The saddest thing about this campaign in some ways is how it has exposed the fallacy of the idea that Hillary Clinton had emerged from her husband’s shadow and was presenting herself as an individual candidate, fighting on her own merits and for her own self. Gail Collins had a must-read this morning. Money quote:
The implicit promise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy was that she had learned from Clinton I. In her, Americans would have a candidate who had been in the very center of White House decision-making. And the very fact that so much had gone wrong was added value. She is nothing if not a good learner, and — the story went — she had discovered at great price where all the landmines lay, both in the presidency and her own character. And she had forged a separate political identity in seven years in the Senate. During an era when the challenges to a new president could be sudden and overwhelming — and here Hillary isn’t ashamed to play the terror card — she was uniquely prepared to hit the ground running and achieve the greatest do-over in American history.
Now, Bill’s role as Chief Attack Dog undermines all that. If he’s all over her campaign, he’s going to be all over her administration. Instead of the original promise of the thoroughly educated Hillary, we’re being offered the worst-case scenario — that the pair of them are going to return to Pennsylvania Avenue and recreate the old Clinton chaos.
Dynasties and psycho-dramas go together. And the times are too dangerous to roll the dice on this dysfunctional couple as the world’s joint leaders again. With 300 million Americans, we really have to reward someone who has already had eight years in the White House with eight more years? To replicate the same patterns?
The Dish 