You can measure the scale of an American president’s troubles by the number of skutniks he deploys during his State of the Union address.
Every year during his big set-piece speech to Congress, the president will digress from the main thrust of his remarks to offer fulsome praise to some member of the audience in the gallery. This person will have been carefully selected in advance by the president’s speechwriters as an exemplar of some virtue and placed there for the purpose. The television producers will have been alerted in advance so that at the right moment, as the president talks about the heroics of this American Everyman, he or she can rise self-consciously and receive the praise of a grateful nation. This now obligatory part of a constitutional ritual is called a skutnik after the name of the first person so honoured.
One January evening in 1982, Lenny Skutnik, a government employee, dived into the freezing waters of the Potomac River to rescue a victim of a plane crash. Two weeks later, during his second State of the Union address, with the US mired in recession, Ronald Reagan had Mr Skutnik sit in the gallery and paid a moving tribute to his heroics.
This week, for his penultimate State of the Union, Mr Bush had a veritable galaxy of skutniks — soldiers, military people, a firefighter. Whatever you might feel about the wisdom of Mr Bush’s Iraq policy or the feasibility of his plans to wean Americans off petrol, you can’t help but stand and cheer the good works of a decent person.
But there was something unusual about this year’s constellation of ordinary American heroes, beyond the sheer numbers. Usually the skutnik is a presidential privilege. But so intense already is the competition for the 2008 presidential race that others have muscled in.
And so Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a skutnik of her own. She arranged for the son of a New York policeman sick with lung cancer to be there. As it happened, the man’s father died that day, and the son’s grief became a sad and very visible coda to the event.
This little incident, the skilfully choreographed exploitation of a human tragedy, the cynically manipulated deployment of public sympathy in service of a personal political end, offered a timely insight into the character of the politician who this week launched the most anticipated presidential election campaign in modern history.
There are many reasons people think Mrs Clinton will not be elected president. She lacks warmth; she is too polarising a figure; the American people don’t want to relive the psychodrama of the eight years of the Clinton presidency.
But they all miss this essential counterpoint. As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.
Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.
Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.
To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channelled to the direct benefit of Mrs Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate.
And so you had this irony, a woman who had carved out for herself a role as an icon of the feminist movement, launching her own political career, riding a wave of public sympathy over the fact that she had been treated horridly by her husband.
After that unsurpassed exercise in cynicism, nothing could be too expedient. Her first Senate campaign was one long exercise in political reconstructive surgery. It went from the cosmetic — the sudden discovery of her Jewish ancestry, useful in New York, especially when you’ve established a reputation as a friend of Palestinians— to the radical: her sudden message of tolerance for people who opposed abortion, gay marriage, gun control and everything else she had stood for.
Once in the Senate she published an absurd autobiography in which every single paragraph had been scrubbed clean of honest reflection to fit the campaign template. As a lawmaker she is remembered mostly, when confronted with a President who enjoyed 75 per cent approval ratings, for her infamous decision to support the Iraq war in October 2002. This one-time anti-war protester recast herself as a latter-day Boadicea, even castigating President Bush for not taking a tough enough line with the Iranians over their nuclear programme.
Now, you might say, hold on. Aren’t all politicians veined with an opportunistic streak? Why is she any different? The difference is that Mrs Clinton has raised that opportunism to an animating philosophy, a P. T. Barnum approach to the political marketplace.
All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.
How does your article relate to Lady Macbeth??
Carlos, Miami, FL
Dear Mr Baker,
I don't suppose you would think it matters much, but have you ever met Sen. Clinton ?
I loved the comments of Mr Alan Riggs, Arlington Heights, IL and Mr Peter Reed, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Among the other comments, were men expressing their fear of Hillary ... interesting. I don't get it, but it's interesting.
Now that you've skewered Hillary, I'd love to see what you can come up with on the Republican side. It seems only fair. Or you could do some actual research and report on Hillary's achievements.
