By Selwyn Duke

Writing at The Loft, Cheri Jacobus posits the theory that Bill Clinton’s missteps during the campaign are not missteps at all, but part of a Machiavellian strategy to ensure his wife’s defeat.  In making her case, Jacobus writes:

Bill Clinton suggested that reporters might have more sympathy for
his wife once they turn 60 and ‘forget something when they’re tired at
11 at night.’ (this, re: Bosnia ‘sniper fire’ lies) – Hardly an
endorsement of a Hillary presidency.

‘I can’t make Hillary younger, taller and male’ (after her Iowa loss).  Nice work, Bill.

His
South Carolina remarks comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson resulted in a
racial divide that cut against his wife – just as I suspect he knew it
would.

This isn’t the first time this theory has been put forth, and I don’t dismiss it out of hand.  Bill Clinton is certainly shallow enough to be driven by very callow motives, and I can easily see how he wouldn’t want to be surpassed by his wife.  And, admittedly, presenting the monkey wrenches he has thrown into the campaign one after another does give one pause for thought.  Yet I’m still not so sure.

Jacobus’ reasoning in making her argument is the common one: Bill Clinton is too skilled of a politician to make rookie mistakes; thus, such comments and actions are no accident.  Yet there is a problem with this argument:

Bill Clinton really isn’t the political genius he is cracked up to be.

This isn’t to say he is bereft of political acumen; I’m only saying that he isn’t the king of craft everyone casts him as being.

Exhibit A: Take a look at the Clinton video I feature on this site’s homepage, the one I call "The Sickest Clinton Video Ever."  It is footage of him emerging from the Ron Brown memorial.  He’s laughing and joking with an evangelist who’s at his side, but then he turns and sees a cameraman.   Then, wanting to appear sufficiently moved and compassionate, he puts his head down and starts faking tears.  Now, I ask you, was this the mark of a "talented politician"?

Understand that anyone who actually could think on his feet would have understood that the footage would most likely reveal the duplicity — as it turned out it did — and thus be damaging.  Consequently, a more prudent immoral man would have simply carried on and, if necessary, explained it away later.  For instance, if asked about his behavior, he could have said that he was reminiscing about the lighter moments Brown had provided, that he was thinking about the good memories with which he was left (note that I’m not advocating such deception; I’m simply pointing out what a smarter dishonest man might have done).

Instead, Clinton ended up providing proof of his supreme childishness and complete lack of character and scruples.  Does that seem "slick"?  Is this the stuff of Machiavellian operators?

Exhibit B is another childish Clinton response, one that’s better known.  I’m talking about Clinton’s infamous "I tried it, but didn’t inhale" line (when responding to questions about marijuana use).  It’s the epitome of immaturity; it indicates that the man completely lacks a sense of what is credible, and without that quality one cannot be considered a skilled politician.   It’s much as if a little child were caught with his hand in the cookie jar and said, "Mommy, I put a cookie in my mouth and chewed it but didn’t swallow!"

I ask again, does this seem slick? 

It’s especially ridiculous when you consider that his marijuana use was not something difficult to explain.  He could have said, "Well, listen, you know what George Bernard Shaw said: ‘What a pity it is that youth is wasted on the young.’  I did a lot of stupid things when in my youth, and I just thank God that my guardian angel was looking out for me.  And that’s all I can really say about that."

Instead, he uttered something completely idiotic, a statement that became a running joke and, along with "It all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is," served to make him a laughingstock in many quarters.

So do you still think he’s a "talented politician"?

The truth is that Clinton benefitted from what Obama enjoys today; namely, a fawning media that ran interference for him when he became his own worst enemy.  I mean, all you need to know is that the media buried the Ron Brown video of Clinton, despite the fact that nothing is more newsworthy than such damning footage.  And if they had found a video of a Republican acting so shamefully, you can bet it would have been played more than the Rodney King video and would have made the politician a pariah.

In other words, it’s easy to seem slick when the media smooths your rough edges; it’s easy to seem like Teflon when the press greases you with media spin.  No, Obama isn’t really so "good with words," and Bill Clinton isn’t really all that smart.  They just seem so with their media support team.  Besides, how erudite can someone be if he can’t even understand the folly of embracing leftist ideology?

Again, I don’t dismiss the idea that Bill Clinton might not want his wife to be president.  Maybe he is doing these things on purpose.  I simply point out that such missteps would not at all be out of character for him.  He has made them before.

                   Protected by Copyright