Skip navigation
sponsored by 

Transcript for June 25


< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

MS. KORNBLUT: I think all sides would agree that that’s the case. Her, her camp would say that she was—she joined the committee after the September 11th attacks, that, as a New Yorker, that being on the Armed Services Committee, there’s a lot of substantive work for her to do there. But certainly, they look at the Thatcher model as one that—the Margaret Thatcher—Great Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as a—as a model of toughness in the role of a woman leading a country.

MR. RUSSERT: Your paper had a front-page story about the relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton. David Broder weighed in that. When you interview 50 people about their relationship and put it on the front page, it’s a statement of some kind. Yeah. Is the issue of what role would Bill Clinton play in a Clinton—in a Hillary Clinton White House a legitimate one? Is their marriage a legitimate issue?

MS. KORNBLUT: Well, I think people are going to be endlessly fascinated with his role—he’s a former president—certainly, with their marriage. As a political issue, it’s not one you hear Republicans wanting to run on. They would rather define Hillary Clinton as angry, talk about her susceptibility as a woman. You have to remember at the height of impeachment, which is what we’re talking about when we talk about their marriage, her numbers actually rose because she was seen as a sympathetic character. So I don’t know that it would be the core political issue, but it certainly is interesting to people.

MR. GREGORY: But you know, back in 2000, I remember Governor Bush using that line against Gore, “the shadow returns.”

MR. RUSSERT: Hmm.

MR. GREGORY: You know, the shadow of Bill Clinton. And of course, just as it was argued against Bill Clinton at the time that there was a co-presidency with his wife leading major policy initiatives, I think here, too, it could be not only the personal drama of the relationship, but also does he play a more substantive role?

MR. RUSSERT: We did hear initially in 1996, David, “Two for the price of one.” I don’t think we’ll hear that in 2008.

MR. BRODER: No. I got hammered so much for writing about this subject, I ought to just keep my mouth shut. But I’m afraid it—the marriage will be an issue.

MR. RUSSERT: But certainly—but certainly his role in any administration would be legitimate, but is scrutiny of the marriage legitimate?

MR. BRODER: I think his role is legitimate, and for Democratic politicians, the notion of having to relive all of those stories about what is the nature of their relationship is really a nightmare.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

MR. BROWNSTEIN: You know, it’s a subset of a bigger—of the bigger trend that really lies through ‘06 and ‘08. I mean, unless things improve a lot for Bush, what you’ve got is a desire for change in the country that is very real in all of these numbers. And the question is whether Democrats can make themselves an acceptable, you know, vehicle for that change. The Republican mantra for this election is choice, not a referendum. Even if you’re unhappy, that doesn’t mean you think Democrats will do a better job. Democrats face the same challenge in ‘06 and ‘08, convincing voters unhappy with this direction that their direction would be the—would be better. And whether Bill Clinton helps, puts a thumb on the scale, yes or no, I think is a relatively minor consideration.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. David, Ron, David, Anne. Thanks very much.

We’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Don’t forget you can now watch the entire hour of MEET THE PRESS whenever, wherever you want. Our MEET THE PRESS webcast posted each Sunday, 1 p.m. Eastern on our Web site, mtp.msnbc.com.

That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.



< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Sponsored links

Resource guide