Forget the book tour, Hillary.
Do something interesting.
Start by ending the constricting and unpalatable obsession that the presidential glass ceiling is yours and yours alone to break. It isn’t. The longer you pretend otherwise, the longer your road to the White House will become. The glass ceiling halts the progress of all women — not just yours.
Your proximity to it, historically, matters a great deal. Being the closest women to the ceiling who hasn’t broken through simply isn’t enough to justify or even explain a second run for the White House. As you learned in 2008, being “in it to win it” leaves gaps a plucky rival can exploit.
This isn’t about campaign advice. For thousands of genuinely important reasons, I don’t give campaign advice. I’m not advocating on behalf of making the campaign more interesting, either. It just seems to me, having covered Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008, the book tour she has just launched — and the book itself — has the same repetitive dullness and penchant for pablum that hamstrung her first bid for the White House.
Instead of getting trapped in the economic glue of pretending to having been “dead broke” after leaving the White House, why not, Hillary, go to every city on your tour and identify the woman there who ought to consider running for president? What could be the harm?
More important, what could be the gain?
First, it would take you off your self-built pedestal of inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. See ‘08.
Second, it would suggest you know you’re not all that and a bag of chips — no one is, by the way. Humility was a characteristic Hillary only showed when she was way behind in ‘08. And crowds ate it up. The feisty, down-on-her-luck, and battling Hillary had something utterly absent from her campaign appearances in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — all the way through Super Tuesday. That Hillary’s humility came too late is axiomatic. The point is, Hillary became reachable, touchable, and even lovable (somewhat) when she stopped buying her own noxious inevitability myth.
Third, it would give Hillary something she’s rarely developed in her public life — a reputation for being clever. There’s nothing more disarming in politics or life than a powerful person shedding that power in favor of the flattery of others. The best weapon a seemingly inevitable politician can employ is to shed the aura of inevitability. There is no other politician in America for whom this is truer than Hillary. If Hillary says lots of women — right now — are ready to be president she doesn’t make herself weaker by comparison, she makes herself stronger by speaking on behalf of qualifications.
Fourth, it would give Hillary a chance to be bipartisan in a galvanizing way — not in the insipid way her book pretends. Instead of trying to peddle a bunch of sloppy and incoherent dreams for “inclusive politics and a common purpose to unleash the creativity, potential, and opportunity that makes America exceptional,” name some Republican women qualified to be president. Hillary need not agree with the positions of Govs. Susana Martinez of New Mexico or Nikki Haley of South Carolina or Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, or of Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or Susan Collins of Maine. She could say they all are daft on the ideas she holds dear and would love to debate them to prove how wrong they are, but underscore that each has the basic qualifications for the presidency. Flattery in politics need not ring positively true. Frequently it doesn’t, but even in its falsity it can reshape impressions and scramble political actions. No one right now has more capacity to do this than Hillary.
Imagine, for just one second, if Hillary had said at Tuesday’s book signing in New York something highly complimentary of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York? So complimentary that it egged on a question about whether Gillibrand was qualified for the White House. Can you imagine the thunderclaps if Hillary had casually said, “Yes. And she’s not the only one.” Who else? “Come to my next book signing.”
Follow along my admittedly subversive train of thought as we trundle north to Boston. How about Hillary saying Sen. Elizabeth Warren absolutely, positively has the qualifications to be president and would make a great candidate? Suddenly, the question isn’t whether Hillary is threatened by the prospect of an insurgent, draft-Warren movement; it’s now about how Hillary is the advocate for a Democratic Party brimming with qualified women candidates for president. With one utterance, Hillary would take the wind out of the idea of a Warren insurgency, one of its most alluring qualities at the moment, and win herself a laurel for equanimity and feminist truth-telling. It might even score grudging points from fence-sitting progressives. This is what is known as a clever stunt. Hillary has hardly ever pulled one off. It would be a startling bit of fresh air.
Then there could be Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Minneapolis. And Sens. Claire McCaskill in St. Louis, Debbie Stabenow in Detroit, and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in California. The list goes on. Or at least it could.
There is a trick to politics that the best practitioners use instinctively — create the impression you’re humble and reachable when you are not. Hillary is apparently incapable of this insight and demonstrably incapable of deploying this tactic. Rather, she exults in the separateness of politics — the joys of pipe, drape, rope, and distance. Her team is impeccably capable at translating the crude language of muscularity to crowds, the press, and even those who seek to rally to her side. This comes from a sense of always battling in politics, first on behalf of Bill and then on behalf of herself as the woman who … just “¦ might “¦ make “¦ it. That had to be a heavy burden, and it showed all through ‘08. Until then, Hillary was way behind and had no plausible reason to continue. The sheer improbability, bordering on mathematical ridiculousness, of her post-Super Tuesday campaign earned for Hillary something she’d never had before—sympathy.
Hillary cannot draw on that now. And nothing in this bloodless book rollout has the slightest chance of creating any. What Hillary can do is rhetorically widen the presidential viewfinder, casting an approving light on other women in politics, regarding herself as only one of many qualified, energetic, and interested women who could lead the nation. Hillary would give the appearance of shedding the presidential ambitions her book tour now burnish to a near-blinding gloss. She would never give up those ambitions; she would merely shed the off-putting appearance of them.
And then Hillary, for once, could delight in being judged on her appearances.
The author is National Journal correspondent-at-large and chief White House correspondent for CBS News. He is also a distinguished fellow at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”