Hillary Clinton and bill clinton and election of 2008 and sean wilentz

Though many staunch Democrats deny it, and died-in-the-wool Republicans go apoplectic over it, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008, and she will win the White House in November 2008. The purpose of this essay is to review her candidacy not in terms of her specific political positions or appeals to various constituencies but in terms of three symbolisms that cast such a long shadow over public life. In short: (1) there is heavily-laden symbolism because she is a first-generation feminist; (2) she will be helped in her campaign by the still vibrant symbolism of her husband; and (30 she will triumph because of what George W. Bush has come to symbolize to the Republican party and the nation. Let's deal with each of these.

Hillary As First-Generation Feminist

Whether or not one points to the publication of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique as the "dawn" of the feminist movement, one would be on solid ground to see the pioneers as modern feminism as women born between about 1940 and 1950 (Hillary was born in Oct. 1948). First-generation feminists had at least two characteristics in common: they had to be fighters and they had to adopt a sort of "Puritan" feminism--a feminism without overt references to sexuality. The former is obvious because of the male-dominated character of all societal institutions 40 years ago as well as of the schools which produced the next generation of leaders. Women in law schools, seminaries, med. schools, business schools and other professional training venues had not only to do better than their male counterparts to gain respect but had to do so often in the face of withering criticism or outright sexism. Because the first generation of feminists knew they were in a pitched battle, they had to deny the "softer" side of themselves. This does not mean that no feminist born between these years could ever wear pink, for example, but they took pains not to act like traditional "girls." No emotion-laden diatribes. No sexy clothing. No "learned-helplessness."

The result of this warfare-type approach to life beginning in the late 1960s was that the first generation of feminists developed a kind of permanent chip on their shoulder or, to put it another way, they lost for several years a sense of the "playful" or the "sensual" in life. Some permanently sacrificed those two characteristics. But the hoped-for gain would be success in their respective fields and, ultimately, getting to the "top" of the elite institutions that their male collegues and teachers had dominated for generations.

Hillary Clinton is this kind of person. She can't efface it; she probably embraces it. She simply is a first-generation feminist. That is why she not only reacted the way she did in 1992 to questions about standing by her man or baking cookies but why she continues to be an automatic polarizer in political circles. She will be embraced, I think, by a bare majority because she represents the way the world is going--with women increasingly taking on equal responsiblity in all of society's leading institutions (with some striking exceptions in the religious world, for example), but she cannot help but sounding or even looking shrill when she plays this role. Understand Hillary, then, as a first-generation feminist (albeit a liberal religous one) and everything else falls easily into place about her.

The Symbolism of Bill Clinton

Despite Bill Clinton's abundant peckerdillos, he left office in January 2001 as a very popular President. Even Republicans know that he made them rich. That is all you have to say to a Clinton-bashing Republican--Clinton created the climate for you to become very very rich--and this should shut them up if they have a shred of dignity. But Bill Clinton represents something that America would get again if Hillary is President, and American voters like that. Bill represents quite different things from Hillary. He is laid back, whereas she is uptight; he is fun-loving, while she is all business; he has a charisma and an intuitive ability to connect emotionally with people, while Hillary comes across as more of an aloof person. We remember the late 1990s, and even though they were difficult days for Bill Clinton as the "Monicagate" opened wider, they were really quite excellent times for the country. We were at peace; the internet stocks were racking up humonguous gains; we had a huge and growing budget surplus; the Religious Right was just as obnoxious but less powerful. American voters know that if Hillary is elected she will bring with her all the friends of Bill, too, and all the expertise that was developed from 1993-2001. She will "hit the ground running," and not need the several year trial period her husband needed to establish her credibility. Indeed, the major reason, in my judgment for the collapse of the Health Care Task Force in 1993-94, when health care reform was (and remains) a huge issue, was that Bill Clinton misjudged the political capital he needed in order to pull off an effort of that magnitude. He was a new and young President and hadn't yet earned the right to make big changes in American social life. But Hillary will be given much more of a running start, since Bill is also on board again.

President Bush as Symbol

Perhaps the strongest reason that Hillary will be elected in 2008 is not that she will be such an outstanding candidate (Democrats have trouble coming up with really good people, apart from Bill Clinton), but that President George W. Bush has so alienated most constituencies that he will be reargarded as a positive liability for any Republican who wants to follow him. His ineffectiveness, which is being recognized by larger numbers of Americans each month now (though the President will pull an "October Surprise" this year--probably by announcing something short of victory in Iraq but something that he will, with moderate success, spin as "very good news"), will continue to grow with only a few uptick blips between the end of 2006 and late 2008. There will be the generally-shared recognition not only among Democrats but also among many Republicans that the Republicans have botched a lot of major social, political and military issues in the last five or six years. Princeton's Sean Wilentz, writing in a recent issue of Rolling Stone, asked but didn't directly answer the question of whether this President is the worst President we ever have had. Just the fact of the "play" of this kind of question in a national periodical shows that Bush has completely lost almost any Democratic support and has largely even isolated his base.

Conclusion

So these will be the huge "issues behind the issues" in the 2008 campaign: (1) Hillary is an inveterate first-generation feminist; (2) Bill Clinton gives us warm and fuzzy feelings; and (3) George W. Bush is now sabotaging his own party's future. Other Democratic contenders there will be (can you imagine, for example, a Presidential campaign without Joe Biden fighting a losing cause?), but Hillary will outspend and outnetwork them all. Then, whether she faces Frist or another Bush or Romney or McCain, she will eke out a victory in November 2008. And then, since almost all of the Supreme Court Justices will be about ready to retire, she will be able to pack the Court, beginning, of course, with her college roomate...

1878