Being Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the most celebrated women in the world, holder of some of the highest offices in US politics and possibly the next president of the US, has had more than its share of agony. Widely regarded a year ago as a shoo-in for the Democratic Party’s nomination, she has faced a far more difficult slog than anyone, including her, ever contemplated.
Yet, most of the problems Clinton is encountering were predictable and foreshadowed in 2008, when she ran against US President Barack Obama. Others she has brought on herself.
For one thing, she is simply not a very good politician. Clinton is the only person known to have launched her campaign twice. (The first attempt, in Iowa, where she talked to about eight people in closed meetings, did not work out very well.) This impressive, remarkably intelligent woman just does not have the feel for politics that is demanded at the highest levels.
Success in US presidential politics requires superb intuition, being quick on one’s feet, and, above all, a compelling rationale for running. True, Clinton offers numerous programs that she would push as president; but, to borrow from former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, there is no theme to her pudding. The closest she comes to a message is a less-than-soaring “I’m a progressive who can get things done.”
By contrast, her rival, Bernie Sanders, has become a serious contender because he brilliantly composed a persuasive message for his campaign: The system is rigged and a corrupt campaign-finance regime is holding it in place.
The sweeping programs Sanders is pushing — a single-payer healthcare system and free tuition at public colleges — however impracticable, are popular, especially among younger people, who overwhelmingly favor him over Clinton. Her message is one of incrementalism: Don’t dare to dream big. Meanwhile, Sanders is preaching a political revolution.
Then there is the issue of trustworthiness. Sanders’ integrity comes across as unimpeachable, while Clinton continues to provide reasons for questioning hers. She and her advisers are clearly stunned by the force of the challenge she is facing.
Sanders appears authentic; Clinton seems programmed. She sometimes seems to be tone-deaf, particularly out of tune with the public mood on the subject of money. Anger at the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else has been brewing for years. Shortly before she began her campaign, Clinton said that when they left the White House she and her husband were “dead broke.” If so, they recovered quickly: Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are believed to be worth well more than US$100 million, all of it made since they left the White House and most of it through astronomical speaking fees.
Not unlike other former US presidents — Jimmy Carter is a notable exception — the Clintons exploited their fame and influence to build up a fortune. It is not so much how they made most of their money as who paid them. While Bill Clinton made business deals with some shady international figures, Hillary Rodham Clinton made a lot of her fortune by giving speeches to Wall Street firms, the main target of public wrath for causing the Great Recession of 2008.
This provided an ideal target for Sanders, who singled out the fact that Clinton earned US$675,000 for three speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs. Sanders’ charges put her back on her heels; when asked by the moderator in a CNN town hall why she accepted so much money from Goldman Sachs, a nonplussed Clinton shrugged and replied, “That’s what they offered.”
Then there is the controversy over her having chosen to use a private, unsecured server installed at her home in Chappaqua, New York to process her e-mails, business as well as personal, when she was US secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office. The server issue, first revealed in March last year, now dogs her campaign, speaking not only to her tone-deafness, but, more deadly, to her judgment. How could she not know that a US secretary of state would receive and might respond to classified information?
After the server became public knowledge, Clinton, as her husband has also done, resorted to legalism: She had not received or sent information on her server that was “marked classified at the time.”
Students of Hillary-speak immediately sensed something fishy. The US Department of State, it turns out, has two e-mail systems: one classified and one unclassified; and one kind of material cannot be sent on the other. To avoid sending her classified information on her private server, her aides delivered it by other means — orally or in written summaries. Thus, they were not “marked classified at the time.”
Yet US Department of State inspectors have found hundreds of e-mails that had been sent to her server that should have been classified. An FBI investigation is underway.
Finally, what was supposed to be a huge asset for her candidacy — the prospect of making history as the first woman president — is not working out as she and her campaign had expected. As in 2008, large numbers of women do not want to be told that they must support Clinton simply because she is a woman. They find that an insult to their intelligence and young women in particular are largely supporting Sanders; they prefer his platform and are troubled by questions about her integrity. The only group of women that Clinton carried in New Hampshire, where Sanders beat her by 22 percentage points, was those over 65.
In the latest caucus, in Nevada, Clinton’s presumed advantage among non-white voters, who are a far greater factor in Nevada than in Iowa or New Hampshire, seems to have served her well, with Sanders failing to win enough African-American voters, in particular, to defeat her. This augurs well for future nominating contests, but the general election could be something else.
Elizabeth Drew is a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and an author.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.