.
April 12th, 2008
11:01 PM ET

Carl Bernstein's View: A Hillary Clinton presidency

ALT TEXT

Editor's Note:  Carl Bernstein is a CNN analyst and author of A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  He is also the author, with Bob Woodward, of All the President's Men and The Final Days, and, with Marco Politi, of His Holiness: John Paul II and the History of Our Time.  Here, he writes a commentary on the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. For an opposing viewpoint from former Clinton lawyer Lanny J. Davis, click here.

 

What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?

The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.

Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.

And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated.

Such a picture of Clinton Redux is, by definition, speculation. But it is speculation based on the best evidence at hand: the demonstrable and familiar record of Hillary and Bill Clinton coupled together in Permanent Campaign-mode for a generation, waging a continuous fight on the national political stage since 1992, an unceasing campaign for the White House, for redemption, for their ideas (sometimes) and for themselves (almost always), especially in 2008.

The basic dynamics of the campaign, except for the Clintons’ vast new-found personal wealth and its challenges, have been near-constant since they arrived in Washington: through Whitewater, health care, the battle of the budget, the culture wars, the tax returns released only under duress, the travel office, Monica, impeachment, the pardons and through Hillary Clinton’s often repugnant presidential campaign.

In many ways, the characteristic tone, secrecy, and resilience of the Clinton political march have been determined more by Hillary Clinton than by her husband, reflecting her deepest attributes and attitudes, fermented in recognition of the antipathy held against both of them, and often, the foul tactics of their enemies. As an aide put it (quoted in my book, A Woman In Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton):

“She doesn’t look at her life as a series of crises but rather a series of
battles. I think of her viewing herself in more heroic terms, an epic
character like in The Iliad, fighting battle after battle. Yes, she succumbs
to victimization sometimes, in that when the truth becomes
too painful, when she is faced with the repercussions of her own
mistakes or flaws, she falls into victimhood. But that’s a last resort
and when she does allow the wallowing it’s only in the warm glow
of martyrdom—as a laudable victim—a martyr in the tradition of
Joan of Arc, a martyr in the religious sense. She would much
rather play the woman warrior—whether it’s against the bimbos,
the press, the other party, the other candidate, the right-wing.
She’s happiest when she’s fighting, when she has identified the
enemy and goes into attack mode. . . . That’s what she thrives on
more than anything—the battle.”

The latest transmutation of leadership in the campaign of Hillary Clinton for president –- Mark Penn’s departure or non-departure, be it window dressing or window cleaning –- is perhaps the best index we have of the more absurd aspects of her candidacy and evidence of its increasing bankruptcy.

The Clinton folks asserted to donors and reporters alike that this second “shake-up” in eight weeks at the very top of the campaign apparat represents some kind of great electoral moment, an opportunity for Hillary to state her case “more positively,” as if the negative approach had been forced on her; the beginning of yet another “turnaround” as if Penn, rather than Hillary (and Bill), has been the big problem. As if Penn were not an appendage of his two patrons, as if he were some kind of independent contractor twisting the candidate’s arm to do what comes unnaturally to her. The willingness of so much of the press, sensitized to the Clintons’ off-center complaints about one-sided coverage, to buy into this line is stunning.

In fact, the demotion of Penn –- like the departure of Hillary’s acolyte Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager –- is a confession that, for all her claims of “experience” and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband’s presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -– and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances –- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.

It is exactly under such circumstances that she usually resorts to the worst excesses that mark her in full warrior-mode - and all its scorched-earth, truth-be-damned manifestations. Bosnia, anyone? Smearing the women involved (or even thought to be involved) sexually with her husband. Responding to Barack Obama with the same mindset, disdain, and arsenal as she did Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, as if Obama’s politics and methodologies were as mendacious and vicious as theirs–and her own. Tax information kept secret (in 1992 to hide her profits from trading in cattle futures; in 2008 to shield the identities of Bill’s foreign clients.) A campaign that openly boasts of throwing “the kitchen sink” at her opponent.

What you see is what you get: Hillary’s cynical view of the larger interests of the Democratic Party, exhibited in her 3 a. m. red telephone ad. And her simultaneous, incongruous suggestion that Barack Obama –- notwithstanding his supposed lack of national security qualifications to be commander-in-chief -– would make a good vice president on her ticket.

