I stopped betting against Hillary Rodham Clinton 23 years ago when I watched her crush one man’s ambitions to preserve her husband’s career.
Summoned to a Capitol rotunda news conference by Tom McRae, an earnest Democrat challenging then-Gov. Bill Clinton for re-election, I heard the click, clack, click of the first lady’s low-heeled shoes approach from a hidden marble hallway.
“Tom!” the first lady of Arkansas shouted. “I think we oughta get the record straight!”
Waving a sheaf of papers, Hillary Clinton undercut McRae’s criticism of the Clinton administration by pointing to his past praise of the governor. It was a brutal sandbagging.
“Many of the reports you issued not only praise the governor on his environmental record,” she said, “but his education and his economic record!”
McRae’s primary campaign was toast. Bill Clinton was one step closer to the White House.
The story is relevant today, Clinton’s last as secretary of state, because it serves as a reminder of her immense talent and ambition. Will she seek the presidency in 2016? Clinton doesn’t know. Friends expect her to rest a year or so before taking a final measure of her health and her prospects.
But if you don’t think she wants to be president, you don’t know her. If you don’t think she’s a determined policy wonk and public servant, you haven’t been paying attention. And if you don’t think she has what it takes to win, you haven’t met Tom McRae.
Clinton is a survivor. She has weathered more peaks and valleys than the Alps: Her culturally disparaging remarks during the 1992 presidential race; Whitewater, health care reform, and the Monica Lewinsky affair in the White House; as a U.S. senator, respect and popularity; in her 2008 presidential campaign, failure and family intrigue; and at the State Department, global acclaim, soaring approval ratings and, tragically, Benghazi.
If you wonder whether Clinton would be willing to risk her legacy for another White House bid, let me tell you another story. In late 1998 or early 1999, people close to Clinton told me she was mulling a U.S. Senate campaign. I was stunned: No sitting first lady had ever contemplated such a move, much less one whose husband had been impeached for lying about an affair.
It took me several days to overcome my doubts. When I finally reported that she was seeking the vacant U.S. Senate seat in New York, another news organization quoted several authoritative sources insisting that she was not.
The competition didn’t know what I did: Never bet against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."