As 2008 approaches, the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton will become a greater topic of discussion. Yes, I know that she has her Senate re-election campaign in 2006. But her victory in 2006 is a given.
In 2008, an inevitable topic of discussion will be Bill Clinton and his role and impact on Hillary's campaign. Inevitably, comparisons will be made between the two. People may try to say that they are the one and the same. They may say that this is "Clinton, Part III", with the same cast of characters involved in the campaign and the same philosophy.
Well, Bill will support his wife in 2008, for sure. But here's the truth: Bill and Hillary aren't the same person. I'm not saying that they are polar opposites. But neither are they carbon copies of each other by a long shot.
Here is the thing about Bill. Love him or hate him (for the record, I love him), his philosophy hasn't really changed since he began his life in public office. As Governor and President, his general view of governance can be summed up by embracing the future instead of the past, recognizing that the world is constantly changing and that we must continue to adapt, and a policy of good governance. He was indeed pragmatic, realizing that get his top, major policy goals through, he needed to compromise at times. It wasn't selling out, it was "reality". As the Rolling Stones so aptly said, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." Bill knew when to fight and when not to. He understood the bigger picture, and that is why he was so successful.
While Bill is pragmatic, Hillary is calculating. And there is a difference. Whereas Bill has a definite philosophy, Hillary appears to looking towards centrism that will help her with regards to her political aspirations. The problem isn't centrism. The problem is that Hillary, who has traditionally been considered liberal, is looking to stake out a political position that will make her more viable as a presidential candidate. In other words, she doesn't have a philosophy that she is working towards achieving, albeit pragmatically. Rather, she is looking FOR a political position that helps her ambitions but isn't really a philosophy. This, in my view, is calculating. As has been seen, Hillary has consciously seeking "bipartisan" initiatives with conservative GOP senators. According to Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, most of the issues on which she has allied herself with Republicans are symbolic, an effort to show, in the words of one senior adviser, that she's "a little more socially conservative than people think."
In addition, consider the operations of Bill and Hillary. Bill was known for the strength of his personal relationships. At the same time, his circle wasn't exclusive. His political friends and contacts date back to his youth. They include folks from Arkansas, Georgetown, Yale, DC, etc. And it has never stopped growing. It grew during his presidency. Remember, James Carville and Paul Begala didn't even work with Clinton until 1992. And Bob Rubin came into the Clinton fold after he started his presidency.
With regards to Hillary, she is known more for her loyalty. But her inner circle is a fairly tight one, and she has a definite "either in or your out" mentality. And being a Bill loyalist doesn't necessarily mean you're in the Hillary camp. Carville and Begala are in. But Joe Lockhart (rumored to be working with John Edwards), Leon Panetta and Doug Sosnik, a pivotal Bill Clinton policy advisor (now working for Mark Warner) are out. A comparison for the Hillary's group of advisors, otherwise known as "Hillaryland," has been made to the style of George W. Bush, not Bill Clinton.
In closing, when examining Hillary Clinton in 2008, don't assume that it is Bill Clinton, Part II. She has her own style and way of doing things, and she needs to be judged on that.
NOTE: A good source, and one I have used for this diary, is an article by Ryan Lizza of The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/...