Laura, Dallas, Texas
Bill for first lady
Leon Baker, Panama City, Panama
"I really see nothing admirable or even ever so slightly remarkable about her!. She may be a fairly clever woman but had she not been married to Bill she would still be an obscure, very average lawyer plugging along anonymously!
S. D. Vest, Williamsburg , Virginia"
And for *that* she'll get your vote?
T, Farmington, USA
Brilliant piece! A clear perspective, all supported by an historical timeline of evidence, that should be familiar to to all of us.
Robert Durbin, Indian Springs,
I'd vote for Hillary Clinton...and I like Bill Clinton as well!!!
Neal Chamberlain, Fort Myers, Florida
Thank you, Mr. Baker, for giving voice to the horror I feel when I think of Hillary Clinton in the White House. Her cold, naked ambition and lack of respect for those she considers less intelligent ("advantaged") streams from every event described in her book "Living History". When s/he was in the White House, I observed her tendency to create an issue where there was none (see "Health Care"), all based on her skewed perception of circumstances . Granted, people can grow and evolve, but tigers don't change their stripes; they become more cunning.
Cynthia Litwer, Leawood, KS
Brilliant. The best, most clear sighted unblinkered view of Hilary's machinations to date. God help us all.
Turner McNiff, nyc, ny/usa
I don't often agree with anything in the "Times" and especially Mr. Baker. I have to say though he has penned the best description of Hillary Clinton I 've read. It is a clear insight into the lengths the Clintons will go to abtain power.
Jay, Greenville, U.S.A. , S.C
Leave it to the "Times" columnist to sort this all out. Senator Clinton has been an effective Senator from New York and that's as far as it should go. Should she be nominated by hook or by crook, the GOP is back in the White House so long as the candidate is not Jeb Bush.
The Senator brings too much baggage and rancor to the campaign. If Guiliani ends up being the GOP nominee, it puts New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut in the "undecided" column. Senator Clinton must have every one of these states or she can't win or even come close.
With Mc Cain or Romney, the situation is not quite as bleak, but it is still chancy. The Democrats have Obama and Edwards or Obama and someone else outside of the Northeast and they can win by carrying some former red states. Stay tuned, it's just starting.
Joseph W. Mathews , Manchester , Vermont USA
Half love her, half hate her. Polarizing to the max. Her brilliance is obvious - but I can't detect a scintilla of warmth, of genuine concern or empathy. For me the ultimate measure of her worth is simply this - she absolutely FRIGHTENS me!
Richard Smith, Corpus Christi, TX
From the couple of comments by actual constituents of hers, it seems like she's doing pretty well as Senator. I haven't made up my mind yet, but she's certainly in the running as far as I'm concerned. And for what's it worth, she's far less deceptive than the great deceiver McCain whom I once supported.
Steve Johnson, Baltimore, MD
Mr. Baker, you have nailed it. As an Arkansan, I remember Hillary the chameleon married to our governor. Hillary Rodham didn't go over so well in this Southern Baptist state, so she became Hillary Rodham Clinton. And thus it began.
Susan, Cabot, AR
In this age of ubiquitous ideological mindbending which passes for news and analysis, it is diffcult for ordinary people to have a genuine response to politicians. The fact that over and over again ordinary people are demanding that the Hillary apologize for her vote to authorize the Bush to go to war is one of the few hopeful signs in the whole dreary, sleazy process of US presidential sausagemaking. What people are reacting to are the hubris and cupidity of this manufactured woman. They see it clearly in moments that sneak through the mask. The Lamia flashes in her eyes when she is confronted. Americans like to say that presidential elections are about character. They are indeed. The problem is, through the chaotic moral dec onstruction of "the sixties", and the reactive reconstruction of the constipated conservatives of the last twenty-some years, nobody in public discourse knows how to define what "character" really means. These angry people see her clearly, and what they see is expediency in place of character. Faced with a dangerously uncertain world, their anger is the displacement of well-founded fear.
