Sympathy For the Clintons

Bill Clinton has not distinguished himself during this campaign, to put it mildly, but this passage from yesterday's Post - flagged by Michael Crowley - seems like it ought to inspire empathy rather than eye-rolling.

Another member of the inner circle described Bill Clinton as coming "unhinged" in the final hours, raising his voice in phone calls with superdelegates, constantly revisiting his wife's options for staying in the race. "He keeps asking me, 'What about so-and-so? What about so-and-so?' " the supporter recalled, saying the former president wanted constant updates on superdelegate moves.

I like to think that if my wife were on the verge of being eliminated from a Presidential primary campaign that she'd very nearly won, I'd be "constantly revisiting" her options, demanding "constant updates" on her chances, and maybe even raising my voice from time to time. That doesn't sound like a man coming "unhinged"; that sounds like a man who has his priorities in order.

Comments

As always, I'm sure one had to be there, as it depends completely on the tone. If it's Bill sitting at a conference table in campaign headquarters, saying "Now, let's run down the list of our supporters in Congress - where do we think they are at this point?", then no, he's not "unhinged", and you're right. If it's Bill running through the hallways, grabbing people by the arm and getting all red in the face as he wags his finger, using some choice language to describe supporters that were moving over to support Obama, then he'd be a bit unhinged. But neither of us were there, so we don't know.

In fairness, I heard the audio of his "rant" about that Vanity Fair reporter, and I wish I could stay that calm when I was pissed off. He used some rough language to be sure (I swear like a sailor myself), and was probably all red in the face, but he wasn't shouting or even really raising his voice.

Then again, he's got a reputation for having a temper for a reason, and it's not just people wanting to beat up on the Clintons (Bush is the worst president in modern times, but his opponents don't attack him for his temper, so it's not like that's some standard poke at unpopular political figures). And once one has that reputation for justifiable reasons, one has less leeway in the future... that's just how it is.

Posted by TH | June 6, 2008 10:10 AM

Funny title. And TH is right-- who knows what it felt like for the superdelegates on the other end of the line.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 6, 2008 10:14 AM

Disagree violently with Ross. If Bill had any sense, he'd have understood the writing on the wall right after Texas, where Obama actually snatched delegates from the jaws of defeat and opened a race-ending lead per the only metric that counts.
Just the gossipy side of me: I'd like to know more about the Clayburn call, and how much of the "Judas" comment on Richardson can be traced back to Bill.

Posted by math major | June 6, 2008 10:35 AM

That doesn't sound like a man coming "unhinged"; that sounds like a man who has his priorities in order.

And I'm sure you mean by this, fighting for his last chance to restore a Clinton to the White House so that he can massage his own checkered legacy by proxy.

Posted by Bill | June 6, 2008 11:23 AM

ah, Ross. last in line for the Great 2008 Republican Clenis-Fluff.

Posted by dgj | June 6, 2008 11:59 AM

He either really loves his wife or really loves power...or both.

To me, one of the least explored powerful reasons for HRC's loss is just people's sense of simple democratic fairness. The Clintons already had 8 years in the White House. Why shouldn't that be enough for any power couple in a huge democracy? And if it's not enough, shouldn't said couple make a damn good case to the public exactly why it's not?

It was odd that the Clintons never presented that case in any meaningful way. Hillary was too busy taking credit for their successes and dodging blame for their failures to present a coherent account of what it is exactly she did during Bill's presidency. I think this was one instance where the Clintons' short-term survival instincts did long-term harm. People really do want to know why you're running for president besides simple lust for power. "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush" isn't remotely compelling.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 6, 2008 11:08 PM

Whether "constantly revisiting your options" is viewed as reasonable or "unhinged" behavior depends on two things: [a] what your priorities are and [b] what options you are willing to consider.

If your main priority appears to be personal power at all costs, and some of the options you are willing to consider seem rather disreputable, it's understandable that people who once viewed you with great respect may conclude that you are coming "unhinged".

Posted by MandyW | June 7, 2008 9:47 AM