When the history of the twentieth century is written a hundred years from now, I suspect that there will be a paragraph or two on William Jefferson Clinton. While there will be volumes written about the Roosevelts, Wilson, Reagan, and even Johnson, I doubt whether Clinton’s legacy will rate much attention from future historians for one simple reason; nothing much happened during his Presidency.
Clinton had the misfortune (from his own perspective) of being the very first “post-cold war” President. For more than 50 years, through economic crisis, war, and the standoff with communism, the American Presidency was where the action was. But following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the stirrings of democracy in Russia, it was as if the hot air was let out of a balloon. Suddenly, the Presidency as an office, began to revert to something closer to what the founders intended; a Chief Executive who disposed what the Congress proposed. While it’s true that the Presidency still wielded enormous power in foreign affairs, the American people made it crystal clear with the defeat of Bush the elder (and the election of his son in 2000) that they wanted a President who stayed at home to mind the economic store and not go gallivanting off on foreign adventures.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was more than a catch phrase for the Clintonistas; it was a mantra that when repeated ad nauseum signified the changing nature of the Presidency. While it was generally true that even during the cold war the American people voted their pocketbook when casting a ballot for President, that simplistic explanation never took into account the underlying relationship between an American citizen and their President.
When catastrophic nuclear war was a real possibility, the American people wanted a President that they could poke in the chest and feel a hardness, something more substantial than the platitudes and bromides heard during an election campaign. This is why the vote for President is the most personal, most complex vote any American makes. The decision to vote for one man over another was always based on intangibles, something that President Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell brilliantly elucidated during the Democratic primary campaign of 1980.
Caddell believed that even though Senator Ted Kennedy had a 30 point lead over Carter in the fall of 1979, primary voters would turn against him once his “character” was made an issue. For Caddell, it wasn’t just Chappaquiddick that was in play, it was Kennedy’s ultra liberal “squishiness” that the Democratic voters wouldn’t be able to stomach. To illuminate Kennedy’s character problem, Caddell then designed a series of “man in the street” interviews with ordinary Americans that were absolutely devastating in their impact. Carter turned that 30 point deficit into a series of stunning primary victories that destroyed Kennedy’s presidential ambitions forever.
Clinton’s problem in 1992 was similar to Kennedy, but the election dynamic had changed. The character issue now dealt with how closely Americans could identify with their President on a personal level. This was a luxury not available to Democratic Presidential aspirants from Adlai Stevenson to Michael Dukakis. So Clinton’s venality could be seen in the context of personal peccadilloes that all men are either tempted to engage in or are actually guilty. In a very real way, Clinton’s faults became political pluses; something Republicans to this day refuse to acknowledge and could never understand.
Recently, Clinton has engaged in a series of activities designed to create a legacy that will overshadow the inconsequentiality of his time in office. His participation with the President’s father in both Tsunami and hurricane relief are, I’m sure, heartfelt efforts to assist the humanitarian efforts in these twin disasters. And while many Republicans have criticized his “Clinton Global Initiative” as an exercise in hubris, the fact is it successfully brought together world leaders in an organized way to talk seriously about problems facing all of humanity.
This is no small achievement which unfortunately has been overshadowed by the aftermath of Katrina. But leave it to Bill Clinton to mix the selfless with the selfish, the heartfelt with the heartless. In an interview on This Week, Clinton blasted President Bush for his Administration’s handling of relief efforts in the immediate aftermath of Katrina as well as the President’s policies in Iraq, the economy, and even Afghanistan:
Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticized George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq “virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.”
The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism “and undermined the support that we might have had,” Bush (sic) said in an interview with an ABC’s “This Week” programme.
Clinton said there had been a “heroic but so far unsuccessful” effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.
John Hinderacker at Powerline allows himself to engage in a little hyperbole on the issue of past-presidents criticizing their successors:
This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.
This is true up to a point. While Eisenhower never overtly criticized Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco – an operation planned under his Administration – he let it be known to several prominent newspaper friends that he was unhappy at Kennedy’s performance. And acting as a surrogate for his former boss, Richard Nixon was harsh in his criticism of Kennedy’s handling of the matter.
