Forget the polls. Here is the best news I have seen for Bush supporters:
Former president Bill Clinton, whose recuperation from heart surgery last month has been slower than he anticipated, will not make more than a few cameo appearances on behalf of Democratic nominee John F. Kerry, and even an abbreviated schedule is far from certain, friends and Democratic officials said.
Clinton has been recuperating from his Sept. 6 quadruple bypass surgery at his home in Chappaqua, N.Y., with a recovery regimen that has included mile-long walks. He has completed the walks but finds himself exhausted after each jaunt, friends said, and he remains in considerable pain from the chest incision.
Two things about Clinton, one that Republicans won’t admit to and one that Democrats are wary to concede to:
1.) Bill Clinton is a winner: Face it, Republicans. Bill Clinton may have his moral failings, but the man is a winner. Son of an alcoholic born in a broken home and raised in poverty, things have turned out pretty well for Bill Clinton, and I don’t know too many people who would not trade places with him. The man is bright, personable, well-respected within his circles, and wealthy. If I remember correctly, he has lost only one race in his entire political life. In a testament to his tenacity, he horse-whipped the candidate four years later.
Wanna argue with me? You better get in your way back machines and remember why it is Republicans hated the man so much, considering he was, by comparison to Gore, previous Democratic presidential candidates, and John Kerry, pretty moderate. Yes his foreign policy was a failure, and yes he had issues with the truth, but the real reason Republicans hated Clinton was because he was so good at kicking our asses. Really, really, good. He stole every one of our winning issues, made them his own, and then kicked our heads in with them. As a fierce partisan, I used to feel like I had spent twelve rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson after one of Clinton’s press conferences or SOTU addresses. He was that good at framing the debate, co-opting our issues, and villifying us.
Still think he is a loser? Two words: Dole/Kemp.
Still think he is a loser? It would probably be President Gore right now had Al not run away from Clinton in 2000.
I am willing to bet that were there no such things as term limits, Bill Clinton, if not dead from over-exertion, would be coasting to election in his fourth presidency. And while Clinton and company are given far too much credit for the boom of the 90’s and far too little blame for foreseeing the bubble and the recession Bush inherited, they do deserve credit for not screwing things up. While we are still living with his foreign policy shortcomings, I don’t know too many people besides Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson who would say the 90’s were that bad. Again, Clinton probably gets too much credit for the economic expansion during his Presidency, but I am not sure how else you judge theman- by someone elses term in office? Clinton was President from 1993-2001, so those are the only years we can really judge him for, and most people would say that the 90’s weren’t all that bad.
2.) Bill Clinton is political to the core- beyond what most of us can even imagine: There is not one aspect of Bill Clinton’s life that is not the result of some political calculus. The man had polls taken to find out where he and his family should spend vacation- need I say more? Do you REALLY, REALLY think he wanted his office to be in Harlem?
I don’t think Clinton has many deeply held beliefs. Unlike most Republicans, I genuinely think he does have the best interests of people in mind, and I do honestly think he really does want the best for people- particularly the poor. Which leads to what I think is Clinton’s one core belief:
“I am the best person to help these people, so anything I do to stay in power is ok.”
There is, quite simply, no other way to explain why Bill Clinton was willing to throw whole portions of the longstanding Democratic agenda down the tubing while adopting and enacting (often times under duress) NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and numerous other issues. I still have no idea why the liberals love Clinton so much, because I remember a time in the 90’s when one wag noted that the ‘reason Republicans hate Bill Clinton so much is because he is a danger to replace Ronald Reagan as the century’s most conservative president.’ Only the liberals hatred of Clinton’s enemies can explain their continued adulation of Clinton today.
First and foremost, Clinton cared about himself, and his electability. Everything, and I do mean everything, was a secondary matter. Just ask Buddy, whose adoption is explained in this manner:
Julia Gorin started worrying about Buddy, the chocolate Labrador retriever, when he was brought to the White House as a puppy late in 1997.
She had heard that Bill Clinton’s poll-oriented advisers feared the president would lose his “family man” image when his daughter, Chelsea, went off to college and recommended a dog as prop. A Lab, America’s most popular breed, was the obvious choice. Even the color was calculated.
Gorin, a dog lover who adopted a pit bull she found discarded on a New York subway platform, didn’t think that was the way to select a pet.
Whether or not you believe Buddy was apoll-driven image prop (and as a dog lover, I find this Clinton tale a little over the top), it does help make my point. Bill Clinton is so political that people would actually believe he WOULD do such a thing.
