Hill and Two Bills: Checking In on the Clinton Comeback

In spite of all the adulation heaped on Karl Rove, maybe he's not exactly the PR legend he's been promoted to be.  (And who know how he would have fared the last four years if he hadn't had 9/11 to exploit. And re-exploit.)

In any case, the Clintons are pretty good at the game too.  And to my mind, Bill/Hill gave a textbook example this week of how its done. The setting was Billy Graham's huge crusade at Flushing Meadows Park in New York. 

For the Clinton's, the event provided just the latest opportunity to continue: a) building up Hillary's image as a moderate, b) enhancing her appeal to faith based voters, c) breaking down the identification of the GOP as the party of faith, d) reconstituting Bill Clinton's public image and e) reinforcing the Clinton's marriage as just as healthy and morally balanced as the next.

(The obstacles they're dealing with, of course, include perceptions -- heavily propagated by those very real enemies of theirs -- that a) Bill is a heathen, b) the Clinton's marriage is one of convenience, c) Hillary is primarily an opportunist, and d) Hillary lacks religion.) 

If you've been tracking Hillary pre-campaign, she's been pursuing a smart, deliberate and progressive strategy to reinforce either newer (or truer) perceptions and extinguish the old ones.  Along the way, she has de-emphasized abortion in favor of family planning as a "third way" in the pro-life/pro-choice stand off.  She voted for the war.  She has been an active member of the Armed Services Committee.  And, she has courted personalities across the political divide, including Newt Gingrich and Lindsay Graham.  So, what better opportunity to bolster the new paradigm then by appearing with the legendary, yet basically apolitical mega-evangelist, Billy Graham?

There were basically two sets of images from the Graham event, those featuring Hillary and Bill, and those featuring Bill and Billy.  (In fact, I only found one shot in Yahoo News that included Hill and Billy, and that was an undistinguished group photo taken from long distance without any contact between BG and HRC.)  The primary PR opportunities that day, however, did not require a shot of Hillary and Graham. 

To illustrate why this event played so effectively in the Clinton's favor (from a PR standpoint, you could almost say it was divinely inspired), a diagram might be in order.  If you grant me the liberty, I'd like to illustrate the impact by juxtaposing two sets of the most singular images.  (You'll find the other set after the fold.)

In this first pair, the power of the top image derives from the association of Bill (who has always had a deep religious and spiritual faith) with the cross and the pulpit reinforced by the connection to Billy Graham, the renowned spiritual leader who respects the Clintons and even lent them comments of endorsement.  Bolstering that set of connections, however, is the one to the Almighty himself, whom Graham (in this fantastic aspect of the photo) seems to be conferring with directly. 

From a PR standpoint, what more could a reformed sinner ask for?

I add the image of the Clinton's on stage (sitting beside Graham) to show how Hillary derives benefit. To the extent Bill gains grace this particular day through and from Graham, so does the couple through Bill. The real significance of this event from Hillary's standpoint has little to do with Hillary directly, but is vital to her in terms of the resurrection of Bill as well as the public restoration of the couple. From that perspective, the hand holding and the laughter and the overall unanimity between Hill and Bill functions -- from a political standpoint -- nearly like a reaffirmation of vows before this religious audience and one of God's top spokesmen. In that light, the picture here (and I don't believe it's all PR) is of a strongly tested, normal (Christian) couple on the road back.

(And I mean normative, not idealized.  The latter you can save for Bush.)

The strongest images from this event, however, were the shots of Clinton and Graham at the podium/pulpit, where the affection between the two Bills couldn't have been more genuine.

This top shot is powerful (if not politically rare these days) in the way Clinton, framed by the colored lights, creates a physical bond with Graham. (It should be noted that Clinton's desire to touch has always been much deeper than just sexual). The image is all the more impressive when you consider that it's Clinton controlling the microphone at the rock star Graham's event, but the preacher's obvious regard for Clinton, and Clinton's gift for showing the love (and also the fact Bill stayed visually lower than Graham) neutralizes the suggestion of a desire to score points.

This last shot, however, does probably the best job of capturing Hillary's gain that day. If she's not really the spiritual type (and who says she has to be? here, she's obviously clapping, while Bill seems more prayerful), she can basically be herself, and derive credit and satisfaction just presiding over a momentous civic event as the proud Senator from New York.

As a politician -- at least, the way it used to be -- it doesn't get more spiritual than that.

(image 1, 2 and 3 : Shannon Stapleton/Reuters. June 25, 2005 in YahooNews. image 4: Stephen Chernin/AFP/Getty Images. June 25, 2005. Yahoo News. image 5: Gregory Bull/AP. June 25, 2005 in YahooNews.)