Also, Jimmy Carter regularly criticizes American policy under his successors although no one pays any attention to him. Anyone who heard his speech at the Democratic Convention knows that Mr. Carter never let tradition stand in the way of a pouty, sanctimonious rant.
So while not unknown, it is unusual for a President to lash out at a successor in this manner. The language Clinton uses as well as the forum – a Sunday morning talk show – was designed to get the maximum amount of exposure for at least two 24 hour news cycles. In other words, Bill Clinton once again is the talk of the town, something I’m sure he relishes more than anything except returning to the White House.
And that ultimately what this may be about. One could probably say that this marks the official beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign. The titular head of the Democratic party has fired a shot across the bow of the campaign of any putative Republican nominee. For unless President Bush self destructs, or the economy goes south in a big way, or progress in Iraq is arrested or reversed, the President will have an enormous say in who is standing at the podium delivering an acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican convention. And it should go without saying that the nominee will have run in the primaries on Bush’s record of achievements. Hence, the Clinton political challenge should be seen in the context of him being a stalking horse for his wife Hillary.
As he makes the transition from statesman to surrogate, Clinton may find that his statements will receive more critical scrutiny from the press. It is unfortunate that his current rant against the President will not. As Hinderaker says quite correctly, Clinton “flat out” lied:
Clinton’s assertion that there was “no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction” is a flat-out lie. The Consensus Estimate of the American intelligence agencies has been made public, and we have quoted from it and linked to it on many occasions. America’s intelligence agencies said, with a “high degree of confidence,” that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons. These were the same intelligence reports that Clinton received as President, so he is well aware of them. His statement was not a mistake, it was a lie.
Lori Byrd at Polipundit has even more evidence from Clinton’s own mouth and reiterated as recently as 2003 that his Administration firmly believed that Saddam had WMD.
So the question isn’t really about the ex-President’s selective memory, it’s about attacking the current occupant of the White House on behalf of his wife’s forthcoming Presidential candidacy. And it may even be about the great unspoken question of Hillary’s candidacy: What role will Bill Clinton have in her administration?
With the world such a dangerous place again, Americans appear to be inclined to couch their Presidential vote in terms of personal security, something John Kerry found out to his detriment in 2004. Will Bill Clinton add to or subtract from a Hillary Presidency in this regard? Will Republicans be able to use the fact that America was sleepwalking through the 1990’s as al Qaeda gathered its forces to attack us? Or will the presence of Bill Clinton allow Americans to think back to the days before 9/11 when the world seemed a much simpler and less stressful place?
Bill Clinton is the wild card of the Presidential campaign of 2008. And I suspect, that fact gives him an enormous amount of pleasure. Because win or lose, the Clintons are about to make history – something any ex-President would give their right arm to achieve.
9:57 am
I wonder if Bill and Hillary are reversing their old good cop-bad cop routine so now she can be all sweetness and light and he can be the lightening rod for criticism that riles up the base? If so, why now, right after he was playing buddy-buddy with the Bushes and doing his Global Initiative?
Strange.
2:22 pm
At one time Bill Clinton believed Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. Now he says there was no evidence. I wonder if the reporter who interviewed him asked him if he was lying then or is he lying now. Somehow I doubt they did. The Clintons are as loved by the main stream media as George W. Bush is hated by the main stream media. The Clintons will always get a free pass from the media.
Before the Iraq war large truck convoys of something were spotted going into Syria. This was described by intellegence officials as an “uptick” in traffic to Syria. The Iraq Survey Group was never able to complete the investigation into what was transferred into Syria. The investigation was halted due to security concerns. They have expressed a desire to complete this investigation. could these convoys have contained the “stockpiles” of WMD that the main stream media says did not exist? I don’t know. I would suggest to anyone who believes Saddam did not have WMD stockpiles to not be so hasty. Before we can close the book on this, the investigation inot what was transferred into Syria needs to be completed.
