Governor Clinton?

April 14, 2008

A few weeks ago, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter raised the notion of a fallback job for Hillary Clinton, if the whole presidential campaign didn’t quite work out: governor of New York.

Alter’s pitch was sound, if not altogether persuasive, noting that Gov. David Paterson (D) is off to a rough start, and some executive experience in one of the nation’s largest states would “become the prohibitive favorite for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination,” should Barack Obama get the nomination and lose in November. Besides, Alter noted, the Senate may not be as much fun in the future — if Obama wins, she’ll have to carry water for him; if McCain wins, the next four years will be a lot like the last eight, and many of her Democratic colleagues may blame her for helping Republicans keep the White House.

The American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein follows up on this today, and makes an even more compelling case for the idea of a Clinton gubernatorial campaign, arguing that she’s “probably be very good at the job.”

After all, the gradual decline of Clinton’s presidential prospects does not change the fact that she is a singularly hard-working, policy-focused politician — and someone whose skills and star power might be well-suited to shocking Albany’s contentious political culture into submission. […]

Clinton’s combination of peace-making skills, fundraising prowess, and her megaphone to the media once inspired the Prospect’s own Ezra Klein to urge her to pursue the position of Senate majority leader instead of running for president. But as a governor, Clinton would have the opportunity not only to utilize those talents, but also to put her recognized policy wonkery to work, crafting ambitious programs with greater latitude. She could use the expertise she gleaned from her 1993 universal health-care struggle to create what could be the most progressive state health-care system in the country. Granted, the depth of health-care reform available at the state level pales in comparison to what a president can enact working alongside Congress. But if the presidency proves out of reach for her, Clinton’s personality and ambitions may be better suited to the role of executive than that of legislative helpmate.

Perhaps. Clinton is far more of a wonk than she’s generally given credit for, and wonks tend to enjoy crafting policy far more as an executive than as a legislator.

But I still don’t see this happening.

For one thing, assuming things don’t work this year on the presidential campaign trail, Clinton actually has a very good gig right now. She’s a respected senator with great job security — she no doubt takes some comfort in knowing that Republicans in New York will probably never be able to defeat her.

She also is a celebrity senator, which helps advance her policy agenda in unique ways. When Sen. Clinton calls a press conference to announce the introduction of a new piece of legislation that would affect the nation, reporters show up and it’s news everywhere. If Gov. Clinton calls a press conference, it’s only significant in New York.

On a related note, it seems unlikely, but there’s also the chance Clinton could actually lose a gubernatorial race. In a race against Giuliani, Bloomberg, or both, Clinton would be the favorite, but hardly a shoo-in. It’s a “blue” state, but as Pataki can attest, New Yorkers are open to Republican governors. Why take the chance when she has a Senate seat for life?

I’m also not convinced New York Democrats would go along with this idea. Paterson started with some unfortunate controversies, but 2010 is a long way off, and he may yet prove to be a capable governor. If not, I can think of quite a few in-state Dems (cough, Andrew Cuomo, cough) who would fight very hard for the job, whether Clinton were interested or not.

It’s an intriguing idea, but I get the sense Clinton wants to stay in Washington, one way (the White House) or another (the Senate).

Peace-making skills? Fundraising prowess? Haven’t much shown themselves lately, have they? Just saying.

  • Actually, Curmudgeon, while Obama’s fundraising skills have proven to be better, it is hard to say Clinton hasn’t shown skills there lately. In a divided field, she raised significantly more than McCain in the first quarter. Several months in this campaign, Clinton would have set new presidential primary fundraising records for the month — but for the fact that Obama did so instead. Yeah, in the end being “second” in a campaign doesn’t get you much, but being the second best fundraiser is still some pretty serious skills.

  • I’m not sure what to think about Hillary anymore. I still have a great deal of respect for her and Bill, but her campaign has really been rubbing me the wrong way for the past several months now. I don’t know that she would be good in any executive position.

