Gallup released a poll yesterday confirming what seems obviously true: former President Bill Clinton is really popular.
Looking at an image like this, I can't help but think about the "Reagan Legacy Project," launched in 1997, to convince public officials nationwide to start naming streets, schools, highways, and airports after the nation's 40th president. Reagan left office relatively popular, but Republicans were afraid his stature and reputation might dwindle over time, so they needed a coordinated public-relations effort to encourage the public to support him.
Clinton didn't need a similar effort -- Americans just like him on their own and remember his terms in office fondly.
In 2012, it sets up a rather remarkable contrast. At the Republican National Convention this year, both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney won't even bother showing up. It's the first time since Nixon resigned in disgrace that a president didn't attend the first convention after leaving office.
At the Democratic National Convention, meanwhile, Bill Clinton will have a starring role, and will very likely hit the trail for the Obama/Biden ticket in the fall. While some Democrats were reluctant to be seen with Clinton during his presidency, they'll be tripping over one another to beg for his support now.
Some of the younger readers in the audience may not remember the 1990s very well, but it's worth noting that these circumstances were not easy to predict. Republicans didn't just hate Clinton, they were driven by a blinding rage. GOP lawmakers -- who ultimately launched an unjust impeachment crusade -- woke up every morning with a simple thought during that era: what can I do to undermine the Clinton presidency today?
More than a decade after leaving office, Clinton is not only one of the most popular political figures in the nation, he also remains one of the most well-liked and well-respected people on the planet. Mitt Romney has even tried to use Clinton's successes as a wedge, suggesting President Obama isn't similar enough to the last Democratic president.
Will the Obama team take full advantage of Clinton's unrivaled standing? Count on it.
Leave a Comment:
Mitt's right - Obama is not similar enough to Clinton. Clinton is white. That's the real message behind that suggestion.
I hadn't thought of that, but you may be right. Yet another way to disguise what they really mean.
Now they like Clinton but when he was president, they spent 90 million dollars of our tax dollars trying to get him impeached. I admit Clinton was foolish, but Monica Lewenski was a set up by the Republicans as a way to get Clinton. They will do the same with any Democrat and have since FDR. They have always referred to Liberals as communists, socialist, and any other bad label they could find. Obama has the added labels of Muslim, terrorist, and black - the Republican party has always been the party of big business and the wealthy, they have always thought they were superior to everybody else and occupying the WH was their birthright. Nothing has changed except now the rich are winning - they have most of the nation's wealth, which gives them ownership of our government. Obama is one of the most decent men we have had in office - He kisses up to the right too much for me, but then I am not in his shoes. I can imagine what it might be like to go to work every day knowing that House Republicans only goal not to govern this country, but to get you out of their rightful place in the Presidential chair. They have always been jerks, there just used to be enough decency in the country to keep them in check. Citizens United was the end of our already badly damaged by Bush & Co. democracy. We haven't had a real democracy since the SCOTUS stole the presidency for Bush.
Mitt Romulan and his ilk were not trusted through out several Star Trek series. He has a lot of ground to make up, just to be Nixon-like. Oh I misspoke, and the liberal media twisted my words. I meant to say that Mitt Romney is really an alien from the Caymans.
Please no Star Trek allegory, by the last movie based on the next generation, The Romulans and the Federation were on track to a firm alliance. There is no comparison between the post N.G. Romulans and Romney except in the name.
