I was one of the thousands of moronic progressives who lived through Bill Clinton’s presidency by gritting my teeth. I totally underestimated what an effective leader he was — at the time and given the givens. In retrospect, though, I think he was one of our better presidents*, perhaps even cracking the top five.
So, it has been with considerable anguish that I’ve watched him demeaning himself with his odious attacks on Barack Obama. And let me be clear: Bill should be stumping for Hillary. For more reasons than I have time to catalog. But I wish that he would campaign with more dignity. I find his tendency to toss bombs and then throw up his hands with a “What? Me?” expression on his face especially maddening. If he keeps this up, I think he’s going to end up doing Hillary more harm than good. And he’ll certainly damage the party’s reputation, as he remains, to a very great extent, the most visible and popular Democrat in the country.
Anyway, if it turns out that this is true, that leading Democrats are asking Bill to cool it — and it works — that would be very welcome news.
* Low bar alert. Please lower your mast if you wish to sail through unscathed. Seriously, it’s either a very hard job or the people who get it are unusually lame. Probably both, right? Always avoid monocauasal explanations.
Via Josh Marshall at TPM.
24 comments
January 20, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Gene O'Grady
Am I missing something? Tule Lake is not in Nevada, it’s in California, and maybe a little bit in Oregon depending on what you’re talking about.
Although I believe the very early duck decoy is from Nevada? Not as impressive, however, as the shoes they found in Oregon under soil from the eruption that created Crater Lake.
If anyone is interested the Museum in Alturas (which is actually in the next county I believe) is well worth a look if you’re in the area. Ca. 1992 my kids were fascinated.
January 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Gene O'Grady
Apologies; that comment believes on the previous entry.
January 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm
teofilo
I’ve always thought Zachary Taylor was an underrated president.
January 20, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Cold, Cold Weather, Hot Politics « blueollie
[...] fact, rumors are circulating that many top Democratic officials are telling Bill to “cool it”: I was one of the thousands of moronic progressives who lived through Bill Clinton’s presidency [...]
January 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Spike
Yeah, these past couple weeks I’ve been reminded why I didn’t like Bill Clinton. I’d forgotten, but mostly because he looks so good in comparison to the current occupant of the White House.
January 20, 2008 at 5:53 pm
chris
I think Clinton looks good compared to Bush the way that Buchanan looked good compared to the Civil War. Both facilitated the disasters that made people nostalgic for their administrations.
I do not believe that historians will treat Bill Clinton kindly.
January 20, 2008 at 6:01 pm
teofilo
I really can’t see how Buchanan looks good compared to anything.
January 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Spike
Buchanan looks good compared to Bush.
OK, thats an overstatement. But he does look a bit better….
January 20, 2008 at 8:07 pm
urbino
Bill Clinton has been a household name to me for, effectively, the whole of my life; a by-word to virtually every adult I knew, growing up. By my early adulthood, I’d come to identify with him to a degree. He was proof that someone from poor, rural Arkansas could go off to imposing Eastern colleges, excel, and become a serious part of the national dialog. He became an inspirational figure for me; he offered — or at least suggested the possibility of — hope. He proved things were possible that I’d never imagined.
By my middle twenties, he was in the White House and I was in law school at NYU. At the time, I was still rather close to my extremely conservative, fundamentalist upbringing; just beginning to edge toward more liberal views. So, for me, Bill Clinton the DLC centrist remained an extremely appealing, perhaps even heroic figure.
By the end of his presidency, life had intervened for both of us in many ways. The damaged Arkansas boy in both of us had reached into our lives, and reminded us that if you can never go home again, you can never entirely leave, either. He receded into the background amid widespread expressions that the story of his presidency was one of promise unfulfilled, and I, by then, was a no-longer scholar-in-training who felt much the same about his own life.
Seven more years have passed, and I’ve grown steadily more and more liberal, so that now I look back at the Clinton presidency and think less of it than I did at the time. But I still feel that kinship with him. That, I think, is why his recent conduct during Hillary’s campaign has been so deeply affecting for me. I don’t get it. It’s as if the arcs of our lives had suddenly diverged. (Mine had never reached nearly as high as his, of course, but there had been a degree of parallel, at least.) I had continued to grow more liberal, while he, judging by his attacks on Sen. Obama, had somehow turned right, and grown nasty.
So I agree with Ari. It’s very painful to watch. I do want to shake him and shout, “You’re better than this! Knock it off!” He’s damaging himself, his foundation, the party, and, eventually, I think, Hillary. I have some idea what the political calculation he’s making is, and he may well be right. But even so, I wish he would stop.
Go be Hillary’s biggest cheerleader. Be the advance man who whoops up the supporters and swells the crowds and fills the campaign coffers. But don’t be the attack dog. Be bigger than that.
January 20, 2008 at 8:21 pm
eric
Be bigger than that.
Rem acu tetigisti, urbino, whether you meant to or not: Bill has never been as big a man as he should, by talent and right, have been.
January 20, 2008 at 9:07 pm
bitchphd
Who among us has?
January 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm
teofilo
Wilt Chamberlain.
January 20, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Gene O'Grady
It looks like I have more to apologize for than just hitting the wrong thread — apparently I misread duck as lake. Guess it’s just a reaction to Oregon sports and Phil Knight?
On the other hand, since my favorite annoyance in the whole world is John Paul II Catholics who use bad Latin as some sort of incantation it’s very nice to see Eric’s comment above which is correct, elegant, non-cliched, and to the point.
