Love Gets You Twisted
Let me offer a competing theory. Bill and Hillary Clinton love each other “truly, madly, deeply.” The former Prez worked hard for his wife in her Senate races and has been intimately involved in her presidential campaign. He blew the racial minuet after South Carolina not because he’s a perfect calculator who wanted to destroy his wife but because he’s a hot reactor who wanted to save her. His emotions got the better of him. Why? Because he loves his wife like crazy and realized her situation was desperate. (See hilzoy on the money.) Contrary to my expectations, the Clintons were losing and smart enough to realize it.
Sometime within the last year or two it occurred to me that political calculation was a bad explanation for the continued cleaving of Bill and Hill. Bill’s attained most of what he can hope for from politics. Hillary’s ambitions may – may – have been as well-served by a divorce as by continued marriage. You still see the occasional story quoting people who at least claim that they’re going to vote against the Senator because “she should have left him.” It’s an odd marriage – only odd people rise to that level of political eminence. But it’s too durable to assume, in this era, that it’s just a career move. I believe that if they were animals on the paradigmatic veldt and one of them died, the other would hang by the body and howl for days.
Comment by lemuel pitkin —
February 11, 2008 @ 10:22 am
That’s a lovely last sentence there.
Comment by LizardBreath —
February 11, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
This has always seemed like a pretty good explanation for their marriage to me. You can’t tell what’s going on inside anyone else’s head, but they always looked like they cared about each other.
Comment by diana —
February 11, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Call me naive, but I think both of them care about Chelsea deeply, and that binds them together. Call it the original triangulation.
Whatever, it’ll take a Huck-size miracle to get her the nomination.
Comment by bdr —
February 11, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Bill’s gotta love Hill a bunch if he’s willing to drive up Georgia Avenue and speak to the plaid-panted at Leisure World.
I suspect it’s been as hard for him to get his head around being First Dude as it’s been for many of us. He doesn’t know what his role should be; we don’t know what his role should be. He doesn’t know what his role will be, we don’t know what his role will be.
Good, bad; yes, no; yum, ick. Today is ick.
Comment by Flippanter —
February 11, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
For what it’s worth, the only friend of mine who had met them both, multiple times, when he was working in the government back during the first presidential term, described their relationship as “purely a marriage of convenience.” Convenience is more than one thing to more than one person, though.
Comment by Andrew Edwards —
February 11, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
When people were saying “Bill Clinton is tarnishing his legacy with his attacks on Obama”, I said this to a lot of my friends.
She’s his wife – I would give up a lot more than my legacy to help my wife achieve her lifelong dream. Because I love her. It’s really that simple.
Comment by Johnathan Pearce —
February 11, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Good point, Jim. I cannot believe the C’s would have kept together without a lot of love, a point that all but the most cynical should realise.
Comment by Jeet Heer —
February 11, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
“It’s an odd marriage”: all marriages are odd, if seen from the inside or up close.
Comment by Colleen, Maryland —
February 11, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Give me a break! What he did was more crazy cheerleader mom than loving spouse.
And don’t forget guilt. That plays a large part of their relationship as well. Bill’s giving her the oval (office) equivalent of the Mrs. Kobe Bryant ring.
Comment by Robert the Red —
February 11, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
You still see the occasional story quoting people who at least claim that they’re going to vote against the Senator because “she should have left him.â€
This is exactly the reason my secretary gives for hating Senator Clinton.
Comment by Hesiod —
February 11, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Or…Jim…it may just be that Bill isn’t married to barack Obama. And if Obama wins, he won’t get to hang around the White House and the levers of power which he clearly misses.
In addition, Bill is also competitive. Hillary is on “his” team. He wants “his” team to win. If she loses it reflects poorly on Bill — not just Hillary.
Comment by joe —
February 11, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Let me offer a competing theory. Bill and Hillary Clinton love each other “truly, madly, deeply.â€
Agreed, it’s a real Mickey and Mallory story.
Comment by witle —
February 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I knew a few people who worked at the White House (and were family friends from AK, meaning they were first term staffers). From one perspective (a person having grown up with the Clintons as family friends) there was this sense that these two people (Bill and Hillary) loved each other like crazy, in a way that nobody else could make sense of. They had fun together, doing wonky things. Their passion was politics and policy, and they flirted while debating – even in public. You had to know them really well to see it. Some thought it was icky, once they noticed, and some never noticed and thought it was “a marriage of convenience.” But, both have said that they’ve never met anyone like the other, and that kind of loving fascination and creative engagement is enough to drive most marriages, in the long run.
