In conceding the presidential election
In nominating Clinton this year, the party ignored her glaring weaknesses as a candidate in favor of her acknowledged mastery of governing and the brilliant prospect of electing a woman to the presidency. This was a big mistake. If she had been any good at electoral politics, she would not have lost the 2008 Democratic nomination to the then-highly inexperienced Barack Obama. And she would not have had to fight for her political life this year against a democratic socialist from Vermont, of all places, whom she finally subdued with the aid of the Democratic National Committee’s thumb on the scales. Along the way, Bernie Sanders’ success with white working class voters exposed Clinton’s fatal lack of appeal to that demographic group.
That handicap as a campaigner, combined with the fact that large numbers of voters indicated in polls that they personally disliked — or outright loathed — her, might have been enough to scuttle the Clinton ship anyway. But throughout the late summer and fall, she seemed content to let Donald Trump make the case against himself without articulating any overarching rationale for her own candidacy.
Apologists are pointing to the news media and the FBI as playing a pivotal role in her defeat. In fact, that central role was played by no one but Clinton herself. For a person who checked every possible box on the presidential resume, her lack of judgment in the years leading up to her candidacy is appalling. Using a personal email server while secretary of state betrayed a tone deafness that has been an unfortunate signature of her career. That characteristic was further demonstrated by choosing to enrich herself with Wall Street speaking fees presumably while knowing she was going to be seeking the presidency — this at a time when the financial industry is regarded by the public with deep, and justified, skepticism. And, of course, there is the tangled web spun around the Clinton Foundation.
Bill Clinton’s presidency is remembered in the rosy glow of nostalgia as a time of widespread prosperity, which indeed it was. Ironically it also in many ways set the stage for his wife’s defeat. The North American Free Trade Agreement, financial deregulation including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall firewall between commercial and investment banking, and the 1994 crime bill all took place on his watch and are strongly implicated in, respectively, the current revolt against globalization; the 2008 financial collapse from which many voters from the middle and working classes have never recovered; and the mass incarceration of blacks that has unleashed racial unrest. In short, it wrote a prescription for populist outrage that Trump was more than happy to fill.
Most of all, of course, Bill Clinton debased the presidency by his own personal misconduct, paving the way for a president-elect who, incredibly, has boasted about sexually assaulting women. It was hard for Hillary Clinton to convincingly excoriate Trump’s predatory behavior in the shadow of her husband’s sorry example.
This is not to say that the Clintons have not achieved some admirable things in their public life, or that Hillary Clinton would not have been a good president. For all her flaws, she was infinitely better suited to the job than Trump. But together, the Clintons skirted ethical propriety and legal requirements too often to be entirely free of the suspicion that they were pursuing their self-interest along with the public interest. The nation has lived in their long shadow for nearly a quarter of a century. It’s time for them to go, and the country to move on.