Hillary Clinton’s ‘baggage’

January 25, 2007

U.S. News’ Paul Bedard highlighted a political cartoon yesterday from Paul Combs, a syndicated cartoonist, who drew a piece arguing that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is burdened by “baggage.”

You can take a look at the cartoon for yourself (cartoonists generally get upset about republishing without permission, so I won’t include it here), but it shows HRC literally shouldering the load of Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and former President Bill Clinton. It’s just a cartoon, so I’m hesitant to take it too seriously, but Combs’ piece highlights a common argument: HRC will struggle in a presidential campaign because of alleged “baggage” that the other candidates don’t have to worry about.

I’ll gladly concede that HRC’s presidential campaign will have to clear a variety of major and legitimate hurdles, but this notion of “baggage” is kind of silly. Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate were entirely vacuous; even Ken Starr couldn’t find any wrongdoing (and he was really looking for some at the time).

But I was particularly struck by the notion that Bill Clinton is a political burden on the senator. Combs may not have seen it, but the latest Washington Post poll, released earlier this week, asked respondents whether they have favorable or unfavorable opinions of a variety of national political figures. Bill Clinton had a 61% favorable rating, making him the most popular figure in the WaPo poll. Indeed, Bill Clinton’s popularity hasn’t been this high since his 1993 inauguration.

The longer Bush stays in office, and the more Bill Clinton uses his post-presidency to do good work here and around the globe, the more the former president’s popularity soars. By contrast, Bush’s favorable ratings are in the high 30s. Bill Clinton hasn’t quite doubled Bush’s popularity, but he’s getting there.

Maybe I’m misreading the political landscape, but doesn’t Bill Clinton help Hillary Clinton? Isn’t the fact that HRC is considered a leading presidential candidate due in part to the fact that Americans look back at the 1990s and think, “If we could get back to that kind of peace and prosperity, the country would be back on track”?

It seems to me most candidates would be lucky to have this kind of “baggage.”

People I know who were “Clinton haers” (I was a Clinton disliker by the end) have changed their opinion as they realize there really was an alternative to Bill that was much, much worse. That and he really is doing good in post-President activities. I think he’ll help her. Plus his advice has to be really good.

  • A lot of what we’re seeing about HRC is just parrotting of the conventional wisdom on her. People don’t think she has baggage because they genuinely think that White Water and all the other mess has any political potency anymore. They think she has baggage because everyone else is saying that they think she has baggage. People think she is unelectable because everyone else is saying that they think she is unelectable.

  • I think the biggest burden is the notion of a dynasty, that the only way to get rid of the Bush gang is to bring in the Clinton gang. I don’t care for gangs in a democracy. There’s too much at stake.

  • If he Dems fight the right wing media like Obama, then by the end of the primaries Hillary will be a lot better off in terms of the media smears and assumptions. Hopefully this will be the election cycle in which Fox and the RWNM will be called out and exposed.

  • I will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. If it is Hillary, I’ll feel better doing it because of Bill. She should run on the “Two for the Price of One” platform like he did. Bill Clinton was the best president in modern history.

    That said- I’m still holding out hope for Albert Arnold Gore Junior to run.

  • My feelings about a dynasty is that one, there should have been a Gore in 2000 and two, they should have thought of that before Bush. And one Bush mediocre term and two disastrous Bush terms compared to one excellent Clinton term, doesn’t argue against another Clinton term.

  • Clinton has baggage but Combs cartoon is the equivalent of an airline mixup.

    Her failed health care initiative will follow her, as will her calculated political moves (her initial stand on the war and subsequent equivocating, moving to NY to run in a race she thought she could win, etc.) and her ambition and arrogance (two for the price of one comments in 92).

    Oddly, I think her comments in the 92 campaign about not staying home making cookies and Tammy Wynette (standing by her man) will rise again as proof of her hatred for traditional women’s roles. The O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter crowd hates feminism and that will resonate among social conservatives.

  • The more important comparison to answer the question would be HRC’s favorables compared to Bill’s. If Bill’s are lower than Hill’s, he would appear to be a drag on her numbers. If Bill’s are higher than Hill’s (which I strongly suspect is the case) he is an asset, not baggage. seems pretty simple (and likely pretty contrary to conventional wisdom).