And, yes, a sense of entitlement that veritably shouts, “Look, because I believe in good things, and because of all I’ve been through, I deserve to win this.”

And yet, there is no denying that, compared to the Bush years, the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency, in which she was an elemental force (and generalissimo in the often successful fight against the forces of “the vast right-wing conspiracy”) are prodigious, marked by peace and prosperity, whatever the price of the Clintons’ methodologies and personal failings.

In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -– until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy –- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas.

Hillary Clinton’s unique star power, her performance as a senator and fundraiser on behalf of her party are what gave legitimacy to the idea that she might be a credible presidential candidate: all premised on her changed demeanor in the Senate years, compared to her embattled tenure as first lady. As a steward of her state’s interest, and a patient student of senatorial compromise and collegiality, she was widely commended by former skeptics in Congress and the press.

True, her most revealing moment as a senator of national consequence was the vote she cast to authorize George W. Bush to go to war, which she’s been trying to explain since with dubious credibility. (“If I knew now what I knew then,” etc.) Twenty-one of her fellow Democratic senators had no doubts about what Bush intended, and voted against the authorization.

The second most revealing moment was her endorsement of legislation to make flag-burning illegal, the kind of pandering she once attacked right-wing Republicans of practicing. Meanwhile, she and her husband have regularly misrepresented their own postures and statements in the run-up to the war, as well as Obama’s record, with Bill Clinton claiming to have been against the war from the start, and Hillary saying she has consistently been more adamant in her opposition than Obama -– except for the matter of his single “speech” against the war before it started.

The assumption of many senatorial colleagues, former Clinton aides, and reporters (including this one) was that her presidential campaign would be much different from the one she and Bill Clinton waged through the White House years.

In A Woman in Charge, I wrote about her ability to evolve, observable especially in the years before she met Bill Clinton and in the Senate: to learn from her mistakes. Events have proven me wrong on that count.

The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims she wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.

Bill, meanwhile, has taken up Hillary’s old role as defender and apologist, with disinformation and misinformation, but (far less effectively than she defended him). Also with near-apoplectic tirades that have left their friends worried and wondering.

In the process of their search-and-destroy mission against Barack Obama, the Clintons have pursued a strategy that at times seems deliberately aimed at undermining Obama’s credibility if he becomes John McCain’s opponent — heresy in the view of an increasing number of the Clintons’ former suppporters and aides, a suprising number of whom now back Obama.

The choice ahead -– in Pennsylvania, and the remaining primary states, and for the super delegates, and perhaps even the arbiters of a deadlocked convention -– is clear enough at this point, at least in terms of what the 2008 Clinton campaign is about: the Clintons - plural. Theirs is a campaign for Restoration to the White House, not simply the election of Hillary Clinton. Theirs is, has always been, a joint enterprise, a see-saw routine in which the psyches and actions of each balances the board according to the personal dynamics of the moment.

A long-time associate of the Clintons, with whom Hillary has consulted in their quest to return to the White House, said early in her campaign: “She has a very plausible case for president. She had an eight-year super-graduate course in the presidency, a progressive platform…” He paused, and added: “[But] I’m not sure I want the circus back in town.”

That is what the Hillary for President campaign has become: the whole Clinton three-ring circus, with little evidence that moving back to the White House will alter that most basic fact.

– Carl Bernstein


Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • Raw Politics
soundoff (226 Responses)
  1. gloria

    Been to the circus for 8 years. Now her campaign is another circus. I found out I hate the circus.
    Obama '08

    April 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  2. Chaz Washington State

    Thank you Bernstein,

    This is something that everyone has been thinking, but just hasn’t put it in words. I can understand the Hillary supporters for standing their ground to still support her, because I wouldn't want to look like a flip flopper when it comes to whom I'm supporting, but the obvious is the obvious.

    Why continuing supporting someone that is desperate and has no shame in showing it.

    April 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  3. bademus

    I too started this primary season taking a close look at all candidates and while undecided I defended Hillary against friend's negative comments about her. Well now I am eating my words and conceding that they were right. I am appalled at the turn of her campaign. It seems as though she is trying to say "if I don't win it then he won't either". Perhaps she is angling for 2012 or maybe just trying to cut him down hard so she can argue that he can't be elected. Who's the Judas of the Democratic party?

    April 13, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  4. George

    So you don't think Obama as President would NOT be a circus?? Think of the convocation Rev Wright and Farrakhan at the Inauguration! Think of Michelle and her bizarre comments! Not to mention the "typical white person" grandmother. OMG, are you serious??

