From the "I thought you said we had this locked up" department, yesterday's two most interesting stories from the campaign trail both involve Hillary Clinton's floundering bid for the presidency.
The first story comes from a round-table discussion in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where the former First Lady responded to a question about how she keeps up with the rigors of campaigning by almost breaking down in tears. You can watch the video of the incident above but, in case you're in a hurry, let me paraphrase what she said: "I just want what's best for the country [sob]...and Barack Obama sucks so badly [sob]...and I already know where everything in the White House is! [sob]"
While political observers spent much of the day trying to figure out whether those tears were genuine or not, fellow presidential hopeful John Edwards was quick to jump on Hillary's apparent moment of weakness, saying "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business." While I agree with those pundits who are quick to point out that Edwards himself is no stranger to so-called "sob stories," I also think he has a point.
For the last two years or so, Hillary has seemed the inevitable choice for the nomination -- the continuation, you might say, of the Clinton dynasty -- and she has more or less lorded it over her opponents. I think it speaks volumes about Sen. Clinton's character, and the character of those around her, that it has taken LESS THAN A WEEK to basically undo her candidacy. I'm not saying that Hillary is going to pull out if (or, you know, when) she loses today, but she might as well. First there was the flood of negativity towards Obama, then the almost-complete 180 on her message (now she's the candidate of experience AND the candidate of change. Wait, what?), and now this.
Despite not being a supporter of hers, I wouldn't begrudge Hillary the tears if I thought that they were real -- campaigns are arduous and it's been a particularly rough week -- but I don't. I don't believe that they are real because they were accompanied by yet another thinly veiled attack on Sen. Obama, yet another moment of her moral self-righteousness and sense of entitlement shining through. Not only did she suggest that an Obama win would represent a "fall backwards" for the country (and, frankly, how much further back could we possibly fall after eight years of Dubya?), but she also not-so-subtly declared that "some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough." It's basically the same speech she's been giving for the last month, only this time with the force of big old crocodile tears behind it.
I also found it strange the way that Sen. Clinton positioned herself as the candidate who has faced "difficult odds," considering that one of her chief opponents grew up the son of a mill-worker, and the other grew up on the south side of Chicago, and that she came into this race as the anointed frontrunner with what can only be described as a political machine behind her. Difficult odds, indeed.
The second story comes from the OTHER, more likable Clinton (former president Bill), who at a speech in Plymouth, New Hampshire said, and I quote, "we can't be a new story. I'm sorry. There's nothing I can do. I can't make her younger, taller, male. There's lots of things I can't do but, you know, if you want a president and you need one, she would be by far the best." Now, I'm sure that Bill Clinton would like to make Hillary younger, and taller (and male? Okay, that's kind of weird...), but my understanding of marriage is that you're not supposed to say those things out loud (I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that). In any event, he doesn't seem real enthusiastic about her chances -- frankly, he looks like he could use a drink (and I'm assuming that he subsequently went and got one, since I believe this speech took place in a bar).
The thing is, if 16 years ago, Hillary had been running around making wild statements about how she couldn't get her husband to keep it in his pants but we should vote for him, anyway, it would have been a huge liability. Right or wrong, people would have said, "How can we trust this guy to run the entire country when he can't even control his own family?" Well, it works both ways. The fact that Hillary's people can't keep Bill from running his mouth off doesn't really inspire confidence in their abilities to fix the free world.
What immediately emerges from these two incidents, I think, is that the Clinton camp is in disarray in the wake of Barack Obama's recent surge in the polls. After all the time spent preparing to win, they don't know what to do now that they're losing, and it shows. And, to be honest, what's really not presidential about the whole thing is not the crying, but the inability to respond to adversity. It's the equivalent of George Bush reading Dr. Seuss for 45 minutes after he learned that the World Trade Center had been attacked, and it's exactly what we don't need four more years of.
At the end of the day, though, all of this is kind of a moot point because I get the feeling that this race ended last week. At this point, Obama is less of a man than a movement, and one that is rapidly gaining momentum. Whether or not this turns out to be Hillary's "Howard Dean" moment, it's one more misstep in a campaign is going down in flames like the Hinderburg.
Oh, the humanity.
Sources:
Clinton chokes up, is applauded, at campaign stop [CNN.com]
Bill Clinton stresses Hillary's experience in Plymouth [Citizen.com]
Neener, Neener, "They" Made Hillary Cry [Wonkette]