Messerly, you are right about damages under Clinton, but Clinton had the same disadvantage as Obama does, a Republican controlled House. Clinton may have signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it was a Republican bill authored by John McCain for one. The Republican party is dirty with money and power. They will get you any way they can, including kill. Look at JFK, RFK as a candidate and MLK as a black Liberal. You can also include the very Liberal (RINO) Abe Lincoln. FDR was the last real Liberal and he was elected 4 times and his programs and policies got this country out of a depression. He initiated Glass Steagall and FDIC and SEC and SS and WPA and CCC and more, known as the New Deal. He had the advantage of an overwhelming majority in both Houses and 25% of the people were unemployed, if not starving. JPMorgan at least financed his 2nd election and FDR immediately raised taxes on him. JPMorgan said "I bought the s.. of a b...., he just didn't stay bought. William Randolph Hearst was the first to coin the phrase "He's (FDR) punishing us for being successful". The Republicans have been out to destroy the NEW DEAL since it was initiated. FDR carried the labels of communist and socialist. Big business hated him and he welcomed that hatred. He kept banking straight and our country safe from financial disaster with Glass Steagall for 60 years. I see posts that say Glass Steagall won't help us but I think it would go a long way. I also think Obama knew about off shore accounts because he mentioned the need to bring them home so we could collect taxes off them during his 2008 campaign. Apparently our wealthy have something in the trillions stored off shore. This country has been pulling further and further to the right since FDR and the Republicans are once again going for destruction of the safety nets emboldened with huge money behind them.
For a generation now, Republicans have been in a continuous "blinding rage". About everything! And that is a sure sign that the world has passed you by.
I do wish they would simply hold their breath until they get everything they want. Funeral services could be provided by Bain or better yet Haliburton.
Paul, I quit drinking years ago, but I would surely work on tipping a few cocktails if that ever happened.
Sorta like chasing pavements if you know what I mean!
In our eagerness to win, let's keep marching, but with eyes wide open, and not put on blinders ourselves. I think it is the right move to headline Clinton in order to persuade independents, but I would feel very differently if I thought the election turned on the electorate making a careful examination of what has truly been going on in the US economy- because a lot of ugly stuff has Clinton's fingerprints all over it. The Dem Party would win the debate after such a pulling away of the curtains, but Elizabeth Warren would conduct the bulk of the presentation, and Clinton would be present to admit his mistakes and endorse what Warren was saying as the honest truth.
Clinton has a great deal of responsibility for the 2008 meltdown, as well as execution of a number of right wing policies:
It was Clinton who urged and signed into law repeal of Glass Steagal. In deregulation, it was Clinton's men who aggressively blocked Brooksley Born from investigating the dark market of credit default swaps in 1997. She understood precisely the profound danger, 15 years before the meltdown. Clinton was the president who took a crowbar to Great Society programs- significantly weakening the war on poverty. Clinton's neoliberalism in global trade accelerated the assault on middle class jobs in the US.
Sure, I am glad Clinton was there rather than Bush senior or Dole. When the blinders are off, the US public will eat mud pies rather than cow pies every time.
Maybe it is time to eat and think about political food suitable for human consumption, rather than throw it at one another.
Thank you Messerly. Your posts are objective and insightful, and I look forard to them. I think that acknowledging our own faults and errors is better in the long run, and will enhance or credibility, particularly with independents.
Obama should turn Clinton lose at every chance. Raised taxes on the rich and saw economy soar. Let Clinton deliver Ohio and Virginia. Game over.
interesting to know republicans were just as vile 2 decades ago
Oh goodness, yes. I'll never forget the impeachment hearings. I was young at the time, but it didn't require the wisdom of experience to see what bullying jackasses they were. It was the lead story for months (the news cycle was a little longer then). I was even a strict Catholic at the time, and I couldn't have given less of a @!$%# where the Clenis had been. It was all an obvious dog and pony show and it soured me on "moral values" politicians forever.
And talk about hypocrites. Newt Gingrich was having a torrid affair (with now current wife) all the while condemning Clinton for his infidelity. If I remember correctly a few other Republican senators were having affairs or seeing hooker all the while the impeachment hearings went on.
Hard to imagine Newt having a "torrid" affair. Who could possibly think he was hot?
Newtytooty probably has no doubt that he is hot stuff. I encountered more guys like that in the military than I care to think about.
Apparently Callista. That is how I have heard his affair with her described "torrid".
Gross huh?
Let's not canonize Clinton. DOMA, DADT, NAFTA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagal all occurred under his watch. He has buckets of charisma and did a lot of good things, but some of his screwups had monumental consequences.
