標題: Obituaries of the Clinton almost-dynasty premature Obituaries of the Clinton almost-dynasty premature By Edward Luce Published: June 6 2008 19:40 | Last updated: June 6 2008 19:40 When Bill Clinton told Hillary about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, the First Lady banished him to one of the White House couches for several nights. “I spent the first couple of days alternating between begging her for forgiveness and planning strikes on al-Qaeda,” Mr Clinton recalled. The former president was not implying any causality. But it is tempting to believe that Mrs Clinton’s wrath alone would be capable of launching missiles at distant targets. Starting this weekend, when she finally concedes the nomination, obituaries of the Clinton almost-dynasty will start to appear. They are likely to be premature. In spite of – and also partly because of – the pressure on him to do so, it is doubtful Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, will invite Mrs Clinton to join him as his running mate. In addition to the fact that Mr Obama has based his campaign on a rejection of the past, the Clintons bring with them more baggage than gets lost at Heathrow every week. But Mrs Clinton’s probable humiliation, which would partly be self-inflicted since she let it be known on Wednesday that she would be “open” to the invitation, pales in comparison to what her husband put her through in Arkansas, on the 1992 campaign trail and on many occasions during the White House years. It also pales against the character assassination that various outfits have visited upon Mrs Clinton since her husband first hit the national scene. And it is nothing to the obloquy that was heaped upon her when she mismanaged her attempt to push universal healthcare – or “Hillarycare” – through Congress. Bad words are often thrown at Mrs Clinton. Some call her humourless, others calculating. Many believe she is untrustworthy. But the two qualities on which friend and foe agree is her vaunting ambition and an almost inhuman stamina. That is why Mrs Clinton will this weekend pledge to strain every sinew to ensure her rival reaches the White House. It is also why she will out-enthuse all the other Obama “surrogates” in the autumn – assuming that she is invited to do so. And it is why the date of 2012 will keep recurring to help prevent that energy from flagging. It is, of course, presumptuous to say that Mrs Clinton is predicating her next bid on the back of a failed 2008 attempt by Mr Obama – or that she would even be thinking of it at this stage. But the facts, including her stated desire to be on Mr Obama’s ticket, fit the conjecture. Nobody other than Dick Cheney would agitate for the vice-presidency unless they believed it was a pathway to the top job. It was famously described by John Garner, Franklin Roosevelt’s first vice-president, as “not worth a bucket of warm spit”. Others would not even do it for that. As Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, once said when asked whether he would take it on: “I have no intention of submitting myself to torture for a second time.” And, on assuming the job, John Adams, America’s first vice- president, said: “My country has, in its wisdom, contrived for me the most insignificant office the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” Yet 14 vice-presidents, including Adams, have gone on to become president. Mrs Clinton could be the 15th. Or she could be the Senate figure who helps her party to regroup after a McCain landslide she had worked valiantly to prevent. Either scenario dictates her enthusiastic backing of Mr Obama. Then there was her “concession” speech on Tuesday night in which she was introduced as the “next president of the United States”. Mrs Clinton’s speech was interrupted by chants of “Denver, Denver” – the venue for the Democratic convention in August to which her supporters had wanted her to take the fight for the nomination. Such was the excitement that Mr Obama gave up trying to call Mrs Clinton after twice getting through to voicemail. Having spent the previous 12 weeks trouncing Mr Obama in primary after primary, Mrs Clinton could be forgiven for sounding almost victorious when it ended. Having also, on some admittedly stretched measures, garnered more of the popular vote than Mr Obama and only a fraction fewer delegates, she could also be forgiven for wanting the prize even more than when she started. Everything we know about the Clintons suggests the larger context. Consider their indefatigable campaigning long after victory was beyond reach. In blue-collar town after blue-collar town, Mrs Clinton spared no time or campaign money, including up to $20m (€12.9m, ￡10.2m) of her own cash, stumping for every possible vote. Should we take her at face value when she says she put herself through this hideously expensive and punishing schedule for the sake of her supporters? Or was she making an investment? As a close Clinton friend told the FT: “She didn’t just narrowly miss the nomination, she started a popular movement.” Books will be written about why such a formidable campaign could have failed. But Mrs Clinton will be looking to the future. “The Clintons don’t give up, ” said the friend. “Ordinary politicians think two or three moves ahead. These guys plan ahead eight moves.” The writer is the FT’s Washington bureau chief Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 新聞來源: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e095ffe6-33d1-11dd-869b-0000779fd2ac.html -- --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.129.160.233