Chait: The Right Was Right About The Clintons

Poor Jonathan Chait, how difficult it must have been to write this and retain his liberal cred. But he pulls it off with an almost Clintonian flair. The opposition was right about the Clintons, but they're worse, so it certainly isn't our fault for not realizing it at the time. And he still struggles to admit it, though he certainly does. But given the way he goes about it, one has to wonder if Clintonitis isn't, in fact, an infectious disease.

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

It made me wonder: Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along? Maybe not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him, but right about the Clintons' essential nature? Fortunately, the Journal's attempt to convince us that the Clintons have always been unscrupulous liars seemed to prove the opposite. Its examples of Clintonian lies were their claims that Bob Dole wanted to cut Medicare, that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, that Paula Jones was "trailer trash" and that Kenneth Starr was a partisan.

Except Dole did vote to cut Medicare, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy and Starr was and is a rabid partisan. ("Trailer trash" is, of course, a matter of opinion, and it's a cruel thing to say, but as far as whether it's a lie -- well, it's not like they called William F. Buckley "trailer trash.")

So maybe the answer is that the Clintons would have smeared their opponents in the 1990s, but lying is unnecessary when the other party is doing things such as voting to slash Medicare to pay for a big tax cut for the rich.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

If Hillary wins the nomination, most of us will probably vote for her because the alternative is likely to be worse. But what happens if she's embroiled in another scandal? Will liberals rally behind her, or will they remember the Democratic primary?

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Good catch. When a snarling propagandist like this yahoo can recognize s--- when his snout is rubbed in it, there may be some hope for the Left after all.

[JustADude]

Dick Morris has a fantastic read about the Clinton/Obama issue related to the SC race and the racial issues that appeared there over at the Rasmussen site.

Read it , it is well worth the time.

[JustADude]

Forgot the link

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomination_by_losing_south_carolina

[JustADude]

Actually I remembered the link but I can't seem to embed a link on this blog like I do on others.

[Lala]

Perjury trap? That's rich!

[Fred Beloit]

Lala, you didn't know? Monica was a Republican agent sent by Rove to seduce a reluctant Bill

[Fred Beloit]

Just, I can't buy what Morris is selling.

"But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton."

African-Americans have been bloc-voting for Democratics for years. Since FDR. This is no secret. Other ethnic groups who felt they have had to band together have also bloc-voted in the nation's history. So how explain why the white vote (there is no longer such a thing if there ever was) ever elected any Democratic?

[MarkJ]

Remember that famous sign over the entrance to Hell as described by Dante? I think Hillary has recently arranged to have it slightly revised....

"ABANDON THE 'AUDACITY OF HOPE' YE WHO ENTER HERE"

[Dan Riehl]

"So how explain why the white vote"

We're talking Dem primary here, not a general. Peeling whites away from Obama helps Hillary in the delegate count.

[Mark]

Just out of curiousity, do you all think that she won't get the nomination? I am nervous about him for two reasons. I keep wondering if he will be harder to beat because he appears to be the nice guy, so more people will be willing to vote for him, even though he is as willing to advance the socialism agenda. Second, I wonder if he is a Trojan horse wearing a change mantle. He seems like the chicken the other chickens are picking on, but he is wearing spurs we haven't seen yet. Which of them do you think is easier to beat in the fall and why? The communist or the scoialist? Or is she a Chekist?

[Fred Beloit]

"So how explain why the white vote (there is no longer such a thing if there ever was) ever elected any Democratic?"

"Peeling whites away from Obama helps Hillary in the delegate count."

Point made. I'll rephrase.

So how can Morris explain why black bloc-voting, always welcomed by Democratics, will attract white Democratics, who pride themselves on their civil rights views and affirmative action legislation, to vote for a non-black?

[Capitalist Infidel]

I love when liberals heads explode

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"Monica was a Republican agent sent by Rove"

I had no idea! Here I was thinking that only Cheney had "secret operatives" but then maybe it requires different skills to sneak tons of explosives into several buildings than it does to seduce a man without morals.