At any rate, the point of all of this is that if Bill Clinton thought Kerry had a chance, he would be out there campaigning until it killed him. I don’t think he could help himself. That Bill is choosing to sit this election out to recuperate says a lot.
JohnO
2 words: Ross Perot. Had it not been for him sucking the wind out of the Republican sails, Clinton would have likely lost both elections. I don’t think of Clinton as a winner, but as someone that is successful when all logic dictates that he should fail. That’s why Republicans hate him. They can’t understand why they guy was in the Oval Office and not in jail.
As an alternate explanation as to why he’s not campaigning, it may be that even if Kerry did have a chance to win, Clinton certainly has no incentive to put him over the top or he’s be in even more trouble with Hillary.
Ken Hahn
I cannot disagree wirh your analysis. I do think that after the effects of his Presidency are understood and his cheerleading section in the mainstream media has passed the baton, he will be honestly assessed. He will be seen, like Warren Harding, to be a wildly popular failure. He will be seen, like James Buchanan, to have left the country totally unprepared for a coming conflict. This will never happen in my lifetime.
I could be wrong. He could, like John Kennedy, be protected from himself as an icon for something that never was. My grandchildren may know.
I do not hate Bill Clinton. I never did. He wasn’t worth that much emotional investment. He was the slickest politician since Eva Peron, I’ll give him that. He was and is an empty man because he believes only in Bill Clinton.
I think he knows Kerry can’t win and he’s unwilling to invest the slightest bit of his legacy into this campaign. He rather Kerry lost than that he won without owing it to Bill Clinton. His self admiration meshes with my inclination in this race. He can stay home.
Jim B
There has been a great myth that has grown up around Bill Clinton. The truth is that he was, and remains, a disaster for the Democratic Party.
Let’s remember that under his watch the Democratic Party lost control over both houses of Congress as well as a majority of governorships and state legislative houses. That’s not exactly a stellar record for a putative leader of a political party.
So to what does Clinton owe his reputation?
1) Ross Perot. Ross Perot. Ross Perot. Clinton never got a majority of the voters to vote for him. Both Bush and Gore got more votes in 2000 than Clinton ever got in his runs for the presidency, so by that measure alone both are more popular than Clinton ever was.
2) Dumb luck. He became president after the economy had begun to recover under Bush 41. The “Clinton economy” will be accurately noted historically as the “Bush economy.”
3) Republican Congress and the “Contract with America.” A Democratic congress would never have passed welfare reform, and Bill Clinton would never have signed onto it had a Republican congress not rammed it down his throat. He jumped on board that ship, but he was never its captain.
4) A particularly cut-throat group of staffers. Look at the Clintonistas now on-board with Kerry or running 527s and the attacks they have launched on Bush. These are the same people who ran Clinton’s campaigns. If not for the War on Terror, this would be a campaign over domestic policy and the lies about the draft, social security, etc. being spread by these former staffers are yet another example of the scorched earth politics these people practice. In the 90s there was no overriding foreign policy concern, and the Republicans were unwilling and, quite frankly, incapable of responding effectively to this particular brand of no-holds-barred politics.
5) His history of campaigning on behalf of candidates is simply awful. He was supposed to be Gray Davis’ savior in California when he campaigned for him, but we all know how that turned out.
6) His personal behavior put the Democrats on the losing side in the culture wars. It was Bill Clinton who turned social conservatives into Republicans: their determination never to have another amoral creep occupy the highest offices in the land have effectively turned the South into a “No-Go Zone” for Democrats.
I could go on, but the bottom line is this: Bill Clinton may have a lot of charisma, but almost every aspect of the mythology that Democrats have built around him is just that – myth. On a very real basis, he was and has been a destructive force for the Democratic Party.
Slartibartfast
I hadn’t realized that Perot had gained quite so many votes. It’s arguable that Perot invited more to vote, and hence got some votes that wouldn’t have been cast in the first place. Totals since 1980 are:
1980: 86 million
1984: 92 million
1988: 91 million
1992: 104 million
1996: 95 million
2000: 104 million
I don’t know what to conclude from this. It’s possible that Perot swiped 10 million or so votes from Bush, and incited another ten million or so to vote who wouldn’t otherwise have voted. If that’s the case, Bush lost because Perot was on the ballot.