    April 13, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  5. Natalie Shepherd

    Thank you, I really needed this. I live in Pennsylvania and I am an Obama supporter. I have gotten such a kick out of watching Barack narrow Hillary's lead. Here we go again, though, less than 10 days before our primary and the Clinton campaign has gone negative again and negative BIG TIME. What Barack said about small towns is basically true for a lot of small towns across the United States. What Barack said about peoples' attitudes and mindsets and how they react and / or cope with hard times probably could have been worded better but he iwas not talking down to people or even talking about gun rights or freedom of religion. He was just telling it like it is. It's really scary to see how the Clinton campaign has turned a fairly simple statement into a falsehood and is using it to attack Barack's character and credibility to win an election. The Clintons and the surrogates speak with such certainty, they have got the whole body language thing down and they look right into the cameras with straight faces. The sad thing is that there are people out there who will unfortunately believe what they are saying. I hope to hear more from you about the Clintons so that the American public can be better informed.

    April 13, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  6. Gail

    This is very well written. Hillary and Bill have been about themselves and riding the country as a personal platform for personal gain. What type are trying to do the Democratice party after her campign is virtually lost, shows how self centered she truly is.

    Dems Unite for a victory in 08

    April 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  7. Panala Kinzie

    I beg to differ with you Roger, Obama is the reason we have all the new voters! I for one would sit this one out if Hillary wins the nomination. Perhaps before all her ugliness, I would have considered it. Had she run a campaign of dignity. But as it stands, myself and my family would sooner let McCain win than vote for Hillary. Come to think of it there would not be much difference there as I truly believe Hillary has no intentions of getting out troops out of Iraq. - Not even at 3:00 in the morning after drinking all night.

    April 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  8. Siafu

    Perfect. Clinton enjoys the battle, damn the result. That would work oh so well with a minority party that's proven adept at blocking just about *any* legislation.

    But then, should Clinton become the nominee, she would have to beat McCain with the votes of white women over 40, because she should be assured that much of the "new voter" block Obama brings into the mix will not be casting a vote for her.

    April 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  9. honky white boy from cali

    Mr. Bernstein You left me absolutely speechless! That was one of the most accurate non bias assessments of this mess I have read to date. All I can say is you deserve a Pulitzer prize and a purple heart for that piece. Very Very Brave!, and from the bottom of my heart thank you! I have had my faith in the media and CNN placed into questionable territory recently but no more that is what true journalism is all about.

    Go Obama 08

    April 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  10. Adam

    I'm certainly a voter who doesn't want the "circus" back in town.

    I don't think America does either, which is why Obama is winning and will win the nomination, and will (and should) be our next president.

    Thank you, Carl, for this article, and for all your work.

    April 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm |
  11. Sterling Brown

    You said is best my good man
    P.T. Barnum's family should invest in their brand after she mops up the rest of her campaign's blood, sweat, and tears with her own hair.

    The circus is not going to make it back to town this fall kids.

    April 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
  12. Dilly WA

    Thank you, thank ,you, thank you. I sincerely hope this is the focus on CNN this week. It is the truth and the public deserves and needs to hear it. Please, CNN stay on this. Thanks.

    April 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
  13. S. Holland

    Perfectly stated!!!!!!!!!!

    April 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
  14. Victoria in LA

    Stop writing this sexist rubbish, Mr. Bernstein. You just can't stand it when a woman is in power, like the rest of the Obama-bots. You've never had anything constructive to ever say anyways.

    It's OUR time now!

    HILLARY 08!

    April 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm |
  15. Portland, Oregon

    Harvard guy stumping for another Harvard guy? Old boys network?

    April 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm |
  16. hero

    Hillary Clinton is a true hero.

    She battles daily for her country.

    She is intelligent, hardworking and informed.

    If her detractors went away, she could be the best president thus far.

    Even with all the media fueled hate, and the media created drama... she shine and rises above it all.

    Other politicians just lie and cheat... she works for everything.

    April 13, 2008 at 1:07 pm |
  17. Jim, American in Paris

    Ridiculous!

    What would people like you do without a three-ring circus to invent and then live on!

    The United States had 8 years of peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton and Hillary was an oustanding First Lady and politician!