    I’m tempted to give her the benefit of the doubt on that, and if she wins the dem nomination I will definitely vote for her in November. But still…

    …meh.

    That’s my best reaction when it comes to thinking of her as a president or governor. But then, I don’t live in NY, so it’s no skin off my nose if they’re willing to give her the governor’s mansion.

  • Anything but president. If NY wants her, fine. If not, that’s fine too. She can always go duck hunting, but we can talk about that later.

  • While your deep concern and recommendations for job placement are touching — really — her best spot would be as president of the United States.

  • Clinton has a job as Senator, which will be there if she is not the nominee in November, just as Obama’s position will be. She doesn’t need to be Governor. Why is the assumption that she is running for president just to get a paycheck?

    I see this as, at best, a sop to Clinton supporters, not as anything Clinton herself would realistically be interested in. Along the lines of “We offered her Governor and she wouldn’t take it…what more does she want?” When a woman has a legitimate claim on a powerful position, it is common to offer her a lesser, figurative position to buy her off, then make it appear she is unreasonable when she persists in her quest for the substantial, more meaningful position. Women in the real world see this gambit all the time and aren’t fooled by it. It isn’t surprising that few of the male pundits see it for what it is.

  • She can always go duck hunting, but we can talk about that later.

    Although I still like her enough that I would recommend she not do that with Dick Cheney.

  • Only a Clinton troll like Mary would see state governor as a “lesser” or “figurative” position compared to a Senator.

  • Rick (8): You do realize that Majority Leader is not an “I alone” position, don’t you?

  • When a woman has a legitimate claim on a powerful position, it is common to offer her a lesser, figurative position to buy her off, then make it appear she is unreasonable when she persists in her quest for the substantial, more meaningful position. Women in the real world see this gambit all the time and aren’t fooled by it. It isn’t surprising that few of the male pundits see it for what it is.

    No parody could be better than this. This sort of thing is why I find it hard to believe that “Mary” is for real. No one could be this blind to her own issues.

    But just in case you really are a head case instead of a ringer, Mare (pause to sigh patiently): the only “legitimate claim” to the presidency comes with winning the nomination and then the election. What do you have to do to be president? 1) Be at least 35, 2) Be native-born and 3) Get elected. People who lose elections don’t get “bought off”; they get consolation prizes for their failure to win. You are about to find out, with as confused and childisly petulant a look on your face as Bob Dole had on his mug in 1996, that “But it’s my turn!” is a fairly uncompelling case in the eyes of the electorate.

    I would add that if you think being offered a runner-up lesser position happens only to women also-rans, you haven’t been paying attention to politics since you cast your first vote from a Chicago cemetery in 1936. That happens to all political losers, sugar. Frankly, I think the governorship of New York is just about the worst place one could go, given the condition that state government’s in, but if it makes Clinton happy and gets her out of our hair I’m all for it.

  • That’s the attitude you need to push your caucas forward. Harry Reids please don’t hurt me attitude when the repubs pull some stunt is killing us. Hillary can stand up there and tell the minority party to screw and not look bad. Plus the media will give her more attention.

  • She can always go duck hunting, but we can talk about that later.

    Because right now it’s an “irrelevant” issue. Thanks for the smile!

  • It’d be nice. Would love to support Gov. David Paterson (D) in the primary. But does anybody really think Clinton the Clown could win? I don’t see how…

    The Clintons are ruined. They have over-hammed their parts, and bamboozled us with way too much baloney. Their campaign is now a sham of republican talking points. Whom do they think they are playing for patsies? And how long do they think they can keep the crowd suspended on this thin republican gruel before it turns against them once and for all?

    Nope.
    The Clintons have gone the way of sad-sack clowns.
    His blackface in now streaked with lame lies….
    Her thick white mascara hides only some of the bitter wrinkles…

    These people are ruined politically, and they only have themselves to blame. She couldn’t win the NY governorship in 2010. I doubt she will win reelection to the Senate in 2012.