I am, however, a bit unnerved by the probably not unfair comment about Bill Clinton, since I have spent the last sixteen years feeling that that near contemporary of mine puts me in the dust in using his matching his size as a man and use of talents.
January 20, 2008 at 9:41 pm
bitchphd
Wilt Chamberlain was clearly not a big enough man in the sense that Eric meant. Sorry.
January 20, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Geschichte Grad
I find myself simultaneously nodding and shaking my head (a painful exercise) at Urbino’s “Life with Bill” story, for I, too, grew up with Clinton–he was (barely) elected president as I entered high school, re-elected as I entered college, and left the comforts of the White House as I left the comforts of my undergraduate campus. I also went through a conversion from super-conservative to card-carrying lefty. But I never developed a sympathy for Clinton. When I was conservative, he was a bleeding-heart liberal; after I saw the light (conversion experience, remember), he was a traitor to all the things I wanted the Democratic Party to be, but hasn’t been in a long, long time. And that’s the problem: Clinton stuck to the middle of a right-heavy spectrum, so he’s hated by the right (for being too far to the left) and by many on the left (because he split the difference between super-evil and tolerably-good). In the end, what he and his machine are good at is not good policy, not leadership, but winning elections. And they will do anything to make that happen. So I’m not disappointed at Clinton attacking Obama: it’s what I expect. I’d be surprised if it were any other way, and that’s what’s disappointing.
January 20, 2008 at 10:58 pm
ari
GG has it right, I think. But given what he was up against, I still maintain that he was a great president.
January 20, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Geschichte Grad
Okay, I’ll bite: by “what he was up against,” are we simply talking about the Republican congress of 1994? Or is this something deeper, like an American public that wasn’t quite sure it wanted a liberal in office? It’s a sincere question; article/book/tome suggestions are most welcome. Perhaps ignored, but still welcome. Like senile grandparents.
January 20, 2008 at 11:37 pm
ari
I meant the Gingrich congress, the foaming-at-the-mouth conservative press, and the general sense, among a certain kind of Republican, that his presidency was never legitimate. The public? Loved Bill. Adored the man. That was never his problem.
That’s what I meant.
January 21, 2008 at 5:33 am
drip
Bill Clinton is a fascinating guy, and as several have noted, less than he could have been. He grew up hard and shone in his little world. He rose through ability and effort, luck and pluck, onto a national stage and the right wing hated him for it. When push came to shove, as it had to, he abandoned his class and chose to try to become part of the establishment. He was surprised when the establishment turned on him with a fury that his supporters could not match.
And so it will be with Obama and Hillary Clinton. The establishment will attack and they will be surprised at the fury of the attack. It will not help to know that they are better than Bush (and Buchanan and Reagan for that matter). Because they lacked the passion to stand against the establishment, because they cozy up to the “serious people” who will reject them, and because they move to the middle with Bill’s example right in front of them, few will defend them with the fury with which they are attacked. And like Rodney King they will wonder why we can’t all just get along.
January 21, 2008 at 7:40 am
Obama Plans To Answer Bill Clinton's "Troubling" Attacks - The Moderate Voice - Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporting, and popular culture features from across the political spectrum.
[...] –The Edge Of The American West: I was one of the thousands of moronic progressives who lived through Bill Clinton’s presidency by gritting my teeth. I totally underestimated what an effective leader he was — at the time and given the givens. In retrospect, though, I think he was one of our better presidents*, perhaps even cracking the top five. [...]
January 21, 2008 at 8:35 am
ari
Drip, if you think that either Hillary or Obama will be surprised when they’re attacked, I really think you haven’t been paying attention. Obama has never appeared to be a deer in the headlights. Rather he projects a studied cool, a kind of intellectual remove from the fray. Most likely because he has too. Is this country ready to elect a Black man who gets angry when attacked? Most people say no. I think those people are probably right. As for Hillary, she has spent her entire adult life wiping mud from her family’s reputation, dealing with vile assaults of the most personal nature. I think her ability to handle such things is one of the most appealing elements of her candidacy. And again, as with Obama, getting angry isn’t really an option for her. Should she do so, she instantly becomes a “bitch.” Such is the hard road for candidates who hope to break barriers.
January 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm
drip
I try to pay attention, but I’m old and tired and nearly despondent over the state of our country. Maybe that explains my lack of precision. I’ll grant you they won’t be surprised an attack but they will be surprised at the strength of the attack, where it comes from, and the lack of support they receive. The attack will come from the establishment they are trying to please: The Washington Post and The New York Times and NBC, and Newsweek and on and on. I think that’s part of Bill Clinton’s story as well. Many people will accept the stories told about Hillary and Obama because they will come from the establishment and few will rise to a vigorous defense of either. Some of this may have to do with the nature of what passes for the left wing in American politics but it also derives from the fact that the most passionate of the left don’t view Obama or Hillary or Bill as worth defending. Like me, they are still gritting their teeth.
The vile assaults on Obama or Clinton will continue long after they stop doing it to each other. Look at their behavior now. (You called me a bad name, no you called me a bad name. You’re a liar, no you’re a liar, etc.) And both of them are trying to move to the middle. Its a shame really, because the country is moving leftward and the democrats keep trying to please the ruling classes. Its a dangerous game to play when you’re out of power and running on “change.”
January 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Geschichte Grad
Re: comment #18 from Ari–belated thanks.
January 25, 2008 at 4:09 pm
It gets harder to remain neutral on Hillary. « The Edge of the American West
[...] claims he’s not a proxy for the Clintons* hasn’t been paying attention. Next, it was Bill dragging himself through the muck and then popping back up with an expression of righteous outrage on his face that anyone would dare [...]