5:06 pm
Bla Bla Bla…George W Bush is the worst president ever..
7:44 pm
Don’t talk about Don’s guy. I guess if they say he’s the first black president then whatever. Whatever turns you on. He’s the first trailer trash president.
Don President Bush is doing great things while Clinton did…school uniforms? I remember some of the old Clinton people wishing that 9/11 happened on Clinton’s watch. Something to shore up his legacy. The fact is that terrorism did occur over and over on his watch and on US soil and he instead played cigar humidor with an intern.
8:14 pm
ARGH!
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … Talk Like a Pirate Day edition, ARGH!
8:35 pm
At one time I considered the possibilty of a female
president but after Blanco’s hysterical breakdown I’m now quite hesitant to elect a female to lead from the most demanding position in the world. All the feminist rhetoric in the world will not convince me and I’m a ‘liberated’ woman. If a women wants to run for President, including Dr. Rice, she would be more convincing if she were first Governor and prove she can actually take command. The Senate is no place to prove one’s ability command the Presidency. People will publically say that a women is capable but when in the privacy of the voting booth they will recall instances of hysterical women sobbing before the public crying how untenable is the situation. Blanco’s behavior does nothing to affirm women’s abilty to provide strong leadership. I don’t care about image, I care about substance and character both of which can never be proven through words alone.
3:43 am
Mr. clintoon is a back stabbing liar and all of his statements were disproved on O’Reilly’s show Monday night one by one. Don’t care too much for Bill O lately he has tried too hard to be right down the middle but on the facts he nailed it.
Clintton is just carrying Hittlery’s 08 chances here.
7:01 am
Look Rob
I am all for a female President BUT it is going to take much more than feminist rhetoric to supercede the image of an American Governor sobbing helplessly before the camera. As a 21st century advance feminist I demand our female leaders actually show leadership rather than simply speak idle words.
The feminist movement from the antiquated 20th century ideology has through it’s own acts spent an enormous amount of energy, time and resources believing that victimizing women empowers us yet at the same time expect me as a female to believe in their hollow words. I am now 44 years of age and have been hearing all my life nothing but hollow words from my American Sisterhood which sells weakness for profit while pretending strength is what we women have achieved. All we have achieved over the past three decades are bigger tits and better botox treatments neither of which are useful tools for defending, protecting and securing this country.
I am sick to death of the BS 20th century feminist rhetoric of false feminist empowerment. If she cannot walk the talk then shut the BS feminist rhetoric talk. As a women, it is meaningless to me to hear a 20th century feminist along the lines of a Hillary Clinton speak as if she as the tools to lead when the only thing she offers is false imagery based on 20th century feminist lies.
You see, the women of Afghanistan and the US Military soldiers (both women and men) are my 21st century feminists for they they represent to me a source of strength not seen coming from American 20th century feminism. I find it ironic that American feminist will castrate our male military members by declaring we should bring them home in order to protect them while the same time our own brave female military members are ignored for having stepped up to the plate joining male soldiers in the fight to liberate millions in both Afghaninstan and Iraq.
An hysterical Cindy Sheehan represents all the 20th century feminist muke I detest.
7:04 am
Susan for President!
Hooray for strong, sensible, sensual women!
7:18 am
Kinda coincidental how Bill goes on the attack just when the Able Danger hearings are about to begin.
8:28 am
Slick Willie Losing His Touch
No doubt you’ve heard by now how Bill Clinton joined in the crowd politicizing Katrina this weekend on ABC’s This Week. A shame, because he had been remarkably fair prior to this. Our good friend Tom Maguire wonders why the ex-President c…
9:22 am
I beg to differ, Rob. Cindy Sheehan is not by any stretch of the term “liberal.” She is the antithesis of what liberalism stands for – reasoned debate, respect for another’s point of view, and a buring desire to seek the truth.
