December 15, 2007
Back Talk V Posted by John Steele Gordon at 11:10 AM EST This discussion began with two examples of politicians being sandbagged by journalists and not putting up with it, to their credit. I agree with Alexander Burns that politicians have to be careful with this tactic, as it can backfire, especially if one lacks the talent for coming up with the right response in real time. Chris Dodd, I think, responded perfectly to the moderator’s unfair question in the debate the other day. It was far better than a justifiably angry response would have been. (By the way, I believe I speak for the entire political nation when I hope that Carolyn Washburn never, ever, again moderates a presidential debate. She may, for all I know, be an excellent journalist. But she was as good at leading these two debates as I would be at quarterbacking in the NFL.) Some people who have considerable political gifts just lack the talent for instant response. Dan Quayle certainly didn’t do a good job responding to Lloyd Bentsen’s nasty jab at the 1988 vice-presidential debate. And in the 2000 campaign, some radio journalist whose political sympathies were not hard to discern—radio’s answer to Dan Rather—asked George Bush who the prime minister of, I think, Tajikistan was. Bush, needless to say, didn’t have a clue, and he fumbled his response. In retrospect, what he should have said, I think, was, “I haven’t the faintest idea and neither did you until you looked it up this morning so you could blindside me with the question.” On the other hand, people with the talent for instant and witty response might not make good Presidents. I’m a great admirer of Groucho Marx and Johnny Carson, but I have my doubts about how they would have fared in the White House. It might be noted that British politics is much more accustomed to witty zingers. Anyone who survives the fiery furnace of House of Commons debate—much rowdier than in Congress, and where the repartee is often very witty and sometimes vicious—long enough to get to high office is going to be good at instant response. I remember Margaret Thatcher being referred to in Parliament as “La Pasionara of privilege” and “Attila the Hen,” both in the I-wish-I’d-said-that category, even though I’m a great admirer of Lady Thatcher. I am glad to see that Alexander Burns is no more of a Hillary Clinton enthusiast than I am. I have long suspected that her lead in the polls over the last few months was mostly because of name recognition. Now that we’re getting down to the wire and the people, not just the punditocracy, are thinking about choices, her lead is evaporating. But her biggest problem may not be her evasiveness and unlikability, but her baggage. The biggest Clinton steamer trunk of all, of course, is her spouse. Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine, has an article in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) about the possibility of Clinton’s being appointed to the Supreme Court. There is precedent for this. William Howard Taft, after all, served as Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930, an office he vastly preferred to the Presidency. I find a Bill Clinton justiceship highly unlikely for two reasons. One, Supreme Court justices are expected to shut up on questions that might come before the Court and about what goes on behind the scenes there, and Bill Clinton is not exactly famous for his reticence. Two, I can’t see the Senate—any Senate—confirming to the high court a man who had his law license suspended for five years for “serious misconduct.” So far as I know he has never asked for reinstatement to the bar. Anything can happen, of course, but my guess is that we have seen the high point of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
|