Comments

[Kerstin]

I saw Hillary give the commencement speech at Wellesley back in '92. She is a dynamic force in her own right. She was positively glowing with energy that day. Everything about her said "vibrant, articulate, strong, intelligent." There was something about her persona that strongly suggested a deep connection to life so one shouldn't assume that because she doesn't wear her spirituality as obviously as Bill that she isn't a spiritual person.

That said, I remember being unhappy with her speech. It was all about "my Bill." How proud she was to be married to him, what a good decision it was to pack up her life and move to Arkansas to join him. For a woman who was an active student at the school back in her days and went on to carve out a career of her own, it seemed very odd for her speech to focus on him. She used the speech to stump for him and I felt it shortchanged the woman who were graduating. I wanted to hear HER thoughts, HER ideas, HER history.

With the relentless and unfair attacks on the couple over the years, it is almost impossible now to "know" either of them, but especially her. Is it because his charisma outshines everyone around him? Or is it because there isn't as much substance to her as I want to believe?

[mugatea]

These two have been sucking up to the right so much that I have lost respect for them. Hill even supports unfiltered tire burning for energy at an International Paper plant in upstate NY. Bill's penis/brain handed the country over to the extreme right.

As for the photos it's nice to see a podium that actually does have a cross on it instead of us all speculating that we see one.

[The BAG]

Mugatea,

I don't fault your irritation either with the Clinton's or with the BAG. Insufferability and political expression (and, probably this made-up discipline of image analysis, too) probably go hand in hand. That said, I was quite chastened a couple weeks ago after I made an off-handed comment (n my post on John Bolton) about Howard Dean having a tendency to say dumb things. It seemed I had the whole world (or, at least a healthy cross-section of the readership) coming down on me for criticizing our own. Or, more specifically, for my having absorbed the conservative spin.

As I've said before, I'm not a big Hillary fan. There are a lot of other politicians out there that give me a warmer fuzzier feeling, and seem much truer to the liberal ideology. That said, these folks ARE politicians. And the Clinton's philosophy, I believe, is to tack to the middle (and, these days, probably farther than that) in order to win. I might be completely naive, but my sense is that Hillary (if she can get in office) will show a much stronger progressive self than she would even dare to telegraph these days. And even if we get Clinton II, with all kinds of kowtowing to the business class, I'm sure the day after the election it will still feel like our own "Morning in America"-- at least upon seeing that fleet of Bush/Cheney moving vans. (And then we'll see what Laura tries to sneak out the back door.)

I also think Kerstin's comment about "knowing the Clinton's" is interesting. The Clinton's have been so contaminated, it seems there is nothing good that one can find there. Okay, they are chameleons more than most. Still, I think we need to work harder to develop a more informed view of both characters. Hillary may do herself a disservice with her interminable tendency to posture and position. However, that shouldn't negate the likelihood that, under that persona, she is passionate about a good many things -- and that many of those things resonate more solidly on our side.

[lytom]

The Bill/Hill couple is not a "ray of hope" for a change in the direction US is going. They had a chance and wasted it.
The feeling comes across loud and clear "politics at play" and "play at sincerity". They play this game well!
Not much more to say to this...Feels like an advertisement or a sitcom.

[jefrog]

I don't know about their relative charisma in person, but in these pictures, Bill dominates the ones he shares with Hillary. I think this is conscious image-making on the photographers' part, and represents the fine line that Hillary is trying to walk: showing that her marriage works and that she's committed to her partner, but also that she's an independent woman who isn't just a Trojan Horse for getting Bill back into the White House (I know members of both Right and Left who think--or want to believe--this). She also has to handle gender politics, as noted in the entry on her biography: not look too powerful/assertive (i.e., unfeminine), but just strong enough to lead the country. This contradiction is untenable, and I don't think she, or any other woman, can pull this off in this country at this point.

Kerstin's comments made me think about Laura Bush vs. Hillary, how both have taken on a certain opacity in their public personas that allows us to project what we want onto them, and how this has worked for the former much more than for the latter. (Does anyone think Laura's evil? To the contrary, some liberals think she might be hiding her "true" liberal tendencies, or even softening her husband's conservative beliefs, a delightful fiction.) But then, Laura's no politician, while Hillary's embracing that role. Then again, as a woman, maybe Hillary-as-politican has advanced as far as she has because she's kept the focus on others, be it her husband or her constituents, and not overtly on herself. Is there another couple we know so much and feel we know so little about?

[mugatea]

Hey, I have no irritation with the BAG.

;)

[The BAG]

Peace be with you, Mug. I couldn't tell, when you expressed relief that the cross was a cross, that you weren't tiring of all our speculatin'. Now I get it. In a world of spin (what were those defnitions of "is" and "last throes" again?), we can all feel more appreciation for the literal.

[mad]

Excellent photos to be working with- fairly simple and very powerful.

I've got some questions:

Where is the commentary on fashion- aren't style, color, and hair important items for transmitting information? (I am unable to provide comment, since it is all a mystery to me.)