    April 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm |
  18. Tobias

    Having the Clintons back in the White House is just what this country needs. It is also the only choice we have now. Obama has no chance of winning in the general election and if we don't want another Bush third term then we had better all start supporting Senator Clinton. I was a big fan of the peace and prosperity of the 90's.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:54 pm |
  19. elise

    WOW What a bitter nasty commentary that reflexs his smug demeaner when on the air at CNN. Are we to consider him an expert on Senator Clinton due to his biography of the former First Lady that smaks of Kitty Ketty's style? Whats wrong Carl didn't Hillary join you on your book tour?

    April 13, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
  20. Theo

    Whoa..... I could not have said it better myself! Pure elegance in writing! Thanks for making this so much clearer for me.

    Obama 08!

    April 13, 2008 at 12:33 pm |
  21. beth

    What a bunch of garbage. Carl Bernstein is at it again. His opinion is needed why? Oh yes FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:33 pm |
  22. Kim in Pa

    Very true and well put.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm |
  23. Roger

    I stopped at the second paragraph. All Carl Bernstein has to say was I am pro-Obama and that would have been enough. But instead, he would like to destroy the democratic party's chance to win the general election since Obama's not going to be able to beat McCain.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm |
  24. Waiting for our tune in Penn

    ...because of the respect I have for you Mr. Bernstein...i see this "Hillary" thing for the first time. I have felt these same things that you write about....but could not put into words.

    I will be for Obama on the 22nd here in Penn now.

    Thanks.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
  25. Cathy Lovsmith

    I agree with Mr. Bernstein. Hillary is the epitomy of the things I don't like about women. She's sneaky, underhanded, backstabbing, and will lie at the drop of a hat to make herself look better than she is. As a woman, I would have a very difficult time voting for her, or anyone else who has such difficulty with ethical behavior. I don't understand those who idolize her– I expect more from a woman candidate, and I hope someday soon we will see someone with the right qualities, but it is not this day.
    Cathy

    April 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
  26. Debby Ragland-Lakeland, FL

    Right on Carl!

    April 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
  27. Cris in PA

    This article by Bernstein sums up the progress in my opinion of Hillary since Oct 2007. I started out being an extremely ardent supporter of Hillary. But right now, I am not to sure if she is the right person to be in the WH. Her actions and speeches are just downright presumptuous. She seems to set different rules for herself and her opponents. Not to mention the lies, the self-sympathy, anger, arrogance etc etc which she has displayed. As Bernstein puts it, I am not too sure if I want the circus back in town. There is no way I can bring myself to vote for Obama or any Republican. And that is turning out to be case with Hillary too. I think the Democratic Party is proving to be incompetent in the race to the WH.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
  28. more condescension

    Why don't all the Hillary haters take their nonsense elsewhere?

    Any drama is being created by the media constantly trying to drag a good woman and a great candidate down.

    If you want to look at lies and distortions and condescension... scrutinize Obama.

    We are sick of you talking heads.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm |
  29. george Illinois

    Superb and accurate assessment. She is also so phony whenever she speaks.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm |
  30. elliana

    Thank you, Carl, for this very informative, and candid article!! I certainly hope that as many Americans as possible can read the contents and finally confirm that HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT CAPABLE OF, NOR DESERVING OF BEING THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!

    April 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm |
  31. Adrian

    I am still for the clintons. I just find it mesmerising people cant see that Obama has the same problems.
    I am sick and tired of people blasting her and I reckon people will get tired of this eventually and face the fact that people see beyond these kinda views and still support her regardless.
    Stop masking 'analysis' for blatant support of the other candidate.
    The pollsters have been wrong and I have faith you will be proven wrong too.
    Start being an objective news source like you have always been, CNN.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm |
  32. Herman LA, CA

    I totally agree with Carls Bernstein assessment of Hillary campaign and how she would govern and the fact that we don't need this kind of drama back in the white house.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:18 pm |
  33. Benjamin

    If you don't want the circus in town, then the media shouldn't BRING it. There are real stories the media refuses to cover, and pop culture gossip stories that the media loves. If the media began treating political culture with the dignity and respect it deserves, it could restore the honor the office of President should be bestowed with.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
  34. Bob in western PA

    An excellent assessment by Bernstein, who eloquently lays out the discomfort that most of us thinking and reading voters feel about "the Clintons."

