If Hillary Clinton could overcome an arguably poor image after the Benghazi scandal that plagued the last few months of her Secretary of State tenure, can New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie move past the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal?
Nope.
But for people who probably don’t agree too much on public policy, Christie, a Republican, and Clinton, a Democrat, have a lot in common.
They’re both, in the mind of their respective parties, the best person to run for the presidency in 2016. They both, in polls from news organizations and nonpartisan surveyors, have wide support and are viewed as being capable of holding the office of president.
Christie had a sterling reputation as a Republican who — though brash — proved he can work with Democrats. But then the New Jersey media discovered his administration (a deputy chief of staff, to be specific) apparently ordered unnecessary “traffic problems” for the world’s busiest bridge. Critics said the move was punishment for the mayor of Fort Lee’s lack of endorsing Christie, who successfully ran for reelection in 2013.
Clinton, a former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State who spent eight years living in the White House watching her husband Bill Clinton lead the free world, would be, in the eyes of many, one of the most holistically experienced presidential candidates of all time.
But under her watch, four Americans died in a terrorist attack on a U.S. Embassy in Libya. Worse: the attack happened on the anniversary of 9/11. Worse still: the Obama administration first said the attack was the result of a “spontaneous demonstration” before it was reported that the attack was planned, that U.S. intelligence was warned and that it was linked to al Qaeda, the terror network founded by the organizer of the 9/11 attacks on America, Osama bin Laden.
The difference, besides the obvious loss of life in the case of Clinton’s scandal, is that Christie now faces two separate probes, one by the New Jersey legislature and the other by the federal government. Christie’s office has been subpoenaed by both.
Clinton, on the other hand, appeared before Congress to perhaps infamously tell a congressional committee “what difference does it make” what reasoning the government initially told the public about why the attack happened. What does matter, she said at the time, is how to make sure this never happens again.
Then she left office, as planned.
Christie, on the other hand, is in a much more tangled web, being that we now know several people in his inner circle were aware of and executed a plan to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge.
Even if Christie didn’t know — which I think is highly unlikely, even though he denied it in a press conference last month that went on for about two hours — we must ask why a deputy chief of staff would request “some traffic problems in Fort Lee” if she didn’t think she was doing something her boss would approve.
It appears to have been the culture in Christie’s administration — that brash, F-you-if-you’re-not-with-me New Jersey style — that led to those lanes being closed in Fort Lee.
Also:
1) The Benghazi attack, though incredibly tragic, can’t resonate with many voters because it happened far away, and Clinton’s leadership wasn’t being questioned as much as it was with the handling of the events by the Obama administration as a whole.
2) Everyone understands how painful it is to want to get home from work and have to face a long commutes first. Not everyone can fully understand what it’s like to work in an embassy. The Christie scandal relates so much more to the everyday person than the Clinton scandal, which is probably more of an Obama scandal anyway.
Prediction: In short, Christie is toast; Clinton, if she runs, is the next president.
Joshua Jamerson is a junior studying journalism and local editor for The Post. Who would you vote for in 2016: Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie? Talk politics with Joshua at jj360410@ohiou.edu.