Calling our troops in New Orleans “occupiers” is not liberal. Equating the Iraqi terrorists who blow up school children getting candy from US servicemen with freedom fighters is not liberal. Calling Israeli actions taken in defense of its citizens who are routinely blown up by Palestinians “oppressors” – especially when the Israeli’s give Palestinians in Israel the same rights as any Israeil citizen – is not liberal.
If you agree with her position on the war, fine. But please do not refer to that fascist America hater as a liberal. My whole family are liberals in the classic sense and despise her.
9:58 am
At my age I should know better than to submit BEORE preview. I assume full responsibilty for my impassioned mistakes. I do hope my message is not lost in grammatical errors but Cindy does represent all that feminist muck, not muke, I detest in feminism.
My from perspective Gloria Steinem burned our bras only to leave a legacy of sagging siliconed breasts worn by sobbing cowards crying victimhood. Yes, I am angry. Angry because I wasted a great portion of my life believing in cowards whose only concern, as it turns out, exists simply in the plight of their own narcissistic vaginas while at the very same time demoralized, degradated and humiliated Motherhood and, in general, the female’s powerful innate ability to birth and raise even one child.
Women of long days since past each managed to birth and raise what could be qualified as a village yet today’s modern women with wealth, power and law supporting her cannot seem to manage birthing and raising one child without the help of, in Hillary Clinton’s words, an entire village. The shame in found such degradation.
10:20 am
Rob
Do you know who are the Yasin brothers? They are Iraqis who belonged to the Al Queda group which blew up the WTC in 1993. After bombing the WTC in 1993, Rahmad Yasin returned to Baghdad receiving santuary within Saddam’s dictatorship graveyard. Not to mention another obtuse oversight by the 9/11 commission’s omission of a certain 1999 Maylasian 3 day Al Queda fest in which a certain iraqi ‘facilitator’ sent by the Iraqi Embassy in Maylasia by the name of Shakir met with at least one 9/11 hihackers and one of the Yasin brothers. Shakir was arrested in Qatar shortly after the 9/11 attacks with a pile of documents containing Al Queda contact information and planning details. He was released and his whereabouts are unknown, as are the whereabouts of the Yasin brothers.
Do you know Ansar al Islam, the Al Queda affiliate who moved into Iraq shortly before the 9/11 attacks? This group set up shop about 25 miles north of Baghdad.
Of course, none can deny the money (most likely obtained from the UN oil for food theft) Saddam lavished upon the families of Islamic-fascist terrorizers known as Hamas and Hezbollah each time a suicide bomber blew up innocent civilians in Israel.
To say that Iraq did not have terrorists in their country before the intervention is a lie which cannot go unnoticed.
10:40 am
If Iraq was unarmed before the intervention why then were five newly-minted French fighter planes found buried in the desert sands of Iraq? As well as, newly-minted in 2000 bombs? Why then were there tons upon tons of ordnance hidden in schools and hospitals before the intervention occurred? Why then are small ordnance of chemical weapons turning up in the most obscured places?
Why? Because Iraq was fully armed before the intervention. Much of the ordnance, in my personal opinion, most likely came from the Russian mafia who began selling the stuff back in 1990. I was living in Moscow, Russia in 1990-1991 and heard all about the Mafia’s Make Billions Selling Weapons and State Secrets (like the art of hiding such weapons)to the Middle East program. Saddam had deep pockets which he afforded by straving his people.
And please spare the idea that we armed Saddam. American financial influence(which came from the Dept of Agriculture designed to expand Iraq’s ability to grow crops for food) was about the same as Denmarks’ which was far less than the percentage given by Russia, then China, then France.
7:31 pm
Susan:
I hope you don’t think I was making too light of your heartfelt views. I happen to agree 100% with them.
8:11 am
I don’t think that at all, I am grateful you gave me the space to breath.
4:31 pm
Government… as it pertains to the ongoing tyranny of this planet… a time of reflection is in order.
“But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
The Declaration of Independence – 1776
*****************************************************
! (many Peoples)
Viva la révolution / América pode ser reborne / De nuevo al comienzo / Eine Zeit für Kraft ist nach uns
Welcome to EARTH - One World, One Future