The Once and Future Clintons
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 7, 2003; 9:01 AM
Bill is the behind-the-scenes force in 2004.
Hillary is the front-runner for 2008.
Democrats are starting to say nice things about Bill.
Conservatives are beginning to rip Hillary's forthcoming book.
It would be tempting to say the Clintons are back at center stage, but it's not clear they ever left.
At the South Carolina debate over the weekend, Joe Lieberman praised the Clinton-Gore record (even while noting that he had been the first Democratic senator to denounce Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky mess). Clearly, leaving his personal failings aside, the former president left an economic record that his would-be successors are going to brandish against Dubya, who's presided over large job losses. (Yes, presidents get too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one, but that's politics.)
William Jefferson Clinton's administration isn't just a historical benchmark, like that of FDR or JFK. He remains a player, chatting up most of the current candidates, even if he did decline to get involved in the Kerry-Dean feud during a phone call to The Washington Post.
Hillary Clinton, the incumbent in the family, seems to have her husband's talent for driving her detractors wild. Some are still having Hillary in '04 nightmares (or fantasies).
When her $8-million memoir "Living History" is published next month, all the old debates will come roaring back: Whitewater. Paula. Monica. How she felt about being betrayed by her husband.
This, too, will be more than a blast from the past, as Hillary-haters try to dirty her up before she tries to recapture the White House (which would produce a lineage of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton ? how wild is that?).
Rush Limbaugh has been bashing her book, saying she won't really come clean on the various scandals. Sean Hannity has depicted her as a screechy whiner, playing her recent declaration that she's "sick and tired" of administration critics being portrayed as unpatriotic against the song "I Am Woman/Hear Me Roar."
In one sense, the '04 election will turn on a version of the old Reagan question, were you better off four years ago under Clinton (which will encompass not just the unemployment rate but the war on terrorism and the moral tone at 1600 Pennsylvania). And the notion of Clinton redux in '08 will be floating in the background.
On the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, Fred Barnes says Hillary shrewdly backed Rummy during the Iraq war:
"This new side to Sen. Clinton ? the national security side ? may surprise both fans and foes as she emerges in greater public view this spring. She attracted attention last week when she stridently attacked President Bush's domestic policies." And her book "may be unhelpful politically, raising new questions about Sen. Clinton's truthfulness, ethics and relationship with her husband.
"Though not a candidate, Sen. Clinton is also sure to grab attention in the 2004 Democratic presidential race. In nearly every national poll in which her name is included, she leads the Democratic field. In the Quinnipiac Poll in February, she topped her nearest rival, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, 42% to 15%.
"A grass-roots drive to draft Sen. Clinton as a presidential candidate is almost inevitable later this year. Her all but certain answer: I promised the voters of New York I'd serve the full six years of my Senate term and I will. Later, a new boomlet is unavoidable ? Hillary for vice president. This, too, she's likely to reject.
"Sen. Clinton's not-so-secret target is 2008. President Bush, if he gains a second term, will be leaving office. The presidential contest in both parties should be wide open. A popular senator from a large state, re-elected to a second term in 2006 and supported by the dominant wing of her party, would have a shot. . . .
"It's not that every step she takes is solely (and cynically) designed to aid a presidential run. Rather, it's that every significant move on Sen. Clinton's part, including last week's anti-Bush tirade, will affect her presidential aspirations. She and her advisers know this. . . .
"Dick Morris argues she's electable in 2008. That sounds far-fetched, but then it struck many as preposterous when she was first mentioned as a possible Senate candidate in New York."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman wonders whether Bill has a secret boost-Hillary agenda:
"They remain reviled figures in some quarters. But they are admired, especially by Democrats, as architects of what, increasingly, look like the 'good old days' of the American economy. Indeed, if the Democrats are going to beat Bush, they'll have to brag about Clinton's economic record. That, in turn, means bringing the man himself ? in all his controversial dimensions ? back onto the stage in 2004. . . .
"Even when he isn't onstage, Bill Clinton is a central character. The former president has made himself the off-the-record clearinghouse of the Democratic race, phoning in unsolicited advice and vacuuming up gossip. 'He knows everything that's going on down to the last detail,' said one of his advisers.
"Candidates value his calls and compete with each other to sing his praises as a strategist. 'He's always got great advice,' said Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who formally launches his campaign this week. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean went further. 'We're not going to see anybody with Clinton's talent in our lifetime,' he said. Still, some strategists wonder privately about Clinton's motives. 'His wife wants to run for president in 2008,' said one '04 adviser. 'If they want to get back to the White House, why help us to get there first?'"
