Cohen on Clinton

Richard Cohen’s column yesterday somehow found a silver lining for Hillary Clinton in her failed primary campaign: that she could now come back in 2012 as a gritty political vet who can stand on her own two feet and punch with her own two hands, rather than trade on her husband’s legacy. He also says that her association with Bill reminded us that she has been victimized, and is therefore unleaderly (can that be a word?).

Cohen’s probably right in saying that she was hurt by that fact that her public image contradicted the prevailing notion of what is the quintessential leader. Nonetheless, it's kind of silly. I don’t particularly like Clinton, but I’d like to think someone could be a nationally successful politician without always trying to be the alpha dog.

A lot of politicians seem to equate being a leader with imitating Thatcher or Churchill: someone who is aggressive and self-assured and tough as nails. Being Churchill was fine for Churchill, but most everyone else—not just in politics but in life—ends up looking like an ass. (W, I’m talking to you!) Indeed, even Churchill wasn’t Churchill until he had a challenge that measured up to his outsized personality. When I think of the worst bosses I’ve ever had, and more generally the most disagreeable people I’ve ever had the misfortune of knowing, almost all of them were men (though there’ve been a few women) who tried to dominate the group, who tried too hard to be the leader. I'd like to see less of those folks.