    Let's hope the voters in PA send the Clintons a strong "go home" message, so that real change and healing can begin in our great country.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
  35. Eugene

    Thank you,

    Carl Bernstein I could not have said it better. Your writting is Art of the highest level. True realism, now senator Clinton would now address herself as a Victim of Bill Clinton. '

    Carl, you might want to watch your back now Senator Clinton and her crew will be coming after you.

    The Clinton have a history your remember what happen to Peter Paul and the guy that ended up on the park bench. So please becareful.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
  36. lynn

    I hope voters actually read this thoughtful, thorough assessment!!

    April 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm |
  37. Sara

    Well said. Hope this gets a wide readership.
    Let's leave the circus to Barnum & Bailey.

    April 13, 2008 at 11:59 am |
  38. Donna R.

    I find this story as nothing more than a way to cloud over the issue of the "bitter" statement by Senator Obama.

    April 13, 2008 at 9:58 am |
  39. J. MaHaffey

    . . .If Hillary Clinton operates in this manner of bad management during a campaign, who in their right mind would want her to be President? Barack Obama conducts himself as the most Presidential by far.

    April 13, 2008 at 9:42 am |
  40. Diane

    So...here we go again! 360 letting their pundits go off on Hillary again! When is 360 going to stop this mess and be fair to them all? You are supposed to be the news and be partial...as of yet I haven't seen anything done that way on here. Please get back to reality and stop this nonsense! You are driving people away.

    April 13, 2008 at 9:16 am |
  41. C. Elliott

    Mr. Bernstein – thank you very much for stating the truth. Something that both Hillary and Bill need some schooling in. It truely amazes me that she – of all people – would critize Sen. Obama for making factual statements. Of course people are "BITTER" – I am. And living in rural America and I see it every day.

    I can only hope that more people will see and take the time to read your article. Perhaps then the light will come on and they will remember the most (perhaps even more so than the present one) scandalous administration in America history.

    If they will take the time to listen to what she says. How she changes her stance on issues to suit the town/state she is in. How she fabricate an elaborate story that was totally proven to be false. And then how she simply dismissed it as "misspoken". Yet she has the nerve to call Sen. Obama out of touch. Hillary look in the mirror.

    Again thank you Mr. Bernstein.

    April 13, 2008 at 8:16 am |
  42. Very Concerned American

    Anderson,

    This is unfair. One view of someone that does not like the Clinton's is not fair coverage.

    If in fact you plan on having Bernstein remarks, then you should have someone that dislikes Obama on the show also.

    At least have a Clinton supporter there.

    This is so wrong.

    April 13, 2008 at 6:48 am |
  43. anita sena-johnson

    Thank you Mr. Bernstein for your insights and comments. I, too, once had a different vision and high expectations of Hillary Clinton. You remind us, however, (it's amazing to me how anyone could ever forget) that if she is elected, we could all look forward to an extension of the chaos and drama of the first Clinton administration. (of course, she and Bill will remind us that it was someone else's fault).

    We would also continue to see more of her inability to select and manage people, and witness the speed with which she disengages herself from those who disagree with her, and those she who are no longer useful to her, politically.

    We can look forward to more of Hillary posing as a feminist and as a friend to women, unless they happen to be women with whom Bill chooses to become sexually entangled. At that time, we can witness her, again, turning her back while these women are maligned, called "trailer trash", or "mentally unstable".

    Hillary and Bill have had one primary goal, and that is power. They are very adept at changing roles, friendships, and professional relationships as needed to achieve and maintain this position of power. You are correct in saying that this is quite evident in her incongruous assaults on Barack Obama's character and ability to lead, while also wanting to leave the door open to the possibility that he would be her underling as Vice President, if it will help her win. She can find a way to get rid of or dismiss him later.

    Her need and desire for power is also evident in her greedy and instant criticism of Barack Obama's recent remarks as being condescending, and as looking down on people in small towns. This criticism is ironic, given that she delivered it via speeches to people in these small towns in a way that was patronizing and obsequious, playing "good parent" to his "bad parent." She told all of these "good children" that, indeed, they were not bitter, but resilient and hardworking. Her criticism about Barack being out of touch or looking down on these people is also hypocritical, since Hillary cannot honestly say that she identifies with these people, given that she lives in one of the richest counties and in one of the richest states in our country, and that some of her voting policies helped to put some of these people in a bad economic position.

