![]() |
|
February 24, 2008
So far in the campaign, Barack Obama has generally refrained from going after the most critical weakness of Hillary Clinton's candidacy: the fact that the Clinton whom Democrats really like is Bill, while Hillary, who now presents herself as the voice of experience, got most of that experience as First Lady, first of Arkansas, then of the United States. Until now, no one has ever suggested that being married to a former President constituted a qualification for the office. Today, Obama took the gloves off. He attacked Hillary's support for NAFTA, and Hillary responded by trying to distance herself from her husband's policy during the 1990s. Obama finally called Hillary on the fundamental contradiction of her candidacy: Sen. Barack Obama said today Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton presents herself as if she was "co-president" from 1993 to 2000. That's exactly right. Hillary's candidacy has always relied largely, but usually implicitly, on claiming credit for her husband's presidency. Her campaign's response to Obama admitted, however, that she can't make her claim to a "co-presidency" explicit: Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson responded to the co-president remark on a conference call later: "I don't accept that charge." Which, really, pleads guilty to Obama's charge: that Hillary selectively takes credit for whatever aspects of her husband's presidency are now politically helpful, on the theory that she wasn't "just" a First Lady, but rather a "key and valued adviser." The Clintons were never really able to solve the central dilemma of their campaign: who is the candidate here, Bill or Hillary? It's true, as Mark Steyn says, that Hillary represents the Clintons with their pants on. In another sense, though, when she talks about her experience, she is the empress who isn't wearing any clothes. Obama's willingness to point this out, however gently, is another nail in Hillary's coffin. To comment on this post, go here. |