Although, Gingrich and Ken Starr frothing at the mouth is a good memory. Has anyone figured out what the meaning of "is", is, yet? ;)
I agree that Clinton went along with too many damaging schemes like the ones you mention. However, Obama has not, and to me that speaks volumes about our president, despite the emo-progs desire to paint him as a tool of Wall Street banks. But it is very wise to use the popular ex-president in the way they are, with the prime time address at the convention and placing Obama's name in nomination.
Let's also not forget that President Clinton was going along with what Alan Greenspan told him to do, and it seemed to be working. The economy was growing like crazy, and even when Greenspan started to say that the market was overvalued, he was shouted down by the Titans of Finance.
ALL presidents have feet of clay- it takes a flawed personality to even run for the office!
Nixon, for example, was thoroughly vilified- and rightly so- when he was President, but from a distance we now see that he accomplished much that was good.
Mech: You can add the 2000 Commodities Act that loosened all form of trading regs and that Clinton favored public school uniforms and public vouchers for religious schools and then thank him for setting the stage for today's economic condition.
DAY: Based on passed legislation, the most liberal president since Nixon has been Nixon. Thank Nixon for that.
This just underscores and speaks volumes to the pettiness of the Republicans impeachment efforts against President Clinton.
Republicans weren't in a blind rage when they went after Clinton and that's not what's motivating their appalling treatment of Obama -- I'm talking about the leadership here. Impeaching Clinton was step one toward (in Rove's words) a permanent Republican majority and it was meant to make any Democrat unacceptable to the electorate in 2000. Republican leaders and their mighty media Wurlizter stoke the blind rage of bigots, many of whom blame their own dismal economic situation on "the gummint givin' all my taxes to brown people," but make no mistake: their violent partisanship is a cold-blooded tactic for gaining power permanently.
How about putting Carter on that chart as well? There's a clear difference between modern Democratic and Republican presidents -- Democratic presidents are in the job to serve the people and do good for the country, and they continue doing it after they leave office. Republican presidents (with the possible exception of Bush I) are in office to serve themselves and their people, and they cash in and relax among their own kind once they're done.
This is way too understated. It's not that they're not bothering, it's that even their own party knows it would be bad to be seen with them.
Bill Clinton once said something along the lines of the rage towards him was based on the idea that he had 'usurped' the manifest destiny of the GOP owning the WH by winning in '92. I totally believe it. Nowadays in GOP land we democrats are the enemy, and anything done by the democrats is illegitimate. Now that there is a half black guy with an Arabic sounding name occupying 1600 PA, they have gone off the deep end, truly apoplectic.
Back to Clinton's popularity though... his approval ratings were at their highest during the Lewinsky scandal. Go figure. I also am convinced that Al Gore lost the presidency in part because he distanced himself from Clinton, playing right into the meme that Clinton had somehow denigrated the presidency.
Of course Nader, and the GOP supreme court helped as well.
Great points, citizen. The insidious thing is that Clinton compromised democratic ideals without reciprocation from the other side as has been the case between the parties since Reagan and continues to this day. The likely outcome will be, since the wealthy and large corps have already reaped the benefit from an increasingly higher productivity to wage ratio over the last 40 years never before seen, concerted conservative takeaway from middle class entitlements we've been paying into all our lives to continue the top-down economic redistribution.
Gore had two reasons why he didn't get elected, he distanced himself from Clinton, which the teapubs wanted him to do, and he picked Lieberman as his VP. I know many people that wouldn't vote for him because of Lieberman. I hated Bush enough that I voted for Gore anyway.
Regardless of Florida, all Gore had to do was win his own state of Tennessee and be president. Shunning Clinton was all ego, I think, and his real ruin, stolen election or not.
Larry King asked President Clinton why he did (Monica) what he did.
And Clinton essentially said "Because I could."
The most revealing and honest answer to a question I'll never forget.
What he did was wrong, but, I can't help but like him and the things he has to say.
He knows how to get the message out there.
Republicans should be very afraid.
heck darrell issa is still trying to name a bunch of the world's oceans after ronaldus maximus
thehill reported
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) reintroduced his bill Wednesday to rename the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which generally extends from three miles to 200 miles offshore, as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone.
It just goes to show that the Republican Party is nothing like it was 50 years ago, and they show up nowadays with nothing to offer except what might be popular in a small county in Mississippi, where one family in a mansion runs everything.