    Hillary Clinton might not "look down" on these people, but that is probably because she can't even "see" them from her ivory tower in Weschester County.

    April 13, 2008 at 2:20 am |
  44. anita sena-johnson

    Thank you Mr. Bernstein for your insights and comments. I, too, once had a different vision and high expectations of Hillary Clinton. You remind us, however, (it's amazing to me how anyone could ever forget) that if she is elected, we could all look forward to an extension of the chaos and drama of the first Clinton administration. (of course, she and Bill will remind us that it was someone else's fault).

    We would also continue to see more of her inability to select and manage people, and witness the speed with which she disengages herself from those who disagree with her, and those she who are no longer useful to her, politically.

    We can look forward to more of Hillary posing as a feminist and as a friend to women, unless they happen to be women with whom Bill chooses to become sexually entangled. At that time, we can witness her, again, turning her back while these women are maligned, called "trailer trash", or "mentally unstable".

    Hillary and Bill have had one primary goal, and that is power. They are very adept at changing roles, friendships, and professional relationships as needed to achieve and maintain this position of power. You are correct in saying that this is quite evident in her incongruous assaults on Barack Obama's character and ability to lead, while also wanting to leave the door open to the possibility that he would be her underling as Vice President, if it will help her win. She can find a way to get rid of or dismiss him later.

    Her need and desire for power is also evident in her greedy and instant criticism of Barack Obama's recent remarks as being condescending, and as looking down on people in small towns. This criticism is ironic, given that she delivered it via speeches to people in these small towns in a way that was patronizing and obsequious, playing "good parent" to his "bad parent." She told all of these "good children" that, indeed, they were not bitter, but resilient and hardworking. Her criticism about Barack being out of touch or looking down on these people is also hypocritical, since Hillary cannot honestly say that she identifies with these people, given that she lives in one of the richest counties and in one of the richest states in our country, and that some of her voting policies helped to put some of these people in a bad economic position.

    Hillary Clinton might not "look down" on these people, but that is probably because she can't even "see" them from her ivory tower in Weschester County.

    April 13, 2008 at 2:20 am |
  45. Saera El Paso, TX

    wow
    for once i'm not entirely sure what to say...

    but, i suppose i'll thank you for your honest opinion.
    it's interesting.

    perhaps i might be more inclined to read your book.
    or perhaps not?

    i haven't decided yet..

    again, interesting anyway.

    April 13, 2008 at 1:40 am |
  46. Yvonne

    Thank you Carl. Her candidacy in my opinion is unconstitutional. She's a scary woman. If you ever write another book about her, call it: "Diary of a Mad White Woman."

    April 13, 2008 at 12:45 am |
  47. Komoa

    Yep, what Carl jst said. Thank u Carl for jst putting it out there and letting all the readers know wht they will get with I know everything because of my husband Hilary!

    April 13, 2008 at 12:39 am |
  48. David

    I'm glad someone is brave enough speak truth about Hillary Clinton. The media let her get away with murder.

    April 13, 2008 at 12:15 am |
  49. sue

    Thank You, i'ts about time someone is willing to speak the truth about the Clintons, Sen. Clinton has run a incompetant campaign, amost controversy, straight out lies and deceit. What kind of a leader would perfer to win a Presidential Election on the account of her opponents mistakes. How can Sen. Clinton manage the United States when she can't even run her own campaign,

    April 12, 2008 at 11:54 pm |
  50. mary

    Why is Carl Berstein even reporting on CNN. He obviously has an EXTERMELY BIASED opinion of Hillary Clinton, and even more offending is his highly sexist subjective opinion of her and what she has accomplished.

    If he wants to espouse his own sexist politial views of this nomination race, he should start his own show to let America know that what he says is very sexist coloured politics. If Carl Bernstein can't stand the thought of an effective and strongly opinionated woman who acts on her beliefs as a someone who would make a good presidential candidate – then Carl Berstein should just stop trying to throw his kitchen sink at Hillary Clinton and he should just get out of his own messy Kitchen.

    If effective and strong leadership with a president who can tackle issues wisely and with detailed precision, and who also holds her staff accountable for their actions is nto what Carl Berstein thinks is good for Amercia, then that is why he doesn't want Hillary to be President. But I think and believe America is smarter than that and hopefully will see the light and bote in HILLARY CLINTON AS THE NEW (VERY DESERVED) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

    April 12, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5