![]() |
|
Dump
Him, Sen. Clinton By
Arnold Beichman, a fellow at the Hoover Institute and columnist for the
Washington Times |
|
|
|
If Sen. Hillary Clinton's dreams of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, let alone getting elected, are to be realized in 2004, she will have to rid herself of what is surely becoming her biggest liability Bill Clinton. And the only way she can shake off this albatross is get a divorce or some kind of legal separation. It is becoming increasingly evident that the very idea of having Bill Clinton as First Husband for a new term in 2004 would be nauseatingly repellent to the American people. En though guilt by association may not win arguments with civil libertarians, it is not uncommon to judge candidates by their personal relations. Here we are just a month since Clinton became an ex-president and already he's being investigated for pardoning a bunch of assorted crooks. There are hints of bribery coming from all directions, criticism about overpayment for office space, and alleged illegal fund-raising for the Clinton Library. And then there's Hillary's brother peddling pardons. Too bad she can't divorce her brother. Even the New York Times, which has long defended and endorsed Clinton and absolved him of his sins, has begun to express its doubts. Its editorial page recently stressed "the growing urgency for [Sen. Clinton], at the start of her Senate career, to separate herself from the unrestrained fund-raising practices identified with her husband." And the time is nigh when she will have to separate herself from much more than her husband's fund-raising practices. As a senator she will in coming months be confronted with her husband's kooky behavior. True, Sen. Clinton has a right to an independent career but, fair or not, it will do her no good to be confronted by some execrable scandal involving the former president and then to plead at a press conference or over Larry King: "Am I my husband's keeper?" Unfortunately for her, as senator and aspirant to the presidency, she is charged with being her husband's keeper. Senator Clinton, 53, demonstrated last fall that she was a skilled campaigner. She overcame the accusation of not being a New Yorker, and, with the strong backing of women, blacks, and Jews, she won election to the Senate and won handily. Mrs. Clinton is today the leading New York Democrat. Is she to compromise and perhaps squander these triumphs because of a negligent and reckless husband? Over their collective political lifetime, the Clintons have demonstrated an extraordinary teflon talent. That attribute was theirs while they occupied the White House. But now she's out on her own. Is she going to have defend her husband every time a new Clinton debacle is splashed on page one of some supermarket tabloid? Even if Bill Clinton were to promise to reform and to stay out of the news, nobody would believe him. On a day when Sen. Clinton would be delivering a major speech, there would inevitably be some new bimbo eruption with the usual denials and counter-denials, suits and counter-suits, lies, confessions, and apologies . If Sen. Clinton is prepared to live with her marriage intact, she might prevail upon President Bush as an act of generosity to appoint her husband to some faraway post, say, governor of the Virgin Islands. This way, while Clinton is in New York or Washington on official business, he will legitimately remain under constant surveillance. A major consideration about a divorce or legal separation is always the children. In a few days, Feb. 27, Chelsea Clinton will have reached the age of majority. A broken home would probably not have the same meaning for her as it might have had years back when she was an teenager. And as for a divorcee as a presidential candidate? Ronald Reagan was a divorced man, and it served him no personal or electoral harm. So, too, was Adlai Stevenson, the twice-defeated Democratic candidate against Dwight Eisenhower. So there's hope for America, and for Mrs. Clinton. |