Clinton was my first political boyfriend. I loved him to death as president, and still have an amazing amount of respect for him now. He screwed up a few very, very important ways, and I'm not overlooking those, but I started my business during the Clinton administration and the economy was so amazing in those days that it immediately took off and soared like a bird. Those were great, great days. I was able to invest in my business, live well, and even sock a significant amount of money into savings.
....which I then had to burn through in order to stay afloat once Dubya took office and the economy tanked. I have not yet recovered from those days, and frequently lie awake at night wondering if I will have to close my doors and if so, what on Earth I am going to do to earn a living instead. Things have been getting a tiny bit better since Obama took office, but I am still bitterly, bitterly angry with the GOP for not only screwing people like me over in the first place but also for refusing to get out of the way and let the economy recover.
Long story short: I have no idea where the perception that having the Republicans in office is better for small business than having the Democrats in office. I am terrified that Romney will be elected and my business will go under for good.
In the beginning, there was Nixon, who was quite literally a crook. Articles of impeachment were rightly drawn up, and he resigned in well-deserved disgrace. Then Ford, who was made fun of by the left. Then Carter, who was made fun of by the right. Then Reagan, who was made fun of by the left. Then Bush Sr, who was made fun of by the left.
Then came Bill Clinton, and Clinton Crazies were born. The right proceeded to accuse him of everything from drug dealing to rape to murder. And that was before the Whitewater fishing expedition that caught nothing but a blue dress. Once they had that, articles of impeachment were wrongly drawn up, defeated, and Clinton quite rightly did not resign.
But by then, blood was in the water. Bush v. Gore made things temporarily worse, but by that first summer W. was on his way to an undistingueshed single term when he was handed his presidency's salvation: a fully exploitable national tragedy that could simultaneously jingo up the electorate and also beat Demoocrats over the head with for not hating the enemy sufficiently. This led to BDS, a condition both unjsutified (9/11 Truthers) and totally justified (Iraq).
And then, after Bush left office with the country in a shambles and the Republican brand a joke, we elected a black guy with the middle name "Hussein." You can probably guess the rest from there....
I still believe that if ever we were to convert over to a monarchy, I'd want Clinton as my King!
As a progressive, you can still count me among those who never have and never will like Billy Bob Clinton and turning him into the democrat equivalent of Saint Ronald of Rayguns is still bull@!$%#.
Billy Bob was a DLC/DINO/Repuke-Like with or without the scum factor.
NAFTA
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act
and more and more and more
There was a time when I believed that Clinton was the least damaging 'Republican' president since Eisenhower, but I changed my mind and now believe that George H. W. Bush was actually less long term damaging.
ABC in 2008 and ABC in 2016. Anybody But Clinton.
Bush2 just played-out his act on an economic stage set by Clinton. Even the Clinton surplus was more a function of a declining defense budget than a rising economy.
Today, H. Reid says (according to others) that Romulan PAID NO (FEDERAL INCOME) TAXES FOR 10 YEARS!!!!
Rmoney just Can't get 'his' campaign started;
the trip to UK/Israel/Poland was a TOTAL UNMITTIGATED DISASTER.
then, we have the thought/possibility that McCain declined to choose Mittens in favor of... Saral Palin.
I just keep thinking... this 'Can't' get any worse for Rmoney, and then... It Does.
It's nearing Too Late to turn this around, Mittens.
If his V.P. choice demands that he release / disclose his tax returns....
I'm not racist. I think it's great we have a black president and first family. However, I liked Clinton better and I also liked his strong wife Hillary. OK, Monica was bad. However, I see it more as a personal problem. I think Clinton is more of a natural politician who really likes the interaction with people. I think he worked harder on the economy: my father said he had a sign over his desk: it's the economy, stupid. Granted, obama has a lot more difficult of a situation, but he doesn't get out there and sell and explain and work it enough. I think he's just more reserved, but that's not what you really need in a political person. I hope clinton can help him. And I also hope that obama will take clinton's success more seriously if he gets a second chance...and work harder to stop outsourcing and revitalize the economy.