The Audacity of Hope (Ar.)

Dubbed the United States’ first black president, it’s rather ironic that Bill Clinton is now taking fire from inside the party he directed out of the doldrums in the 1990s because of his recent dialogue with Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

According to a recent article written by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, two prominent members of the Democratic Party have urged Clinton to tone down the harshness of his rhetoric regarding Obama.

One, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.), went as far as to intimate that Clinton had some level of culpability, according to Alter, for the interjection of race into what has become a two-horse race between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Race and its antecedents as issues for the Clinton campaign are simply not winnable—that much is clear.

Stopping short of calling him Snow White, Mr. Clinton recently characterized Obama’s stance on the war in Iraq as a “fairy tale,” which ruffled the feathers of many African-Americans including one prominent Congressman in South Carolina, James Clyburn.

The gaffe may prove fatal for Mrs. Clinton in the Palmetto State, where nearly half of the Democratic electorate is African-American.

Mr. Clinton has certainly hurled his share of mud since the status of Hillary’s campaign turned from prohibitive favorite toward coin flip, to be sure, but he is doing it so she doesn’t have to.

But, will the long-term costs outweigh any short-term benefits?

For Democrats like Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel—the other leading Democrat who reportedly chided the former president—Clinton’s shilling on behalf of his wife, at least with regard to the shrill nature of his rhetoric, is destructively symbolic.

The Democratic Party can ill-afford to tarnish its image in the eyes of black Americans; and when the Party’s de facto leader is perceived to be vigorously undercutting Obama, who doesn’t require the honorary title of “black,” it stands to reason that the powers that be in the Party might become a bit skittish.

Again, as long as race is a significant part of the discourse on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton cannot expect to lure African-American voters to her side of the debate.

The overarching lesson here is that the insertion of the “Audacity of Hope”—the title of Barack’s bestselling book”—into the political arena has done more to hurt Hillary than to help Obama.

Some politicians, the Clintons included among them, simply excel at what the Illinois Senator refers to as “the politics of cynicism.”

The Clinton’s political war machine, once orchestrated by renowned bottom-feeders like James Carville and Dick Morris, simply cannot effectively purvey negativity the way it may need to against a popular African-American opponent.

Further, were Obama not staked to protagonist politics, he might find himself similarly drawing the ire of many in the populous for negatively attacking a woman. (Going negative simply would not help his cause, so his principled stance actually reeks of political gamesmanship.)

These are the newest variables in the old (and white) boys club of American presidential politics--get used to them.

If Mr. Clinton chooses to ignore the advice of his influential cohorts, we may see a top-down shift in support amongst Democrats toward Obama.

If that happens, Hillary’s presidential campaign legacy may mirror Al Gore’s—only in reverse.

Al tucked Bill away in 2000, and many pundits argued it cost him the presidency.
Hillary, on the other hand, is sharing the stump with her spouse. Only time will tell if there is room enough for both of them.