The most labyrinthine candidate

For me, the most labyrinthine candidate to untangle is Hillary. Senator Dodd, yesterday, made a stunning (but I believe accurate) comment - that being first lady qualifies you for nothing. Hillary plays up her experience in the first Clinton Administration. But I wonder why. For me in the two most important initiatives in those eight years (NAFTA and Welfare Reform) there is little evidence that she had any role. In addition, her major responsibility early in the Administration, health care, was a huge failure. Her secret task forces were the height of hubris - assuming that this complex problem could simply be solved by closeting a bunch of supposed experts in meetings was laughable. The results show how silly the idea was - her task force produced an odd amalgam of ideas that would have made Rube Goldberg happy. Then there is her role in travelgate - where a bunch of minor functionaries in the White House travel office were dismissed under curious circumstances.

Quite frankly, I am also troubled by her seeming accommodation to her husband's bimbo eruptions. I think I understand the cross tensions here but the mix between the injured wife and the attack squad against the bimbos does not add up to me.

I am also troubled by her roles in Arkansas. The commodities trades, where as an amateur she guessed right on a series of turns in the market is beyond credibility. Arkansas was (and possibly still is) a feudal kingdom and her jobs with law firms and turns in the commodities markets are a demonstration of that. She clearly mishandled disclosures in Whitewater. Whether there was criminal intent here or simply sloppiness is not a distinction which I believe important. A good lawyer would a) read all the documents that she or her client signed and b) would not try to attempt to understand the financial position of an entity before certifying that the entity was in reasonable financial shape. A lot of good people have been lured by their position into ethical lapses, but that does not excuse them.

We then come to her career in the Senate. She has shown some interesting skills in this job. Most observers credit her with a good sense of policy and while she has been a little squirrelly on some issues (especially her vote on Iraq) I will concede that she should be credited well in this responsibility.

So how would she be as a president? First, I think she would probably be about as good as her husband was although I am not sure she has the flexibility that he showed when confronted with a GOP majority. I am always concerned about who any democrat would appoint to the Supreme Court. (Although my least favorite member was appointed by a Republican). Second, it is pretty clear that the establishment of the Democratic party would be comfortable with her - which may or may not be a plus. Third, her issues are predictable for a moderate democrat although one caught me by surprise. On her site one of her areas is comprehensive governmental reform. Her site states "Americans are ready for a government that puts competence ahead of cronyism." I am always skeptical about "reform" agendas - going back to one proceeded her as a New York senator. Roscoe Conkling worried that reform was even a better refuge for "scalawags and scofflaws" than was patriotism. Her record in Arkansas and with the White House travel office suggest that this may be rhetoric. And even if it were not, one of the first Clinton administration's big PR pushes "Reinventing Government" (Al Gore's horse before he got onto global warming) was a lot of rhetoric and not many results.

Could I vote for her? That depends on who the GOP nominates although the answer is probably no.