  • Baggage? Let’s look at McCain, Guliani, Romney, et al and see if we see any “baggage”. Everyone who is in position to make a serious run at the WH will have bagage it is just a matter of how the campaign addresses it. Hillary has been called one of the most famous people that the public knows nothing about. If managed correctly, I see HRC doing fine.

    All the Ken Starr crap can be dismissed with a simple 1 – 2. 1) The Clintons were exonorated on all charges after the most exhaustive investigation into a sitting president ever and 2) The GOP is living in the past and HRC has a vision for the future. Done and done.

    Hillary will present herself as a Presidential canidiate, not as first lady, and not as a Senate candidate.

  • Haik, so . . . . you will vote for the democratic nominee “regardless of who it is.” How irresponsible!

  • There is still a lot of people (Republicans, primarily, but Libertarians as well) who absolutely hate the Clintons, for the sole “reason” that they hate the Clintons. When you tell them how popular Bill Clinton is, and was, their heads almost explode. They start spewing crap about how the media is skewing the polls etc. It’s quite a spectacle.

  • This is a great post as followup to the previous one regarding the nutjob media (AKA the “conservative media.” Ha, sure..).
    HRC has issues, sure. The “baggage” part is and has been imposed upon us by the nutjobs, and the failure of the MSM to call them out. Al Gore and John Kerry got the same treatment. And if Rupert Murdock has his way, the same will happen to the next Dem Presidential candidate.

  • Bill is baggage only with a certain group – Republicans and some Independents. Some of them will never vote for a Democrat no matter the name while some may not vote for her because of Bill but I would hazard a guess that many of these aren’t likely to vote for a Democrat anyway.

    Saying I wouldn’t vote for Hillary in a primary but may feel forced to in the General Election and I would never give her money. The though of a General Election where she is the nominee makes me want to hide under the bed and wimper. For me I guess there is a bit of baggage but it isn’t Bill per se, but just thought of the nasty campaign that is sure to follow.

  • A husband is understandable baggage. But I think the Clinton duo has Bush baggage too. They have been a little too close to the Bushes as if there is a little agreement there. At one time, she called little Georgie “charming and charismatic”. Hillary’s baggage for me is her stance on the Iraq, a fatal character flaw in never being able to admit one is wrong, her lack of interest in the people who traditionally form the base of the Democratic party, yes, her manipulation and triangulation, my uncertainty that she is not behind the attacks on Dean, Obama and Edwards, her having the 527 media on her side and cold-blooded carpetbagging to reach the presidency through New York. . . I would not vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate. I would just leave that part of the ballot blank.

  • I don’t think the baggage is so much Bill as it is the Clinton name.

    Talk about the right getting the base fired up. I honestly do not see her winning, I hope we can find a candidate that is a) not a Clinton, b) not a woman, and c) not black.

    Why, because any one or combination of those factors gets people out to vote, not for a candidate, but against a candidate. They might poll well, but when it comes to actually voting, not so much.

    I’m not a big Hillary fan, but I do like Obama, but so what, I am not your average voter and in crackerville USA, a black man is not going to win. And when we talk about the reality based community, we need to remember the reality of this country and the reality is a woman or a black man are not going to be the president anytime soon.

  • I couldn’t agree more, Steve. Hillary will have a lot of issues to overcome, but the notion that being married to Bill Clinton is somehow a liability is ludicrous. Bill is one of her primary assets.

  • I think Bill is more baggage than asset for a number of reasons that haven’t been mentioned so far.

    1. She’s not as good a speaker nor as good a mass media candidate as he is, so she will constantly be in his shadow.

    2. Any (married) female presidential candidate suffers from the perception that her husband will be the one really calling the shots, but this problem is much much worse for HRC.

    3. What does he do during her campaign? For any other candidate, having Bill Clinton campaign for you is wonderful, but for her it reinforces the two problems above. But if he’s not out there, that raises other questions.

    4. Their relationship with each other becomes news again — even if there isn’t anything really new to talk about — and most of the narratives that go along with that story are not good for her.

    Plus, I agree that the whole dynasty thing is a problem.

