Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

November 5, 2007

Hillary Clinton Tough? As You Now See, No

Where did people get the idea that Hillary Clinton is tough?

Her debate meltdown last Tuesday made it a bit more obvious to some who hadn’t noticed it previously, but her lack of toughness has been on display throughout her time as a public figure.

Sen. Clinton’s abysmal performance in last week’s debate was going to happen sooner or later. When you obfuscate on every issue, it’s only a matter of time before someone calls you on it. If this is too much for you, how can you handle being president?

Say what you will about George W. Bush. The man can take heat. He understands it is part of the president’s job. He doesn’t whine about it, he almost never fires back (much to the frustration of many of his supporters) and he almost never changes his position on anything because of it.

Sen. Clinton wants to position herself as a change from Bush. In this respect, she certainly is. She is one of the most thin-skinned politicians this nation has seen in a long time.

When her Democratic rivals called her to account on various issues, Clinton couldn’t even make it to the end of the debate without whining that she was being barred from the “boys club.” She went so far as to complain to moderator Tim Russert that being expected to actually clarify her position on something was an example of “gotcha politics.”

The next morning, representatives of her campaign ripped Russert for unfairly targeting her, which requires some serious chutzpah considering the degree to which the Clinton campaign has attempted to use the sense of her inevitability to cinch the nomination.

But this is nothing new. Mrs. Clinton has never been able to handle criticism. When she was put in charge of health care reform back in 1993, and people expressed alarm at the heavy cost burden she was prepared to impose on small businesses, she offered the astounding comment: “I can’t be responsible for the fate of every undercapitalized entrepreneur.”

Don’t bother me with questions. I’m saving the world. If you can’t adapt, blame yourself.

Everyone of course remembers her claim that accusations about her husband’s infidelity – accusations that proved true – were part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It is part of the Clinton lexicon that every criticism of her is an “attack.”

Her thin-skinned nature surely owes in part to the fact that she has rarely been held accountable for much of anything. When questions arose about her cattle-futures profits, her rather implausible explanations were reported by Time Magazine like this: “The real message was her attitude and her poise. The confiding tone and relaxed body language . . . immediately drew approving reviews.”

Attitude? Poise? Body language? With Hillary Clinton, this has usually been good enough. It’s no wonder she wasn’t prepared for the challenges leveled at her in last week’s debate. She has rarely been challenged on anything.

Indeed, the blatantly self-serving nature of her entire Senate career has never drawn much criticism. Everyone has known from day one that she only became a senator to position herself to become president. Everyone has known throughout her tenure there that every word she has uttered and every position she has taken has been designed to assist her in this ambition. Rarely has she been made to answer for this.

If Hillary Clinton wilts so easily when under siege from the likes of John Edwards and Christopher Dodd, what would she do under the daily barrage that comes with the territory when you are president of the United States? The White House press corps leans left, to be sure, but as her husband could tell her (and good grief, hasn’t he?) they won’t toss softballs to a Democratic president forever. They are, by nature, sharks. If they don’t have a Republican president to go after, they’ll devour their own.

Sen. Clinton is used to having circumstances rigged to ensure her success. That was never going to last throughout a presidential campaign. Indeed, it may have ended last Tuesday night, and she clearly didn’t have the stuff to handle it.

Whoever wins the Republican nomination should take note. The way to run against Sen. Clinton is to go after her mercilessly on issues and on her qualifications – not personal stuff – and not to be intimidated when she inevitably whines about the “negative attacks.” Shrillness is not toughness. There is nothing tough about Hillary Clinton. It’s about time people started figuring that out.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DC122.  Request permission to publish here.