BACK TO THE FUTURE
The French have a saying, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose -- the more things change, the more they remain the same. Presidential politics has that character these days, with a vengeance.
Bill Clinton said yesterday that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning." I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "beginning" is. The New York Times said the statement "was more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003," and President Clinton's aides characterized his Delphic utterances from that period -- namely, that he would have given the weapons inspectors more time -- as the sort of modified limited hang out an ex-President owes a sitting President. It turns out, of course, that his opposition was very modified and very limited, because at the same time, the former President also spoke approvingly of the Senate's 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. This is the resolution Senator Clinton voted for, which the Republicans will wrap her in come the Fall of 2008 if she is the Democratic nominee.
The scary part of Bill Clinton is that he can offer these kind of John Kerry-ish "I was for it before I was against it" encomiums without sounding nuts, which unfortunately (for the country) is how Kerry sounded when he tried it. Some people hate this about Bill Clinton (Sen. Bob Kerrey once said that Clinton was "very good" at lying, which wasn't a compliment). Others think it is a sign of genius (F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that "The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"). Bill Clinton is, shall we say, very functional.
Functionality aside, however, this sort of stuff stokes the fires of Clinton fatigue that are, at this point, only a few Santa Ana winds from blowing out of control. The problem is that, by January 2001, the country was tired of Clinton, his great economy, general state of peace and hands on governing style to the contrary notwithstanding. We have now totally forgotten that sense of ennui because, today, we are really tired of Bush, the only guy capable of reminding us how much we miss Clinton. But we miss the economy and our place in the world during Clinton's eight years. We miss his competence. We do not miss his tortured efforts to conjugate the verb "is". And unfortunately, this "from the beginning" remark on Iraq reminds us more of the latter than the former.
I am writing this post before the Republican You Tube debate tonight and will venture a hardly bold prediction. They will give Hillary Clinton a lot of "face" time in their debate. They have been doing this in all their debates so this hardly counts as an insight. But the point is that they are doing this not merely because they oppose her, which is not news, but rather (and mostly) because they all really want to run against her, which is news. Politicians stuck in the volatile world that is the GOP Presidential primary campaign do not typically hype the opposition's potential standard bearer to the degree Hillary has been and will be mentioned. Usually, they are trying to increase their own numbers and nail down their own nomination before taking on the other side. Not this time, however. Despite the fact that none of them can really be called the front runner at this point (pace the national polls which boost, slightly, the former Mayor), Rudy and Mitt and Huckabee and McCain and Thompson collectively can't get enough of Senator Clinton. The question is: Why?
The answer is: Clinton fatigue. They want her back. They want them back. The disquisitions on present tense, the health care debacle, the '94 rout, Monica, the pardons, the whole thing, which for them carries with it the potential for (1) reminding Americans how tired we were by the time we got to January 20, 2001, and (2) forgetting how angry we are today. By any reasonable standard, the period 1992 - 2000 was a reasonably good one for the average American (who, after twenty years of stasis, finally saw his wages rise at least a bit) and a great one for the better off. But not the way the GOP tells it now (in fact, Rudy recently gave a speech warning of a return to the 1990s, a proposition he treated -- without explanation -- as the Q.E.D. on why Hillary should not be President), and not the way they positioned it then either (Monica, the pardons, and on and on). Similarly, by any reasonable standard, we are collectively in much worse shape today (the Bush administration long ago abandoned trickle down -- in favor of gush up --as an economic policy, and on the war, the Bushies have given the super majority which opposes it nothing but a three fingered salute). But that's not the way they tell that part of the story either.
Now, here, they have a big problem. Because, on the current state of the union, they really have no story to tell, at least not one that can put lipstick on the pig they have created. So they have decided not to bother. Instead, here's their answer to today's sad state of affairs -- the Clintons. You got it. They can't defend the economy, or the war, or the Court, at least not to the 70% who are not part of their base. So they do not plan to. Instead, they plan to remind us of -- and win based on -- . . . Clinton fatigue.
Here's my counter to their strategy. Let's borrow from F. Scott Fitzgerald. Let's get a little "functional." We were tired of Bill and Hil on January 20, 2001. We were also a lot better off with him (or them) in charge. I recently wrote a politically despondent friend in Atlanta that any Democrat with a chance at the nomination will be better than any Republican similarly situated. I love Obama. He'd be a good President, much better than anything the other side now has on offer. So would Edwards, or Biden or Dodd or Richardson or Kucinich (who my son loves).
And so would Hillary. Even if what's his name is still conjugating verbs.