  • Mike Bloomberg would beat Hillary Clinton by 10 percent. She could bear Rudy but wouldn’t stand a chance against Mayor Mike.

  • Actually, Curmudgeon, while Obama’s fundraising skills have proven to be better, it is hard to say Clinton hasn’t shown skills there lately. -Mark Disappearing Ink

    My concern is not with her ability to raise money, but rather her ability to manage it. I wouldn’t want someone who has mangled their campaign finances so badly to be the executive of my state.

  • What a truly vile dispicable person Hillary has become in the last several months. She couldn’t run on her record: too pro-war and too corporate, so she and Bill had to resort to smearing Obama in many different ways. She’s still a Goldwater Girl at heart and a Republican in practice. We have no need of her further corporate presence on the American political stage.

  • Since i do not now, nor will i ever, live in NY i think that’s a fine idea. She’s got my vote. (except that i don’t have one)

  • Shade Tail — you didn’t read closely enough. It is a lesser job to president. Or were you just manufacturing an excuse to insult me again?

  • Maria — on any objective basis Clinton has more qualifications for president than Obama. For one thing, she’s been in the Senate longer (Obama’s only real claim to qualification). Minimal qualifications aren’t enough when our country needs and deserves the best possible leader. That just isn’t Obama. Since Clinton has him beat on paper when it comes to qualifications, all you guys can do is try to knock Clinton down on the basis of subjectivities, such as character. It hasn’t been pretty, but it is at least understandable as the most accessible tactic of the less qualified candidate. That you all seem to buy into his approach is called “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

    Is it remotely possible for you to state your opinions without first wasting a bunch of words calling me names? It doesn’t hurt my feelings much, considering the source, but I wonder why you cannot hold a different view from someone else without hating them so much?

  • Mary, just because a team is better on paper doesn’t mean that they win. (timeout for wiping away the tears that come from watching my Tigers stumble so badly…and they’re one of the best baseball teams – on paper – ever)

    People (not me) elected Bill Clinton…and he didn’t have an real qualifications at the time. George W. Bush didn’t have any actual qualifications. Reagan didn’t have any qualifications. Nor did Wilson, nor a great many other presidents.

    What ‘qualifications’ would make a good president? Since they cannot introduce legislation directly, wonkery isn’t that important. Since they can negotiate treaties, but not ratify them, foreign policy is important but not crucial. Since – theoretically – they cannot launch a war they have very little power. The President of the United States is one step above a figurehead monarch…the president doesn’t have much more than the bully pulpit. The people that the President surrounds him/herself with is the most important thing that they do, and that is very much an issue of character. (eg. loyalty over competence)

    They are supposed to reflect what America is and what it can be; too often, they do just that (witness the last seven years). We don’t need a leader, Mary, we need someone who reminds us that we are the leaders. Our leadership obsession is what has us calling the President “Commander in Chief” all the time.

    And while i admire your optimism, the fact of the matter is that none of these would be leaders will be able to “fix” the fundamental and systemic issues facing us. In fact, doing so would be political suicide. You’re hoping and praying that someone will save you; that someone will do your job for you…it isn’t going to happen.

  • Hillary Clinton has burned a lotta, lotta bridges behind her–hell, she used a flamethrower. So I don’t think she has much of a future in politics, whether she loses to Obama or to McCain.

    And speaking of Clintons, Bill Clinton’s not looking much like a grey eminence anymore, either. He destroyed his own legacy and reputation.

  • Mary: “Shade Tail — you didn’t read closely enough. It is a lesser job to president. Or were you just manufacturing an excuse to insult me again?”

    Mary — I *did* read closely enough and now you’re trying to pretend you didn’t write what you wrote. A futile attempt, since anyone can just scroll right back up to #7 and see it for themselves. I don’t need to manufacture an excuse to insult you; I don’t need to insult you at all. The truth talks for me.

  • Don’t foist her off on us.

