Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Bill Is An Even Worse Sore Loser Than Hillary

If Bill Clinton had only gone to visit his buddy, the dictator of Kazakhistan, at the beginning of the American presidential campaign, and stayed there, saying nothing, he would have served his wife, Hillary's, interests better.

The poor man just cannot pent up his anger, or keep his mouth shut, and in the present context, it is not doing the Democratic party any good at all, hurting Barack Obama's chances in the fall.

I think even Hillary might not have wandered into what the New York Times has called "disturbing racial undertones" in her campaign, had not Bill gone there first, with his remarks in and after the South Carolina primary. For this former governor of a Deep South state, the prospect of a black man like Obama winning all those white votes was just too much.

Now, Bill is suggesting the press has been biased against his wife, and it won't be long before he is threatening her Senate career by suggesting her fellow senators have been unfair to her. (Twenty Democratic senators have endorsed Obama, while only 13 have endorsed Hillary, and none since February).

It is easy to say Hillary should have shooed Bill off long ago. But the trouble is that she wouldn't be a major political figure in the first place without her association with him. So she had to be moderately nice, for fear reports of marital discord would hurt her campaign.

If Bill really cared a jot for her, he'd have been much more careful about his temperamental outbursts. That should certainly have been possible. (After all, Chelsea Clinton has never embarrassed her mom throughout this long, difficult campaign).

Now, the Clintons, by fighting on to the bitter end, are spoiling their own political futures, beyond just jeopardizing Democratic chances in the fall. The Washington Post has a piece this morning raising the question about Hillary's future in the Senate. It notes that Harry Reid of Nevada has solidified his position atop the Democratic leadership, and that other leadership positions, at least in the short term, might be difficult for her to obtain. They are only becoming more difficult as she refused to bow out quietly in the Democratic race and endorse Obama.

It would be interesting to know what Bill and Hillary are saying between themselves at this point. That is, if they're still talking with one another.


In the June 3 primary election next week, I'd like to endorse State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas over City Councilman Bernard Parks for the supervisorial seat of the retiring Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

I knew Ridley-Thomas for many years as a political reporter, and found him able and conscientious. Parks, on the other hand, as Los Angeles police chief, was quite a rigid personality too prone to stick to hard positions. The Board of Supervisors, in my view, would do better with Ridley-Thomas.

Other than that, I'm opposed to Proposition 98, another sop to business interests that would, among other bad features, do away with rent control.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Between the power-at-all-costs, "I am entitled to this presidency" Clintons, to Obama the Gaffe-O-Rama, the Democrat Party is completely bankrupt.

The Republican Party is not much better either, with John "Liberal Lite" McCain as their inevitable nominee rather than a solid true conservative for the post (and no, I'm not talking about a dreadful neo-con either).

We're the stuck with the Three Stooges for candidates this year, I'm afraid.

5/28/2008 2:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home