So, who are we to say if all this is true or not?
That said, dude, freaking awesome last line to the post.
Comment by Nell —
February 11, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
@witle: You meant ‘family friends from AR’, yes? AK is Alaska.
The loving couple and their supporters have called me six times in the last two days.
Nt a peep from the Obama campaign directly. Either they’re reading my comments on blog pages or trusting the polls that say he’s way ahead. Hope that’s right…
Comment by Nell —
February 11, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
And, I meant to echo witle’s praise for the last line.
Comment by commie atheist —
February 11, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Or…Jim…it may just be that Bill isn’t married to barack Obama. And if Obama wins, he won’t get to hang around the White House and the levers of power which he clearly misses.
In addition, Bill is also competitive. Hillary is on “his†team. He wants “his†team to win. If she loses it reflects poorly on Bill — not just Hillary.
I think Hesiod hits the proverbial nail.
Comment by Bill —
February 12, 2008 @ 12:27 am
What ? You are saying that the Clintons are human?
Nobody will believe that!
Comment by Farah —
February 12, 2008 @ 2:21 am
A very nice post. I keep trying to explain to people that a really successful marriage can be totally without “romance”, based instead on “fierce liking”. That’s what I see when I see them together.
As for “his team”. Well yes: I root for me and mine. Doesn’t everyone? Wives are expected to be proud of their husbands’ achievements and see them as part of the family success story, yet everyone is getting all hot under the collar when Bill Clinton exhibts the same behaviour towards his wife.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
February 12, 2008 @ 2:38 am
Works for me, Jim. And I note also that Chelsea’s apparently thorough success at being a smart young woman and good human being is a tribute to them doing something really right in the midst of appalling troubles.
Comment by lemuel pitkin —
February 12, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Chelsea’s apparently thorough success at being a smart young woman and good human being is a tribute to them doing something really right
Yeah, I don’t think the Clintons get enough credit for their undoubted success at being responsible, loving parents, pretty much uniquely among recent Presidents.
Comment by JJ —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
The problem I have with the theory that they stayed together out of love is that I see no real loving interaction between them, except the occasional required video byte to further her campaign.
I do give them credit for loving and caring about their daughter… pictures or clips of them with Chelsea are the only time I have seen them appear truly happy as a family.
I see the point that Farah made about relationships that have less romance, but even in a relationship where two people are in “fierce liking” with each other there should be some visible closeness. Those two are on camera so much that they cannot be saving those moments for behind closed doors.
In the end though, I will or will not vote for Hillary based on what I think of her as a potential President, her past record on issues close to my heart, and her potential to make a priority getting us out of Iraq. I ended up liking Bill because he was a good President, even if he could not keep his pants zipped.
Comment by Barry —
February 12, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Comment by JJ —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
“The problem I have with the theory that they stayed together out of love is that I see no real loving interaction between them, except the occasional required video byte to further her campaign.”
Remember that they’ve been in the public eye for 15 years now, with a large number of critics eagerly looking for clips which would be damaging.
In their shoes I’d probably appear in public like a Roman nobleman with an arranged marriage, veeeeery careful and proper.
Comment by Avedon —
February 12, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Most of the long-time couples I know that really adore each other don’t do a lot of public display, even among close friends. There may be the occasional spontaneous grab for the hand or stroke of the back, or even a kiss, but it just doesn’t happen a lot. It would be really hard to be The People Everyone Is Watching and be able to produce spontaneous signs of affection – and especially when you know that half the watchers will say it was contrived.
If I were in Hillary’s shoes, I think I’d mostly try to mingle with other people while my sweetie mingled with other other people and try to avoid anything that would be turned into a Thing. Because you know that even if they manage to steal a squeeze where they think no one is watching, someone will see it and claim they set it up. Ick.
I bet each of them always knows where the other is in the room, though, just like most married couples.
Comment by Dan —
February 13, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Totally agree with this post–and Avedon’s.
Never bought the “They made a bargain” argument. Never understood the “she’s not attractive” arguments either–even in her dorky feminist mode when they were first married. They’re an intense couple, who also bond over politics/policy/the game.
No doubt, they’ve run the emotional gamut like other still-together couples, with great times–and times when they were bored, irritated, feeling under-appreciated, and/or ready to kill each other.
They also came up as young pols at a time when Nancy Reagan-like adoring glance was much mocked.