Just Passing Through
I think when history begins to judge Clinton free of nostalgia and media agenda, Clinton’s image will solidify as a master politician, but a vaciliating leader and poor helmsman. That won’t happen for quite a few years. In 2008, Bill’s ability to affect an election directly will fade for other reasons. The american public is inclined to age out the relevance of and reject reverance for politicians out of office rather quickly. Bill’s power and charisma will be 8 years off the national stage in 2008. He may be able to affect back room DNC decisions in 2008, but he’d be stumping for just the faithful publically. Dodging this election is not a good idea for Bill if he wanted to maintain a high end national profile for 2008.
He will however, have a hell of a funeral when that time comes. None of his downside will be remembered then, and his upside was impressive even if primarily due to being lucky enough both be president in the 90’s and smart enough to ride the wave.
CadillaqJaq
I certainly agree with the Perot theory; pick one individual that did more to elect Bill Clinton than anyone else, it’s Ross Perot and his perennial hard-on for GHWB.
I have a question, maybe unrelated to the topic: if Kerry succeeds in losing this election, who in hell will be the Dem Party leaders? Bill & Hillary?
Dave Schuler
You and your commenters have all missed the main reason that Mr. Kerry will miss Bill Clinton’s help: African American voters. African American voters are a significant proportion of the Democratic base. Mr. Kerry just can’t win without a substantial turnout by African American voters in the swing states. Bill Clinton has a substantial appeal for African American voters that Mr. Kerry just doesn’t have. Clinton’s absence won’t affect whether African Americans will vote for Kerry. But it may affect turnout.
HH
Or you could say that Clinton thinks Kerry has too much of a chance, and Hillary’s nixed any further support (perhaps she also realized that showing her face on Friday before last might actually hurt Kerry).
Socraticsilence
John,
As a liberal I agree with much of your column, in effect I view Clinton as our Reagan ( this parallel obviously has its limits) a man who did what he thought was right without regard to dirct party affiliation (yes, Reagan was ridicuously Conservative, but that’s what he thought was righ) while riding a wave of rhetoric to reelection. To John O., Clinton success is inexplicable? I hope you’re not saying because he was born poor. I will assume you just mean you can’t understand why most of America loved him, well John I gotta say I know where you’re coming from I feel the same with BUsh, after at least Reagan had the image down, Bush is a bumbler, he has a fake ranch he bought right before running for President and doesn’t ride horses because of fear (hence no Reaganesque photo ops.). The man has screwed up everything he touches, hence I really don’t get why he has even 25% support much less 45%! One last thing, John I disagree with your analysis of why Clinton is not helping Kerry, I think it is in fact possible that Heart Sugery has left him unable to help (the procedure he underwent is extremely strenuos despite the relatively low risk.)
HH
Clinton is a disaster for the Dems only in that the Dems think that his tactics will work for just anyone, and they only really work for him.
Socraticsilence
Oops-
Forgot to add my little bit of Historical analysis, personally I think Clinton will be viewed as a masterful leader at a relatively unevwentful time, like Eisenhower. Additionally I have a feeling that Reagan will be view as a man who pretty much destroyed America domsetically, and got incredibly lucky with his foriegn policy mistakes(establishing that we will run from Islamic Terror in Lebanon, Arming/Training the Taliban and what would become the core of A.Q., ditto for Saddam) , ironically I think the man who wil be view by history as our best foriegn policy president of the last 25 years is the man who probably made most of those bad foriegn policy decisons but who once at the helm, executed the Powell doctrine to a “T” (only Major missteps were entering Somalia with insufficent force and w/o a clear objective and encouraging the Shia rebellion in Iraq, then not even providing logistical support, thus making them not just resent us but in fact hate us post-invasion.) the man I’m talikng about is also ( at least at the moment) the only 1 term president in taht time period. On domestic Issues, to credit Bush for the economic boom under Clinton (I tend to lend towards Cole’s president’s don’t do much explanation, one must logically credit the so-called “boom” (not really any real wage growth for most Anericans) under Reagan to Carter, something which I’d guess you would be loath to do. Finally if Perot is responsible for Clinton’s victories (maybe the first one) isn’t Nader responsible for Bush’s?
ape
I think Kerry is a loser, Im afraid (because I want to like him).
He hasnt convinced enough people that he has a vision. He should be thrashing Bush – Clinton would be. But where does he want to take the world? He wants to have a lot more crates inspected. Ive got that loud and clear.