Luiz Gutierrez, Quincy, California, USA
Athough I'll vote for her should she be nominated, I really see nothing admirable or even ever so slightly remarkable about her!. She may be a fairly clever woman but had she not been married to Bill she would still be an obscure, very average lawyer plugging along anonymously!
S. D. Vest, Williamsburg , Virginia
Mr. Baker, I applaud you.
Angie Morris, Prince George, VA
I suspect Mr Baker is addicted to American talk radio and its staple of hyper scurilous anti Hillary nonsense. He joins a vast array of Hillary haters everywhere. I have an in-law who seriously considered moving from NJ to NY so he could vote against her. Like a huge majority of other New Yorkers I supported her because she commands attention and hence can be effective as a representative of my interests in the dirty world of politics where ambition and the drive for power are essential. It is the duty of journalists (are there any left deserving of the title?) to keep the political processes transparent and the politicans honest by keeping to the facts. Personal attacks masked as press reports and commentary may sell papers but do little to improve the quality of the debate, Mr Baker.
richard mennen, Ithaca, NY
In response to Peter from Denver: The reason we are looking already to the 2008 presidential election is that most of us desperately need to think beyond the current occupant of the White House. Six years has been plenty of him and his kind.
rey wells, tampa, florida
The thing that never fails to astound me - Hillary, Obama, or any one of dozens of candidates aside - is how Americans can start preparing for a presidential election 21 months before it is due to happen, They seem to be more excited about the look, style and manner of the candidates than they are about getting on with the country's business for the next two years. I don't know of any other country that conducts its politics this way. D.H.Lawrence said that the business of government is the nation's housekeeping. The housekeepers don't seem to be be doing a very good job. That seems tto have been put aside in the fervor of ""who's gonna win in 2008?"
Peter Weatherby, Denver, Colorado, USA
Spinning, spinning, spinning. All pols do and now their hired flacks have begun the long march to 2008.
Don Collins, Washington, DC, USA
What you say may be entirely true or, as I suspect, of limited truth because of her ambition and mostly false because of what occurs with most people as they age: growth, experience, and intelligent observation. You're not so black and white that you reject changes brought on by personal growth and maturity are you? Or, do you believe to have principles one must never change or adjust as you learn? Why not speculate that Bill's eight years and his transgressions were also orchestrated by Hillary in order to get her to this point in her career. Very Lady Macbethian, no? I believe she wrote her Village book about 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem to be very extreme--quite well received actually. Nice objective analysis. Regardless of your opinion or mine, in her one elected position, Hillary continues to be wildly popular with her constituents and indications are that she has done more than a credible job representing New York state, and, if you believe the polls, is currently trouncing other NY-based would-be presidential candidates.
Alan Riggs, Arlington Heights, IL
How did she get to be senator of New York? Weird.
You've written an excellent assessment of the woman. I hope everyone who really knows her will come out in the open with their observations.
And I just want to say-- she is no Boadicea. Or Kennedy. Or Lady.
Looking forward to your assessment of Obama B.
Dominique Fleur, NY, NY, USA
Lady MacBeth? Perhaps Lady Borgia would be better for she will poison the political waters to the point of non-redemption.
William Jones, Fort Worth, Texas
I can only console you with the thought that you may be able to have Mrs Clinton publicaly pilloried right after th Telegraph has Tony Blair hung, drawn and quartered.
I look forward to the day when we have politicians as deliberate in their thinking, as wise, and as ethical, as press reporters and commentators.
Peter Reed, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Having become a victim of Hillary Clinton's character a number of years ago when she was the first lady of Arkansas, I will have to say "amen" to your assessment of our American Lady Macbeth. She and he husband began their rise to fame over the backs of Arkansas school teachers, of whom I was one at the time. They gained the national spotlight through the famous "teacher test," a fifth-grade-level insult to the hard-working teachers of the state. The test did nothing to improve the educational standards in the state, but it did get the governor and his spouse the attention they craved. What a woman!!! What a shrew!!!
Martha Howard, Texarkana,, Arkansas USA
GW used to think of Tony as a Skutnick.
Doug Payne, New Russia, New York