  • With respect, you guys are taking the wrong approach to the cartoonist’s contention: you’re thinking about it rationally.

    In retrospect, I think Clinton was probably a B or B- president. He left the country in better shape than he found it; you could argue that he left the country in the best shape it’s ever been. He had a commitment to reality-based public policy that shouldn’t seem remarkable, but does in light of the current incumbent; what was remarkable was his ability to make large areas of government work again for the non-wealthy.

    But he also squandered opportunities to do truly great things because of his personal failings, and those failings dominated the news for much of his tenure. Was this all his fault? No, it was the whorish press. But people don’t want to go down that road again.

    As for Hillary, a finding from Charlie Cook’s latest “Off to the Races” column:


    Among Democrats, 33 percent were enthusiastic about Clinton, with 25 percent for Obama, 21 percent for Edwards and 3 percent for Biden. Combining enthusiastic with comfortable voters gave Clinton 66 percent, Edwards 53 percent, Obama 49 percent and Biden 15 percent.

    Among Democrats who knew enough to rate the candidates, 74 percent said they were enthusiastic or comfortable with Edwards and Obama, compared with 71 percent for Clinton and 39 percent for Biden.

    When it comes to the candidate voters simply cannot support, Clinton tops the field with 46 percent, followed by Edwards with 32 percent, Giuliani at 26 percent, Biden and McCain at 25 percent each, Obama at 23 percent, Romney at 19 percent and Brownback at 17 percent.

    Looking only at Democratic voters, 18 percent said they could not support Biden. Sixteen percent rejected Clinton, 11 percent rejected Edwards and 10 percent said they could not back Obama.

    So basically half the electorate won’t even consider Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation… despite all that triangulation! Do you think that will go up or down as she tries to tack left for the primaries?

    I don’t think Sen. Clinton is “unelectable”… she’s just closer to that label than any of the other major Democratic contenders. That’s baggage, friends.

  • Bill Clinton is not baggage, but a huge asset to Hillary Clinton.

    The baggage Hillary has is the 14 years of experience that right-wingers have in name-calling and smearing of Hillary Clinton. They’ve done it non-stop and with glee, it’s the reason her negatives are so high, and it’s something they can simply remind voters of if she gets the nomination. Suddenly Rush will be calling her a bitch and using all that misogynist language again, over and over.

  • dajafi (re #18)
    So Pres. Clinton could not fight off the rabid Republicans & their billionaire supporters (e.g. Richard Mellon Scaife). He had both houses of Congress ready spend any amount of public money to find him guilty (mis-use of his holiday mailing list, big stuff, eh?), and they found one personal indiscretion, for which they impeached him.
    And you say these were personal failings? I disagree.
    The media has implanted “conventional wisdom” that Bill had great “personal failings,” but what happened to the most corrupt modern Administration? I write of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. But he is “Saint Ronnie, he who could do no wrong.”
    I’m not in complete disagreement with you about Bill, I just wanted to point to this weird difference between perceived history, and more of a factual viewing of 2 much different 2 term Presidents.

  • BuzzMon, I’m more with you than not here. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that Clinton faced political opponents who were more out to get him–to a really deranged extent–than any other president in the previous 130 years (Andrew Johnson, who did a lot more to deserve it).

    But IMO, given what was at stake, this should have pushed Clinton to be more cautious, more thoughtful, more careful–rather than boinking the pizza gal.

    Less covered but more important were the political mis-steps of his first term, most notably trying to do health care (and NAFTA) before welfare reform–which he could have done something brilliant with during the 103rd Congress, while setting up health care to do in 1995.

    As for the comparison with Reagan, you’re correct on the substance but the comparison is somewhat irrelevant. Reagan’s flaws, and their tragic consequences, just weren’t reported on as were Clinton’s, and they weren’t tied as closely to the man himself. We could speculate forever on why this was, but I don’t think the fact really can be argued. A large chunk of the press had it in for Clinton, then laid down for Bush’s first five years. Our media terribly mis-served the country for a full decade.

  • I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what and I’m a fan of Bill Clinton, BUT I do think there’s an element of “two sets of baggage for the price of one.” The folks at the new social networking site Know Me Now actually have a good conversation going on about it right now.

    • Comments are closed.