Journalists Voicing Doubts About Hillary Clinton

Have journalists decided that it's time to take off the gloves when it comes to Hillary Clinton? 

Writing in the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin says that Hillary Clinton has only herself to blame for continuing questions about her character and honesty.

Meanwhile, writing in the New York Times, Mark Halperin has had an epiphany:  Being the best presidential candidate doesn't necessarily make one the best president:

For instance, being all things to all people worked wonderfully well for Bill Clinton the candidate, but when his presidency ran into trouble, this trait was disastrous, particularly in the bumpy early years of his presidency and in the events leading up to his impeachment. The fun-loving campaigner with big appetites and an undisciplined manner squandered a good deal of the majesty and power of the presidency, and undermined his effectiveness as a leader. What much of the country found endearing in a candidate was troubling in a president.

Halperin takes a shot at George W. Bush, too, but I find it the attack more vague and less compelling:

When George W. Bush ran in 2000, many voters liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate.

As with Mr. Clinton, though, the very campaign strengths that got Mr. Bush elected led to his worst moments in office. Assuredness became stubbornness. His lack of lifelong ambition for the presidency translated into a failure to apply himself to the parts of the job that held less interest for him, often to disastrous effects. The once-appealing life outside of government and public affairs became a far-less appealing lack of experience. And Mr. Bush’s close-knit team has served as a barrier to fresh advice.

I don't believe Bush has been unduly "stubborn."  I can see why one might think so if they disagree with President Bush's policies -- but what is the alternative? -- to be all things to be all people, the very trait in Clinton that Halperin has now realized didn't work so well. 

Sticking with a war until it is won is simple common sense, and history has begun to vindicate Bush for his "stubborn" refusal to let America suffer a defeat in Iraq.  Refusing to approve of federal funding of experimentation that destroys human embryos was also a matter of ethics and common sense -- and Bush is being vindicated on that point as well, as scientists are discovering ways to turn differentiated skin cells back into undifferentiated stem cells. 

Nor do I think Bush has "failed to apply himself" adequately to any aspect of his job.  He has fought long and hard against determined foes -- both foreign and domestic.  Now Bill Clinton -- I"m quite certain his attention was not fully applied to his job 100% of the time he was in the Oval Office, as the Independent Counsel's Report amply confirmed.  Blame it on those pesky "appetites" of which Halperin writes.

I suspect a barely hidden subtext here -- Halperin is really acknowledging that perhaps another Clinton in the White House isn't such a good idea, no matter how good a campaigner Hillary Clinton may be.  With that, I can heartily agree.

________________________

Linked at Memeorandum, where you'll find links to much more commentary on this story.

Comments

[Vote for Hillary]

They've always been against Hillary. They only pretend to support her momentarily before slamming her down again. It's simply disgusting.