1950s sitcom. Hillary has her people -- longtime friends, supporters, aides -- just as Bill has his. If she made it to the White House, her people would be the ones with real power; if his people didn't like it, there wouldn't be much they could do but grumble.
But Hillary Clinton opens the door to all the questions and suspicions about Bill's role. Has she made a single campaign appearance without claiming that "for 35 years" she's been fighting for this, that or the other?
"When she tries to portray herself as a battle-scarred political veteran and Obama as an ingenue, she counts the years she spent as first lady in Little Rock and Washington. When she adds the policy successes of the 1990s (but not the failures) to her résumé, she implies that she was part of a co-presidency. It's legitimate to ask whether she intends to be part of another.
[...]
Questions about Hillary's role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill's business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary.
Why won't the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what -- other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit -- did they hope to get out of the exercise?
Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary's foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation's priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check?
Fair or unfair, Hillary Clinton's nomination would initiate an exhumation and post mortem of the Bill Clinton years. Her campaign wouldn't be a debate about the future, but rather a constant defensive reaction to her critics' re-hashing arguments and scandals from the past. And meanwhile, the real tragedy of 8 years of Bush-Republican rule would be set to one side. Do we really want that?
Contrast that with an Obama nomination. We'd leave all that Clinton junk behind us. We'd be hopeful for real change. And Obama would have the moral authority to take on Bush's record and offer us something better.
The Baggage Hillary Bears
By Eugene Robinson
February 5, 2008 | Washington Post
[...]
That's the unfair part -- mostly unfair, at least. There's no way that Hillary Clinton would go to the considerable trouble of running for president in order to let her husband make the decisions, as if the Clinton marriage were out of a 1950s sitcom. Hillary has her people -- longtime friends, supporters, aides -- just as Bill has his. If she made it to the White House, her people would be the ones with real power; if his people didn't like it, there wouldn't be much they could do but grumble.
But Hillary Clinton opens the door to all the questions and suspicions about Bill's role. Has she made a single campaign appearance without claiming that "for 35 years" she's been fighting for this, that or the other?
"When she tries to portray herself as a battle-scarred political veteran and Obama as an ingenue, she counts the years she spent as first lady in Little Rock and Washington. When she adds the policy successes of the 1990s (but not the failures) to her résumé, she implies that she was part of a co-presidency. It's legitimate to ask whether she intends to be part of another.
[...]
Questions about Hillary's role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill's business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary.
Why won't the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what -- other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit -- did they hope to get out of the exercise?
Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary's foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation's priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check?
No comments:
Post a Comment