What's with Bill Clinton's weight, or have I missed updates on this? He's looking relatively skinny.

How in the world has it come to pass that this great nation is stuck on the Bush family and the Clinton family? Jeezum, aren't there any other viable national leaders?

I would think that this sort of political inbreeding leads to retardation, blindness, immorality, pig-headedness, sloth, greed, cruelty, crudity, feebleness, and a generally weakened state of affairs.

Plenty of examples from history, biology, psychology, religion, etc.

[Quentin]

Oh, mad, I'm so happy you said it: Why is this great nation stuck on the Bush family and the Clinton family? I don't know whether the nation is actually 'great' but when Georgie leaves office in 2008, these two families will have dominated its national politics for twenty years - that's right, repeat after me, TWENTY - and who wants this to go on for another four or eight years. I don't, do you? So let's start really shopping around. To my mind, Hillary Clinton is hollow; I can't see why anyone thinks she might turn out to be a good leader; and I still can't figure out how she found so many rich and powerful friends in N.Y. that she could become a N.Y. senator. What has she done as senator? Think about it. Vote for and continue to support war, for instance. Is the job of a senator to manage, manipulate public opinion so the presidency can be attained? She has no convictions now, and she won't have them as president, which she will never become. I know this isn't a political blog. However these pictures are nothing but political. And today we see Georgie and the Clinton's juxstaposed. So politics are unavoidable. I'll refrain from getting involved in the other part of this equation: religion.

[Kerstin]

I agree with you, mad. At a time when women are being refused contracetion at the pharmacy counter, we think a woman -- esp. one with such enormous baggage -- could be president ... it's laughable. While I would love to see a woman as President, Hillary will never cut it. Think about all the ways she's tried to play this over the years. "I'm no Tammy Wynette standing by her man" yet I attended her speech that could've been written by Tammy herself. I think we saw more of the true Hillary pre-First Lady and I found her spunk refreshing. As far as her liberal tendencies, it's hard to say. People find her collaboration with conservatives exasperating but we all tend to forget that she was once a Goldwater Girl.

[Quentin]

Kerstin,

Question: Was she literally once a Goldwater Girl? When was that? She must have been like a kid when Goldwater ran for president in 1964, some 40 years ago, so she was then maybe at most about 15 years old. She was once an arch-conservative? This throws a new light on her.

[The BAG]

"I know this isn't a political blog."

Ouch!

[dancinfool]

(Does anyone think Laura's evil? To the contrary, some liberals think she might be hiding her "true" liberal tendencies, or even softening her husband's conservative beliefs, a delightful fiction.)

As a liberal, I think Laura Bush is a perfect example of the Stepford Wife 2005.
.

[jefrog]

I'm curious as to what you mean by that, dancinfool. The original Stepford Wives were stripped of their agency by their husbands--is that what you see happening here? And if so, is Laura to blame for allowing it to happen to herself? Doesn't that imply that she disagrees with her husband?

[Kerstin]

Quentin, I'll look it up but there was a long article about her once in the Wellesley mag. If I remember correctly, her family was staunch Republican and she was a Goldwater Girl in '64. She then went off to Wellesley and smartened up. :)

As for Laura, she has the look of a Stepford wife, but I suspect she's more the mother figure for Dubya. Didn't he once refer to her as "the lump in the bed next to me?" I don't see her as having liberal tendencies at all. Then again, it's hard to see anything in her.

[Kerstin]

Quentin, a quick Google search confirms the fact that she was, indeed, a Goldwater Girl. Two links that amuse me: A quote from Goldwater on Hillary: "If he'd let his wife run business, I think he'd be better off."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/quotes30.htm

The other link is purely to illustrate the outrageousness of the attacks against her. I found Barbara Olson's book "Hell to Pay" on Christianbook.com. How "Christian!"

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=62746&p=1013824

[Quentin]

Ouch? What's so painful about that remark, Bag? Now a whole new tack unfolds.

[Quentin]

Groupies for Goldwater! I'm speechless. Goldwater was the source of all evil and John McCain is his Arizona ghost. How will we ever get through all this madness? I sort of like the beltbuckle.

[Grumpy]

Forgive me for nagging, but this apostrophe abuse has got to stop. I wouldn't mention it, except that you have one paragraph that uses the same apostrophe form three different ways, only one of which is correct.

"For the Clinton's, the event provided just the latest opportunity..."

For a simple plural, no apostrophe necessary. In English, nouns are pluralized with the addition of -s or -es (except lowercase abbreviations, like abc's).

"reconstituting Bill Clinton's public image..."

Singular possessive. Hard for anybody to mess up.

"reinforcing the Clinton's marriage..."

Plural possessive. First, make plural, then add an apostrophe: "Clintons'." Or have the rules changed since I learned them?

Again, pardon my nagging, but this is my white whale.