    I’m a New Yorker, and I somewhat reluctantly voted for this carpetbagging (no offense) corporate pseudo-Democrat in 2000 solely because I figured her election would upset the worst people in the country who’d spent the previous eight years trying to ruin the Clintons. By 2006, after her despicable “I CAN HAZ LOOK TUFF BY VOTING FOR WARZ AND AGAINST THE POORZ” first six years, I’d learned my lesson and voted third party. That those same awful people–Scaife, Norquist, Kristol–are now her bestest buds shows the moral void of Sen. Clinton more eloquently than anything else could.

    Whether it’s Patterson, about whom I have no strong view yet, or Bloomberg, who’s been a fantastic mayor and whose political/governance style is the polar opposite of Clinton/Bush bullshit, I’ll be all-in for her opponent. And in 2012, we’ll do everything we can to send Her Majesty home in the primary. Maybe Wal-Mart’s board will take her back.

  • Good grief! I was gonna do an imitation of Insane Fake Prof, and Mary (@7) beat me to it, almost word by word! She’s her own worst parodist.

    Mark Disappearing Ink, @9,

    Scalia? We could use a replacement for him, once a Dem’s in the White House, with nominating powers.

    And I agree with doubtful, @18; her prowess at raising money from her corporate buddies *is* formidable but I still wouldn’t want her in charge of the country’s budget, if she can’t manage the smaller one of the campaign. How many of the “normal people” would get shafted — as they’re being shafted now — just on a larger scale, and because she needs to pay back the big people (like Mark Penn)?

    Also… As Mary so rightly points out, a Governor is a lesser job, with a narrower field of influence. Would the same donors deliver the same kind of money, knowing that their payback would be of a limited value?

  • I wonder why you cannot hold a different view from someone else without hating them so much?

    Nah, you don’t wonder anything. Wondering involves intellectual curiosity, rationality, interest in someone besides yourself, genuine desire to learn something, the ability to be corrected…and the capacity to understand that when someone fails to respect you, it might just mean the problem is with your conduct. Especially if it keeps happening as constantly as it does to you, huh?

    Skipping over your wildly circumscribed (and constantly shifting) description of presidential qualifications as limited only to those you think Obama lacks and Clinton might convince someone she has, I shall remind you again: All Clinton has to do to become president is convince enough people to vote for her. She hasn’t, she isn’t, she won’t. It’s called democracy and it can be very inconvenient to people who think they’re owed office, but the rest of us kind of like it.

  • And speaking of Clintons, Bill Clinton’s not looking much like a grey eminence anymore, either. He destroyed his own legacy and reputation.

    I don’t know that he’s destroyed it–I suspect it will bounce back over time–but he has certainly done some major short-term and possibly long-term damage to it, as the polls show. It’s awful to watch how badly people can behave when they think they’re entitled to something and don’t get it. He often sounds like a child warming up for a temper tantrum after Mom won’t buy him the toy he’s so sure he deserves.

    One of the ickiest things about this whole primary season is watching how people with major control issues–from Bill and Hillary Clinton to the most out-there supporters like Mary–react when they find they don’t have control. When a familiar situation or set of facts (“Clinton is the front runner,” “No Democrat can beat Clinton for the nomination,” “the Clintons will return to the White House,” etc.) changes, these people’s reaction is first bewilderment and inability to understand, then denial and, increasingly, rage and bitterness accompanied by a great sense of injustice and victimhood. The circumstantial furniture has been moved and they simply cannot cope with the new paradigm.

    You’d think this extreme reaction would be limited to those whose political careers will be ending as a result of the Clintons’ and the DLC’s downfall, but some of Clinton’s supporters have their own sense of identity so tightly tied up with her winning–there’s that control thing again–that their own desperation to pretend this isn’t happening matches Clinton’s.

  • Elizabeth Drew once characterized Bill Clinton as the boy who wanted to grow up to be President, but never quite grew up.

    • Comments are closed.