This item from The Onion is obviously a parody, but as Homer Simpson once said, “It’s funny ’cause it’s true.”
After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he “could no longer resist the urge.”
“My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president,” said Clinton, introducing his wife at a “Hillary ’08” rally. “For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to.”
He continued, “It is with a great sense of relief that I say to all of you today, ‘Screw it. I’m in.'” […]
While the announcement has come as a surprise to many, Beltway observers said it was not completely unexpected, citing footage from a recent Democratic debate that showed Clinton fidgeting in his seat, gripping the arms of his chair, and repeatedly glancing at all the television cameras while rapidly tapping his right foot. Analysts also noted one debate in which Clinton mouthed responses to all the moderator’s questions while making hand gestures to himself.
Now, this item is just poking fun, so it can brush past that pesky 22nd Amendment, but it obviously touches on a genuine phenomenon. At this week’s debate, Barack Obama mentioned, “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.” The audience applauded because they knew exactly what he meant.
Indeed, Dana Milbank noted today that, campaigning in South Carolina, Bill Clinton keeps slipping into first-person testimonials: “Along the way, [the former president] often sounds as if he’s campaigning for a third term. Here in Aiken, he tried mightily to talk about Hillary, but he kept lapsing into the first person: ‘My position on that is simple. . . . When I was in law school. . . . When I was president. . . . When I was governor of Arkansas. . . . When I started this schools program. . . . I made the governor of South Carolina secretary of education. . . . I got a Mercury mini-SUV.'”
We can look at this from a couple of different angles, but here’s my question: wasn’t the Clinton campaign aiming to do the exact opposite as recently as a couple of weeks ago?
I don’t doubt some will disagree with this, but my sense is that the Clinton campaign, for the better part of 2007, was about “restoration.” When Hillary Clinton was asked about having two families dominate national politics for three consecutive decades, she’d always respond by pointing out what a good president her husband was. The point wasn’t subtle — if you liked how things were in the 1990s, just vote for another Clinton presidency.
Before the Iowa caucuses, this led to what I saw as a deliberate strategy. Who did Iowans see a lot of? Bill Clinton (President in the ’90s), Madeline Albright (Secretary of State in the ’90s), Wesley Clark (NATO commander in the ’90s), and Dick Gephardt (Democratic House Leader in the ’90s).
Then, of course, Clinton came in third in Iowa, and things looked bleak in New Hampshire. All of a sudden, it dawned on people — in a race between the future and the past, the future usually wins.
I’m reminded of this NYT piece, which ran on Jan. 5.
Some advisers say that the campaign miscalculated in having Mr. Clinton play such a public role, that Mrs. Clinton could not effectively position herself as a change agent, the profile du jour for Democrats, so long as he stood as a reminder that her presidency would be much like his. Other advisers say that Mr. Obama now owns the “change” mantra and that Mrs. Clinton needs a Plan B.
“Hillary says she’ll change things, but then voters see Bill and hear them talk about the 1990s, and it’s clear that the Clintons are not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2,” said one veteran adviser to both Clintons. “That won’t win.”
Have you noticed that none of this seems to apply anymore? Bill Clinton is now dominating the landscape, “change” is no longer a buzz-word, and the campaign is all-too-pleased to play up the notion of a Clinton “restoration,” based on the belief that most Americans would be quite pleased to return to the 1990s.
It’s funny what a couple of weeks will bring to the campaign.