Perhaps his mission is health-care. But it seems to me that this has simply been identified as an area of acute Bush failure (“xx million americans have lost their health care. yy here in Q”: loud and clear). I fucking hate Bush. I dont need to know anything else about his failures. What I would have liked from Kerry is his heatfelt mission: what bothers him; where he wants to go and how he’s damn sure he’s going to take us with him.
Maybe its cos ive got a headache, but as of right now, the only thing that comes to mind is that we’ll all be down at the docks, checking out those crates.
Jim B
SS –
Nader took votes at the margins while Perot took one of the largest third party vote in history. So the analogy is historically inaccurate.
Gore lost because of his failure to carry his home state or Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. With either of those states in his column, Florida would have been irrelevant.
I could argue as convincingly that the Libertarian candidates takes votes from Republican candidates in elections, but no one ever blames Republican losses on Libertarians. Nader is a sideshow, and the Democratic anger at him is severely misplaced.
I fail to see why Carter would deserve credit for the economy under Reagan if Bush gets credit for the economy under Clinton. Economic data have shown definitively that the economy was well into recovery before Clinton took office. On the other hand, the economy was in awful shape when Reagan took office and didn’t begin to take-off until after the 1981-82 recession and Reagan’s reduction of the top tax rates – a recession brought on by the Fed’s clamp-down on the money supply raising interest rates well into the high double digits. That was necessitated by Carter’s economic dithering during his time in office causing runaway inflation, so the analogy is fallacious.
With regard to Somalia, you’ve mixed up which president was responsible for that mess – it was Clinton not Bush I. I would also argue that Bush I’s failures in Iraq are responsible for the need to clean up the mess left behind today.
In summary, I have to question your overall analysis which seems conveniently skewed to fit your ideology rather than the facts.
Jim B
I almost forgot:
The 2004 Nobel prize winner for economics stated that the tax increase the Clinton and the Democrats who were running Congress at the time shoved down people’s throats actually depressed GDP results during the 1990’s by 4%.
The economy was good, and if the Democrats had left it alone it would have been even better. Luckily for the country, the 1994 Republican Revolution put an end to the Democratic plans that would have done further damage to the economy by taking away Clinton’s ability to get his agenda passed.
rrr
“Unlike most Republicans, I genuinely think he does have the best interests of people in mind, and I do honestly think he really does want the best for people- particularly the poor.”
Agreed. Now let’s push for:
Bush-Cheney ’04
What we lack in compassion, we make up for in incompetence.
paul a'barge
Kerry loses, Hillary runs in ’08.
It’s that simple.
pennywit
If there were no term limits, I’m not sure we’d be looking at Clinton’s fourth term right now. I think it more likely that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would have been invoked during Reagan’s third or fourth term because of Alzheimer’s.
–|PW|–
Ken
“Additionally I have a feeling that Reagan will be view as a man who pretty much destroyed America domsetically,”
Destroyed America domestically? Are you serious? I’d say he was a big factor in saving America domestically. We needed serious deregulation before our whole country ground to a halt, and we needed a serious change in the whole philosophy of how society was supposed to be run and the role of the individual. We got enough to get by and avoid complete disaster, but not yet enough to ever reach the stars – hopefully that will come in time.
Tom Maguire
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Gubernatorial elections in Arkansas are every two years,so Clinton came back and whipped his opponent two years later.
Otherwise, I am in substantial agreement.
As to the Ross Perot effect (perot beat Bush), I once surprised myself by losing that argument – there are fairly impressive polls showing that Perot took a lot of “time for a change” votes away from Clinton. The upshot was that Bush may well have lost to Clinton straight up (Safire endorsed Clinton, and I actually voted for him – remember, Bush had lost his base.)
slickvguy
Quite possibly the most intelligent thing I have read on your blog. (That’s a compliment). Well done!
Iselin
To refute Clinton as a winner;
one word, Hillary.
Toren
Best analysis of Clinton I’ve ever read, and absolutely true. In many ways, I prefer his domestic policy over Bush’s (aside from his irritating habit of using executive orders to reward fringe groups without having to get the approval of Congress).
kelly
Great eval, John.
During the heat of the Dem primaries, I saw a bumper sticker that read: “I miss Bill Clinton.” I thought, “damn, so do I.”
Now, let me be clear. I couldn’t stand him while in office, but compared then to the Dem nine dwarves and now to the stiff they nominated, Clinton looks great by comparison.
