Quote Of The Day: Prez Bill Edition

"We are not Argentina. We are not a banana republic. No CEO, no prime minister, no one in any public position, anywhere on this earth, could get away with a straight-faced claim that 'I honestly believe my wife is the best candidate for the job.'”
-- Bruce Feirstein in Vanity Fair

All across America, Dems are waking up to a stink under the sink, the aroma of Bill Clinton campaigning again for president, striving to make 2008-2016 the era of the "We-Presidency."

Feirstein's example in the hallowed liberal walls of Vanity Fair:

Watching the Democrats debate in South Carolina, I was struck by the heated “I’m here. He’s not” exchange between Senators Obama and Clinton because it so perfectly encapsulates the problem with the two Clintons: Bill is out there with a shiv—presumably with the full countenance of his wife—while Hillary deftly manages to avoid being held accountable for him, or taking any responsibility herself. And therein lies my real issue, should this hydra-headed candidacy succeed: Bill Clinton will always be there. He’ll always be larger than life. And, if the last few weeks have demonstrated anything, we’ll never know who’s really calling the shots.

There was a time when "Bill Clinton will always be there" would have been a good thing to Dems. What happened?

Possibly it's that liberal/feminist sensitivities make the Left want Hillary to be her own woman, and they resent Bill for not letting her become that.

More likely, it's that they've found they really don't like Clintonian politics. This is what Jonathon Chiat wrote about today in the LAT:

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

That list of "all these different people" is code, of course, for Obama supporters, but Chiat's viewpoint is fascinating even if partisan:

... But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.

This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."

In both Chiat's and Fierstein's piece, there's not a whiff of policy, of preferring Obama over Clinton because of his position on health care or the war or the economy; it is just a visceral and growing dislike of having to share a "D" with the Clintons.

Let's all shout a rousing "Told you so!" and wonder that so many Dems are finally seeing what was so obvious to us all along: That the Clintons are shamelessly political, that they see no reason not to be vicious in pursuit of their personal goals, and that with them, it's all about them.

But there's something much bigger here: It is becoming increasingly apparent that if Clinton wins the presidency, there will be a substantial group of Dems who are not on board with her, her husband, or their politics. Whatever marginal "mandate" she will claim from what would very likely be a very narrow victory will hardly even represent a mandate from the Democratic party.

That means there will be insubordination in the ranks, with congressional committee chairs not willing to goose-step along to her commands, a media that will be all too willing to set their truffle hogs digging after the next Clinton scandal, and a party that very well could be looking for an alternative in the elections of 2012.

For we conservatives who take the long-term view, it's beginning to look like even if Clinton gets the nomination and wins, this could be a no-lose election.