WASHINGTON — Stepping back from the febrile blare that the
political classes have orchestrated around the Iowa caucuses and
now the New Hampshire primary, allow me to make an observation that
some will say is lacking in humility. Well, to be honest, of all
the virtues, humility is the one that I simply cannot stick. I
mean, what is the point of it? Now that we have two presidential
contests behind us and the Clintons thrashing to maintain a
one-digit lead nationally over Senator Barack Obama, where only a
couple of weeks back the lead was in the double digits, it appears
that I have been right for months. We are in the midst of a Clinton
crack-up.
If I do say so myself, I was right on the money when I titled my
current book on the Clintons’ journey from their disgrace in 2001
to their vicissitudes in Campaign ‘08, The Clinton
Crack-Up. In New Hampshire, Hillary saw a double digit-lead
over Obama steadily wither to a two-point victory over him, and a
shabby victory it was. She saw her husband flaying about, whining
at press coverage, referring to Obama’s impressive rise to national
prominence as a “fairytale” and his presidency as a “rolling of the
dice.” Her campaign staff began to buckle. The New York
Times reported the former Boy President was increasingly a
soporific on the stump, and USA Today called him a
“relic.” Hillary was reduced to tears just before the balloting
began.
By election day in New Hampshire large segments of the liberal
political class, both in the media and in the Democratic Party,
were betraying an enthusiasm for an end to the Clinton dynasty that
surprised even me. Admittedly, I had predicted much of this
impatience with the Clintons in my book. There in the last chapter
I mused that a rising generation of young Democrats is finally
going to overthrow the 1960s generation’s domination of the party,
and in New Hampshire — as was the case in Iowa also — the youth
vote went for Obama. I also pointed out that, though Bill Clinton
has been an effective campaigner for himself, he is usually
ineffective in campaigning for others. In 2004 twelve of the
fourteen candidates whom he campaigned for lost.
Finally there is the matter of the Clintons’ unpopularity. The
Episodic Apologists of the media rhapsodize on the Clintons’ “rock
star” popularity, but who wants a rock star in the White House?
Truth be known, as a politician Hillary is manifestly
unpopular. Anywhere from 40% to 50% of the electorate when
polled say that they will never vote for her. Even when she was
first lady she was unpopular. In fact, in researching her for my
book I found that she was the most unpopular first lady since
polling this question began.
Another fact that I turned up in researching the book is a
matter alluded to earlier in this column, to wit, the Clintons
began their quest for a second Clinton presidency from a position
of national disgrace. Owing to the last-minute pardons, the White
House property that the first family was accused of pilfering, and
the trashing of the White House alleged against Hillary’s staff,
both Clintons’ approval ratings had slipped into the thirtieth
percentile. Major liberal newspapers were demanding congressional
investigations, including the New York Times. The liberal
New York Observer editorialized, “we [New Yorkers] have
made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for
elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign.”
Now that last line caught your eye, did it not? The reason for
the dramatic decline in Hillary’s frontrunner status is that
Democratic voters are increasingly alarmed about a large hairy
monster that has been roaming through their consciences for years,
probably since they first heard of Gennifer Flowers and of Bill
Clinton’s diplomatic negotiations with his draft board. The monster
is the Clintons’ record of lawlessness and scandal. Already in this
campaign cycle Democratic voters have reminders of the Clintons’
unsavory practices, felons among their contributors, even shadowy
Asians bundling checks as in 1996, and, of course, the politics of
personal destruction practiced against their opponents.
My guess is that a sizable number of Democrats have had enough
of it. Obama represents a clean break with a troubled and mediocre
past. As Hillary leaves New Hampshire, she challenges Obama on the
question of experience. The junior senator from Illinois should
take up her challenge. Hillary can chide him for his lack of
experience, and he can remind us all of Hillary’s unique
experiences, beginning with the Clintons’ “holiday from history,”
and Travelgate, Filegate, missing billing records, lying under
oath, her cattle-futures bonanza, the Riady family, Johnny Chung,
John Huang, Charlie Trie — and suddenly you see it too, the large
hairy monster that is the Clinton legacy.
My guess is that the main reason for Hillary’s decline is that
voters are troubled by the monster that is her unique record.