I still can’t stand Clinton’s politics but I will always regard him as the most consumate politician of the last 30 years. Take that any way you wish.
bman2u
to paul a’barge
Hillary runs regardless who wins in 04.
She would challange Kerry in the primaries and win as a member of the DLC….
bman
kelly
You got that right, bman.
Watch her make her move, oh, about ’05, “regardless of who wins in ’04.” She’s finagled herself onto the Senate Intelligence Commitee and has been virtually out of sight for this entire campaign. Hillary hasn’t made a peep for months.
Coincidence, doubtlessly
S.W. Anderson
” if Bill Clinton thought Kerry had a chance, he would be out there campaigning until it killed him. I don’t think he could help himself. That Bill is choosing to sit this election out to recuperate says a lot.”
What the above says to me is that it’s extremely unlikely the guy who wrote it has ever had his chest cut open, his ribs cut or separated from his sternum, been hooked up to enough plumbing to service a small motel, had vessels cut out of his legs and transplanted to his heart, got sewn back up and then experienced the delights of coming out from under industrial-strength, extended-duration anesthesia.
Trust me: Clinton’s been living in a world of hurts ever since. It’s rough on a person of any age, but get up there in the mid-50s and beyond, the healing comes harder and takes longer.
Ken Hahn
I have to disagree with the Perot theory. Clinton was elected in ’92 because of George H. W. Bush. It is the only election that I did not vote Republican. Bush lost his base. Some went to Perot, some ( like me ) voted Libertarian.Some stayed home. Some even voted for Clinton. Bush 41 betrayed the Reagan revolution and Reagan Democrats went home, Reagan Republicans scattered to the winds and Reagan independents went to sleep. Perot took advantage of it. Blame Bush not Perot.
Bush 43 has managed to keep the base. We are restless, but not willing to trade a liberal Republican like Bush for a lefty extremist like Kerry. Clinton appeared to be conservative for a Democrat. Kerry does not.
Clinton would only help Kerry if there was something in it for him. If he thought he could get some advantage, he get up off his death bed to campaign. I’m not sure he’s any more willing to help Hillary. If he could claim credit for her election, he’d campaign. If she might win without him, he’ll do his best to undermine her.
Rob
Wow. I can’t believe some of the ridiculous things being said about Clinton. It is ashame that most of you republicans are so blind to admit he is a WINNER. You should all take a lesson from John Cole.
Rob
Furthermore, anyone who think hilary is running is 2008 has abosolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Hilary has aboslutely no chance of even winning the Democratic nomination. We all know that this country will not elect a woman to be president at this turbulant time in our history. And besides Hilary is SUCH a polarizing figure which is another reason why she will not be running in 2008.
The whole Republican/Clinton obesession ordeal is getting a little scary.
Justin Ogren
Clinton doesn’t like Kerry because he’s not able to push himself for another possible heart problem by campaigning for Kerry?
John, Clinton just had a fucking triple bypass. I think he needs some chill time.
I think his life, family and blowjobs are more important than any political event.
dylan
It does say a lot– that he would prefer to live, and not die of heart failure. Nice phony praise though. You really spent a whole post praising a politician to sneak in your thesis; that Clinton thinks Kerry is a loser? Seriously, Dog stories? Clinton is so competitive that he would do anything, ANYTHING to win. You’ve got the wrong politician. Can you say projection?
Brian
Clinton had the luxury of being President in the interregnum betwwen the Cold War and the war on terror. He is a great politician, and reminds me of the guy you hang out at the bar with. You know the type, the guy who always lies about the hot girl he screwed and all the money he has. Yet, despite all his bullshit, you keep him around. Truthfully, I cannot think of anything Clinton did on his own that was successful. Peace and prosperity? Sure, if you ignore all the terror attacks like he did and realize that Enron, Global Crossing, etc were all bilking everyone during the 1990’s, and the dot.com fraud happened in the 1990’s too.
Clinton’s legacy is falling apart little by little. He didn’t seem like a bad President at the time, but we are all paying today for what he ignored yesterday.
Rob
“Clinton’s legacy is falling apart little by little. He didn’t seem like a bad President at the time, but we are all paying today for what he ignored yesterday.”
Oh you mean the islamic terrorist that reagan supported, fundedm and provided arms to?
The blame game goes back to that dirty sob is anything. Reagan is more responsible for Bin Laden than both Bush and Clinton combined.
Ira dumas
OOPS! You lost. 4 more years. Would you please move to Canada now?
girl he
Great blog, enjoyed browsing through the site