Hillary vs. Clinton

Chuck Todd Chief White House correspondent and political director • Profile

WASHINGTON - So you think you have this Democratic primary fight figured out, don't you? It's Clinton vs. Obama (maybe vs. Edwards too). Well, in the words of the country's most loveable, yet annoying ESPN football analyst, Lee Corso: "Not so fast my friends."

With about a thousand hours to go until the start of the Iowa caucuses, it seems this race is as much about Hillary vs. Clinton – with "Hillary" representing change and "Clinton" representing status quo – as it is about Clinton vs. Obama.

Here is my assumption: If Democratic voters go in to caucus night in Iowa (or primary night in New Hampshire) believing the frontrunner is "Hillary," then she will have successfully sold herself as a change agent.

If these same Democratic voters are still debating the idea of sending another "Clinton" to the White House, it may mean major problems in these early states, which then translates into massive problems down the road.

This conundrum of "Hillary vs. Clinton" as a choice for Democrats really hit home with me in the last few weeks as Bill Clinton decided to become a major surrogate for his wife, in more than just campaign appearances.

Whenever the former president is on the scene, the immediate question for any political reporter or analyst is: Is he or isn't he an asset?

He's clearly the most powerful presidential candidate spouse in history. When he speaks, everyone listens. And for those of us in the press corps, we don't just listen, we transcribe and then begin parsing everything he said. We are all convinced there is some hidden code in what he says, and we must unlock it.

It's what makes using Bill Clinton as a surrogate so difficult sometimes. The press has a knee-jerk reaction when they hear Bill Clinton speak: They automatically assume they are being spun. His words aren’t merely reported, they are analyzed.

This may read like a member of the media admitting to holding Bill Clinton to a different standard. But Clinton did it to himself. In fact, before 1998, I'd be willing to bet I used the word "parsley" in my every day life more often than "parse." But then we had to decipher the meaning of the word “is”...

But so far, a majority of voters don't seem to have a problem with Bill Clinton back in the White House. Voters may be picturing Bill as America's host, or some form of a traditional first lady, er, laddy.

But how will voters react if they know Bill Clinton will be in Cabinet meetings? Or be traveling the country to sell Hillary’s policy proposals? Or head to the Hill to twist arms in Congress?

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

CQ: GOP presidential hopefuls — You’re on notice   Obama prods China to take role on climate Poll: Americans fret over health overhaul costs Newsweek: Would House health bill boost spending? Mutual financial reliance binds U.S., China NYT: Drug firms raise prices ahead of reform From Levi to Letterman: Palin's rough year Carter defends handling of Iran hostage crisis Pro-Cuba embargo money flows to lawmakers Palin offers readers insight into ’08 ups, downs Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: