If Bush 43 is the "mis-underestimated President, surely William Jefferson Clinton is the most misunderstood - perhaps as much by the left as the right.
How can it be that on the one hand a substantial portion of the population celebrates him so, while at the same time an equally passionate and large portion at best ignores, if not outright loathes him? The heart of this argument lies in issues of form over function, or substance versus style, if you will. And it's that very dichotomy that dictated former President Clinton was never going to be a force for Kerry in our recent presidential election, post 9-11 as it was.
Clinton was and is "celebrity" - pure and simple. He was smooth, an adroit political operator. Even so, he only managed 42.93% of the vote in 1992. If not for the unheard of independent number of 18.87% of the electorate that went to Perot, Clinton never would have become President. That is, barely arguably, a fact. And I don't mean it to take away from Clinton - the real fact is, he won. And he also did everything he should have to capitalize on his "celebrity" before and after that election.
Do you remember the "wonkish" Clinton for a policy, or a saxophone? An "address", or simply a "dress?" Frankly, he is simply not even remembered for things "Presidential," but for things of image and celebrity, including scandal. He's an Enquirer cover made in heaven under most any other circumstance. If you ask what Clinton "did," outside of die hard Democrat circles you will more likely be told what he "does" - communicate. And to his great credit, he's incredibly skilled at it, Reagan being the only recent president I'd argue that surpasses. And whether he does or not is too fine a point to debate.
The reality is that being an excellent communicator is a tremendous asset for any statesman. But when it is far and away the primary, if not the sole saving grace of an individual - that isn't a statesman, it's a celebrity. And for that I gladly say let's give the man a star.
Keep in mind that with the power of incumbency and a reasonable economy facing a less than top drawer candidate in Dole who had to fight through a tough primary process, Clinton still managed only 49.24% of the popular vote in 1996. For anyone to argue that he at any one point somehow won the trust, or hearts and minds of a majority of the electorate is simply incorrect. But to hear the MSM tell the story today - he sure was "popular." That I suppose he was, among some - but to what good end?
Further evidence of what Clinton was or wasn't can be seen from the state of affairs in the House and Senate and Governorships today. All through out Clinton's "popularity" the Democrat party has done nothing but continue to slide. That is far from the mark of a statesman, some rising tide that raises all ships - it is more clearly the relatively small impact of a "popular" guy who knew and knows how to make himself popular, but in a most insular way. As a Conservative, I'd like to see the Democrats ride the "Clinton Years" right on through the next however many election cycles.
With a reasonable economy and an unrealized threat from Global Terrorism, Americans could and did somewhat abide a "celebrity" president. But the game has passed former President Clinton by as anything other than a star on the walk of fame, reminiscent of some illusive image that some will insist glowed so brightly not long ago. The reality is the star never quite glowed all that brightly and as America and the world have turned, I doubt the electorate will again be ready for a president with the ephemeral and illusive qualities of a star any time soon.
And if the MSM wants to embarrassingly over-celebrate him, I say, go for it, girls and guys. After all, "celebrity" is what entertainment is really all about. And while the MSM provided more than enough of that during the recent election, you didn't really think for a moment that they were done, now, did you?
Clinton was a success because he was a tremendous expert at deceiving America. Not a moderate, he ran as one, then he tried unsuccessfully to implement a socialist health care system, and set up our country for attack by neutering the CIA and the defunding the military. Clinton the moderate is a myth still propagated today. Kerry tried and failed to do the same thing. Democrats have to lie to get elected, their cultural agenda, economic policies, and wimpy foreign policy doesn't pass the smell test for most Americans. The judiciary thus becomes the left's best friend and the electorate is too "stupid" to fall for it.
Posted by: Kathy | Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 12:20 AM