Manipulator-in-Chief

The notion that the Democrats would select Hillary Clinton as their candidate has always seemed suicidal to me. Why run a candidate who immediately alienates a large proportion of the voting population? Bill Clinton’s prominence in the race makes Hillary’s candidacy seem all the more suicidal. His legacy as President is, even for Democrats, a mixed bag, and his conduct in the campaign has been off-putting in the extreme.

Find the web video of Clinton responding to a question about the legal challenge to the Nevada caucuses, and you’ll see a master manipulator at work: When the reporter suggests that the timing of the legal challenge was suspicious and seemed politically motivated, Clinton tried to corner the reporter with comments like: “Your position is that some votes should count more than others, and some people should have easier access to polls than others. If that’s your position, write it in your newspaper.” Of course, the reporter had stated no “position” at all, just asked an obvious question to a former President.

His participation in the South Carolina primary campaign has its obvious advantages. With Bill in charge, Hillary’s campaign can go after Obama with guns blazing and still avoid the charge that Hillary is being unfeminine. But Bill’s participation has an enormous downside; the man is genetically incapable of fading into the background, of taking the second spot.

Does anyone, even among Democrats, really want another four years of this former Manipulator-in-Chief?