I like Andrew Sullivan; I really do. He's one of my favorite panelists to find on Real Time with Bill Maher. I love that he talks about his family . . . his husband . . . and has come around to the sensible perspective that George W. Bush isn't the president that Andrew thought he would be. I also love to read his blog when he takes some of our LGBT community organizations to task as they stick their well-funded heads up their asses on occassion.
But in his recent blog entry about Bill & Hillary Clinton, Sullivan asks some questions he should already know the answers to . . . and a little bit of research would have provided the insight he was trying to find.
So, let's take a stab at answering his queries, and let's ask ourselves just how clear Sullivan's crystal ball really is . . .
Andrew, you see, is concerned about Bill Clinton. Specifically, he's unsure what role the former president might play in a Clinton 44 administration. It's understandable that The Atlantic's blogger might have missed some of the information, seeing as how he was all busy and tied up trying to explain away his candidate's position on the ex-gays when Senator Barack Obama invited a controversial minister to tour the south with him. But nonetheless, Sullivan is a good guy, and so I feel compelled to try and provide him with some feedback.
Specifically, Sullivan says, "Clinton H, it seems to me, needs to be asked publicly if her candidacy is, as her husband described his in 1992, "two-for-one." Will her husband be given an official position in the administration? Will he be co-president again? Is he running with her? What role would he play in office again?"
It's a fair question, and a legitimate one to ask. It's also a question Senator Clinton has already answered.
According to numerous press reports, she has indicated that Bill would be a goodwill ambassador to the world during a Clinton 44 presidency. As Newsmax reported, "Hillary Rodham Clinton said . . . that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad."
"'I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?' the Democratic senator from New York asked a crowd jammed into a junior high school gymnasium. 'He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work.'"
So take note, Andrew: Bill Clinton would be working hard to restore some sense of respect for America among the international community, and trying to turn the tide on some of the global animosity the Bush Administration has created. And can't we all agree that that would be a good use of his time?
But wait . . . Sullivan has another concern, too.
He writes that, "it is simply a regrettable fact that in the current media climate, the 1990s could return with a vengeance - and sideswipe the country in a much more perilous time."
Perhaps I lived in a different America in the 1990s than some other people. But as I recall (and, granted, I admit to being a junior in high school when Bill was first elected), we had some pretty good economic prosperity back then . . . a budget surplus . . . good appointments to the Supreme Court . . . and an Attorney General who was actually willing to buck the politics that put her in office in order to uphold the law.
If that's what Sullivan is regretting, then he needs a reality check . . . now.
We've been down this road with Sullivan before, though. In 2000, he was a champion of George W. Bush. Who knew, after all, that a Bush Administration would be so disastrous?
Oh, wait, that's right . . . most of the country knew. Andrew's crystal ball just wasn't as clear as some of ours, maybe.
But it begs this question: If Andrew Sullivan wasn't paying close enough attention in 2000 to see the writing on the wall about George W. Bush . . . and if he isn't paying close enough attention now to answer his own questions with news readily available via Google . . . should anyone really be thinking that he has the insight - or, rather, foresight - to predict for us what a Hillary Clinton presidency might bring?
I, for one, submit to you that the answer is "no."
Sullivan closes his blog entry by asking one final question: "Do Democrats have a reason to be worried?" And let me answer that one for him, too.
If Hillary Clinton is president in 2009, we'll have little reason to worry . . . especially when compared to the presidency that Andrew Sullivan's vote helped launch back in 2000.
Give me Bill, Hillary and the "better than now" 90s anyday. That was, after all, a time when we finally found some of the answers we were looking for.