It doesn’t feel like September yet…things are still so dry on the news front that I found myself visiting Oliver Willis this evening, where I found this post, wherein Oliver points to Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds specifically as having postulated that Bill Clinton will be a liability to Hillary’s campaign.
Ann and Glenn make good points, but I don’t see it, myself. I kind of like rascally ol’ Bill Clinton, in fact, in 1999 I actually paid $1000.00 for a plate of really awful food in Baltimore because a business partner of mine had been a big contributor to both of Bill’s campaigns, and thought I’d enjoy meeting him. Yes, crass capitalism had quite a lot to do with it, as other local politicians (including Kurt Schmoke, Parris Glendening, William Donald Schaeffer, and a very young looking Martin O’Malley) were in attendance, and my partner, having contributed to all of them in various dollar amounts wanted me along to explain some of the new technologies we were building out for the city’s school system.
When I shook hands with Bill Clinton that night, I used language I’d never use in this forum in conveying to him my opinion of the Republican politicians and the press who were hounding him at the time, and the president laughed, clapped me on the shoulder, and asked me “You aren’t from Baltimore, are you?” I suppose my accent, always thicker when I curse, gave me away as a fellow southerner.
Some of the things that have come to light about the Clinton administration since 9/11 have changed my mind about Bill Clinton’s effectiveness as a president, but even before then, I never thought of him as a stellar president, but a very lucky one. Bill Clinton inherited a world that benefited enormously from the heavy lifting that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (and Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Pope John Paul II) did during the Cold War, and the peaceful nature of the world during his presidency was really none of his doing. The economy of the 1990’s, which so many liberals progressives tout was certainly not impeded by Clinton’s policies, but that doesn’t mean he should get credit for the hard work that was being done in Silicon Valley, Research Triangle Park, Redmond, and the outskirts of Washington, D.C. You know, the work that was actually responsible for the technology boom, the Internet boom, and so many millionaires during that decade.
As I said, I like Bill Clinton as a person. The Lewinsky scandal was bad, yes, but hey, folks — I’ve forgiven friends and family for much worse. I try to take the sum total of a person when I have to make a decision as to whether I like them or not, and yes, I still like Bill Clinton. President Clinton, not so much.
When progressives (and children of the 90’s) like Oliver swoon over Clinton as the “last successful president”, though, they always, always refuse to acknowledge that Bill Clinton didn’t have a Cold War, or a military or economic equal to deal with in the foreign policy sphere (excluding China, with which the Clinton White House had it’s own, er, issues) That advantage, in and of itself allowed for the “wonk” atmosphere that permeated the Clinton administration…it’s a lot easier to concentrate on domestic and social policy when you don’t have a great big bear grinning over your shoulder.
Note as well: Successful presidents are not successfully impeached.
Off topic: So yeah, that explains Al Gore too.
As to whether Bill will be a drain on Hillary’s campaign, however, my feeling is that whatever enmity Hillary gets from Republicans and/or conservative Democrats because of her marriage to Bill will be offset by Clinton worshipping progressives like Oliver, so it’s probably a wash. This isn’t 1999, and while Gore was wise to distance himself from Bill Clinton at that time, Hillary doing so (much more difficult, after all, due to the marriage) after two terms of George W. Bush would be a mistake. As the campaign season goes on, I think we’ll see more and more of Bill Clinton at Hillary’s side, and I don’t think it will hurt her in the least.
Update: Nice tie-in, here. Why aren’t I cowering in a corner, worried sick about a Hillary presidency? I’ve said it before, and Glenn says it again:
Advisers tell Bush to stand pat on Iraq. Not that there’s much doubt that he’ll do that. I’m finding it hard to get as excited as I should about this, as I think Bush can run out the clock on Congress and keep the Petraeus plan going through the end of his term anyway. And the next President, Democrat or Republican, will do what looks right in January of 2009, not what he or she is saying now. (That’s why I kind of like Bill Richardson even though I think his current stance on the war is very poor). By January of 2009, I expect that things in Iraq will look very different. If they don’t, then the new President will do something very different.
Yep. Regardless of how they blow kisses to the netroots now, elected Democrats, should they suddenly bear responsibility for the end game in Iraq will sing a much different tune.
Filed under: Bill Clinton, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Home Alone, Politics