The French have a saying, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose -- the more things change, the more they remain the same. Presidential politics has that character these days, with a vengeance.
Bill Clinton said yesterday that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning." I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "beginning" is. The New York Times said the statement "was more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003," and President Clinton's aides characterized his Delphic utterances from that period -- namely, that he would have given the weapons inspectors more time -- as the sort of modified limited hang out an ex-President owes a sitting President. It turns out, of course, that his opposition was very modified and very limited, because at the same time, the former President also spoke approvingly of the Senate's 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. This is the resolution Senator Clinton voted for, which the Republicans will wrap her in come the Fall of 2008 if she is the Democratic nominee.
The scary part of Bill Clinton is that he can offer these kind of John Kerry-ish "I was for it before I was against it" encomiums without sounding nuts, which unfortunately (for the country) is how Kerry sounded when he tried it. Some people hate this about Bill Clinton (Sen. Bob Kerrey once said that Clinton was "very good" at lying, which wasn't a compliment). Others think it is a sign of genius (F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that "The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"). Bill Clinton is, shall we say, very functional.
Functionality aside, however, this sort of stuff stokes the fires of Clinton fatigue that are, at this point, only a few Santa Ana winds from blowing out of control. The problem is that, by January 2001, the country was tired of Clinton, his great economy, general state of peace and hands on governing style to the contrary notwithstanding. We have now totally forgotten that sense of ennui because, today, we are really tired of Bush, the only guy capable of reminding us how much we miss Clinton. But we miss the economy and our place in the world during Clinton's eight years. We miss his competence. We do not miss his tortured efforts to conjugate the verb "is". And unfortunately, this "from the beginning" remark on Iraq reminds us more of the latter than the former.
I am writing this post before the Republican You Tube debate tonight and will venture a hardly bold prediction. They will give Hillary Clinton a lot of "face" time in their debate. They have been doing this in all their debates so this hardly counts as an insight. But the point is that they are doing this not merely because they oppose her, which is not news, but rather (and mostly) because they all really want to run against her, which is news. Politicians stuck in the volatile world that is the GOP Presidential primary campaign do not typically hype the opposition's potential standard bearer to the degree Hillary has been and will be mentioned. Usually, they are trying to increase their own numbers and nail down their own nomination before taking on the other side. Not this time, however. Despite the fact that none of them can really be called the front runner at this point (pace the national polls which boost, slightly, the former Mayor), Rudy and Mitt and Huckabee and McCain and Thompson collectively can't get enough of Senator Clinton. The question is: Why?
The answer is: Clinton fatigue. They want her back. They want them back. The disquisitions on present tense, the health care debacle, the '94 rout, Monica, the pardons, the whole thing, which for them carries with it the potential for (1) reminding Americans how tired we were by the time we got to January 20, 2001, and (2) forgetting how angry we are today. By any reasonable standard, the period 1992 - 2000 was a reasonably good one for the average American (who, after twenty years of stasis, finally saw his wages rise at least a bit) and a great one for the better off. But not the way the GOP tells it now (in fact, Rudy recently gave a speech warning of a return to the 1990s, a proposition he treated -- without explanation -- as the Q.E.D. on why Hillary should not be President), and not the way they positioned it then either (Monica, the pardons, and on and on). Similarly, by any reasonable standard, we are collectively in much worse shape today (the Bush administration long ago abandoned trickle down -- in favor of gush up --as an economic policy, and on the war, the Bushies have given the super majority which opposes it nothing but a three fingered salute). But that's not the way they tell that part of the story either.
Now, here, they have a big problem. Because, on the current state of the union, they really have no story to tell, at least not one that can put lipstick on the pig they have created. So they have decided not to bother. Instead, here's their answer to today's sad state of affairs -- the Clintons. You got it. They can't defend the economy, or the war, or the Court, at least not to the 70% who are not part of their base. So they do not plan to. Instead, they plan to remind us of -- and win based on -- . . . Clinton fatigue.
Here's my counter to their strategy. Let's borrow from F. Scott Fitzgerald. Let's get a little "functional." We were tired of Bill and Hil on January 20, 2001. We were also a lot better off with him (or them) in charge. I recently wrote a politically despondent friend in Atlanta that any Democrat with a chance at the nomination will be better than any Republican similarly situated. I love Obama. He'd be a good President, much better than anything the other side now has on offer. So would Edwards, or Biden or Dodd or Richardson or Kucinich (who my son loves).
And so would Hillary. Even if what's his name is still conjugating verbs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment