Hillary Clinton needs to play ‘Checkers’

I’ve written before about disturbing parallels between Hillary Clinton and our 37th President. Secretive to the point of paranoia, exaggerations and shading truth to the point of mendacity, a lifelong pattern of acting as if the rules which everyone else follows do not apply to them – and the bad luck to want to govern a country which boasts a robust free press.

Nixon had a pretty good run, all things considered. Congressman, senator, vice-president for 8 years, and twice elected president. Watergate aside (I know, that’s like asking Mary Todd Lincoln, “Aside from the shooting, how did you like the play?”), Nixon was, above all else, smart. 

{mosads}I don’t want to get sidetracked from my main point here, but I honestly can’t find anything in Hillary’s life to suggest to me that she is particularly bright. Failed the bar exam, fired from her first job, her “leadership” on affordable health care set back the cause for decades, incredible bungles as Secretary of State . . . I could go on, but if “Email-gate” doesn’t convince you, nothing I could say will. Smart people don’t commit unforced errors, offer unintelligible explanations and then lie about them.

So what should she do now? I think she should take a page from the Nixon playbook. In 1952 he was tapped as Eisenhower’s running mate. He was a polarizing figure in many ways. There was resentment at his “treachery” in delivering the California delegation to Ike at the nominating convention; the “favorite son” candidate Earl Warren was a popular governor with national aspirations of his own. Ike never cared much for Nixon, and when the Nixon “slush fund” scandal erupted, Eisenhower publicly made it clear that Nixon would have to sink or swim on his own: if he couldn’t prove he was “as clean as a hound’s tooth” he was off the ticket.

So what did Nixon do? Remember, television was new to the American people at the time. Eight years later television played a large role in his loss to John Kennedy. Anyone who looked at the two men during their televised debates thought Kennedy was a movie star and Nixon was a horror show. But in ’52 Nixon went on the air to deny any allegations of wrongdoing, and concluded with the famous “Checkers” peroration. In deflating the significance of gifts from Republican donors, he focused on the cute little dog the Nixons received, the black and white cocker spaniel his daughters named “Checkers.” And in his best Father of the Year persona, he made it clear that he wasn’t going to give his kid’s dog away just to satisfy a bunch of political critics.

Smarmy? Cloying? By today’s standards maybe even nauseating. But it was a resounding success. The cards and letters and phone calls poured in, and Ike gritted his teeth, grinned his famous grin, put his arm around Nixon, and said, “Dick, you’re my boy.”

Can Hillary, at this late stage, beset by a “vast Right wing conspiracy” consisting, inter alia, of the New York Times, the F.B.I., members of her own Party (off the record) and Bob Woodward, who knows a bit about cover-ups, do anything to help herself?  I think the short answer is that she cannot. She has demonstrated a dreadful lack of the one thing politicians need to have, the ability to relate to the average voter. And she has proved un-coachable and ineducable. When asked years ago about her choice to have a career, her shrill, “What should I have done, stayed home and baked cookies!?” demonstrated that she was both a snob and intolerant of women who opted to do precisely that.

Her dismissive “wiping” motion in response to questions about the disappearances off her server is just more of the same. Remember Adlai Stevenson? When told by an admirer that “All intelligent people will vote for you,” he responded, “That’s not enough, I need a majority.”  Very funny. He went 0 for two.

Hillary has only one hope, assuming the Justice Department does not indict before the election. She needs, and has, an even bigger dog than Checkers. The Big Dog is Bill Clinton. In the past he has proved to be both a boon and an anchor around her neck. Likable and still popular, but undisciplined, he defends her but often says things that damage her standing. Bill and Hillary are the quintessential business partnership, and her only hope is that Bill can do what Checkers did: deflect attention from what she has done.

Haiman is a retired Naval officer, a senior ethics adviser with Ethos, LLC, and teaches National Security and Police Science at George Washington University.