That needn’t have lasted
indefinitely, but it did. Whether because Hillary was determined to prove
herself, or because a co-presidency seemed too complicated to market, Bill was
designated a second banana. And he has remained that way, in a subordinate role
that seems strangely removed from the heart of Hillary’s machine. Yes, Hillary
references “my husband’s administration,” but she spends far more time dwelling
on her own, less impressive personal narrative. Her campaign literature,
advertisements, and stump speeches rarely dwell on Bill’s accomplishments. The
two rarely campaign together: His campaign visits tend to be in remote areas
that don’t make the cut for Hillary’s itinerary. With his self-deprecating
jokes about being “first lady,” and doing whatever Hillary asks him to do, Bill
tends to play the role of a humble, dutiful spouse who is simply along for a
somewhat wacky ride.
But this approach has clearly
failed. It has left the Clintons
with the worst of both worlds. It has prevented Hillary--whose own record of
accomplishment is thin--from
drawing much benefit from Bill’s experience and legacy. At the same time, it
has stuck her with all the downsides of Bill’s political and temperamental
failings.
The approach was strained from
the outset. Bill Clinton is no ordinary spouse. It’s absurd to reinvent him as anything
close to Laura Bush. So perhaps Hillary’s campaign should have openly assured that
Bill would have a key decision-making role in the Oval Office. He could have
joined Hillary regularly for joint campaign events--possibly even for town
halls where both Clintons
would take voter questions at once. Clinton
campaign signs and literature could have made more references to Bill’s
presidency and foundation works. TV ads could have touted the experience and
smarts he would return to the White House. Every campaign venue might have
featured cheery “Two for the Price of One” signs festooning the walls. Hillary
spent much of her campaign dodging the elephant in the room--her husband and
his presidency--but perhaps she should have ridden it.
Think of the potential benefits.
First, this approach would have rendered moot the long and often damaging--think
Tuzla--debate
about Hillary’s “experience.” During one infamous campaign conference call, her
aides were stumped when asked what real crisis she’d ever managed. In a
co-campaign, they could have immediately shot back, “Bill’s answered dozens of those
calls!”