American Prowler's David Hogberg slams Hillary's "sick and tired" rhetoric:
"Merely quoting her words cannot do them justice. You had to hear her tone, which can best be described an indignant screech. After playing her remarks on his radio program, Rush Limbaugh criticized her tone as 'unprofessional.' In fairness, though, she probably can't help it. It is likely a conditioned inflection after years of berating Bill for his bimbos."
One man taking Bill's advice officially threw his hat in the crowded ring yesterday:
"Sen. Bob Graham, officially kicking off his presidential campaign yesterday, accused President Bush of invading Iraq to settle an old family score," the Miami Herald reports.
"'Instead of pursuing the most imminent and real threats ? international terrorism ? this Bush administration chose to settle old scores,' Graham told the crowd gathered on Main Street in his hometown of Miami Lakes.
"The war in the Middle East has given Graham an opportunity to separate himself from the other Democratic presidential contenders. Of the five Democratic candidates who serve in Congress, Graham is the only one who voted last year against the measure authorizing the war, although, as he said Tuesday, he opposed it because he believes terrorist groups in other countries present a greater threat."
Orlando Sentinel columnist Peter Brown sees Graham going nowhere fast:
"Virtually every four years some thoughtful, well-respected senator indulges himself into thinking his Capitol Hill reputation is useful currency in a White House campaign. Then he falls flat on his face.
"Five dollars will get you 10 that, in 2004, his name will be Bob Graham.
"Graham, a well-regarded three-term senator and former governor, is revered in Florida politics. But he is a much longer shot than most presidential wannabes with a similar profile.
"Three times in the past 16 years, Democratic presidential candidates have considered and rejected Graham as their running mate. Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton and Al Gore each knew what he was doing.
"Graham is the 2004 version of Richard Lugar of Indiana and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who in 1996 and 2000 somehow thought their decades in the Senate and position as Republicans' congressional expert on foreign affairs and the judiciary, respectively, would impress primary voters."
The Note can't quite understand why Graham isn't a top-tier contender:
"Subtract the late start, the notebooks, and the (relative) lack of charisma, and Florida Senator Bob Graham would seem to be one strong candidate for president. . . .
"We cannot figure out to save our lives why Graham is not being taken more seriously as a formidable candidate by the Gang of 500.
"He is from the ultimate mega-state of presidential politics; he's been an overwhelmingly popular governor and senator; he can tout his electability, without anyone challenging it or giggling; he has a record on national security, health care, and the economy; he is unflappable; he has attracted a top-level staff in a hurry; he is well-liked in Washington and in his homestate; he has a strong fundraising record; he's a genuinely nice guy with fewer airs about him than anyone running; he has a loyal staff; etc.
"And yet, and yet ? the other campaigns don't seem to fear him, and we can't quite explain why, but he just isn't talked about much by the Chattering Class as a player in this nomination fight. Look at all the soft-ball questions he got in the debate.
"Despite the fact that he is the ultimate vice presidential candidate bridesmaid, it seems in one sense almost a certainty that Graham will be on the ticket in 2004 ? if not at the top, then in the second slot."
David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register says Iowa will break some hearts:
"A new poll of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers shows about a third of them haven't picked a presidential candidate to support. The survey, conducted April 25-27 by Zogby International, found 31 percent of likely caucus participants were undecided.
"That's good news for back-of-the-pack candidates like Florida Senator Bob Graham, who made his first campaign venture into Iowa last week. While it's getting late in the campaign, it's not too late. Many politically sophisticated caucus-goers take their sweet time in deciding on a candidate. Even many of those who've expressed an initial preference could be persuaded to change.
"In the survey, Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt captured 25 percent of the vote to lead the field of 10 candidates. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was in second place with 13 percent. Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman picked up third with 9 percent. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean won 6 percent.
"North Carolina Senator John Edwards and former Colorado Senator Gary Hart were back in the pack with 4 percent each, followed by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich with 3. The Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, former Illinois Senator Carol Mosley Braun and Graham had 1 percent each. . . .
"Always look for who is in the top three places among the candidates. Throughout the history of the caucuses, no candidate who has finished worse than third in Iowa has gone on to win a major party nomination. Any serious presidential candidate who does not finish in one of the top three slots becomes walking wounded. The national media folks will start killing them between the commas by writing obit-sounding things like: 'Candidate Joe Blow, staggering from a fifth-place finish in Iowa's caucuses, limped into New Hampshire Tuesday grasping for bandages to save what looks like a mortally wounded campaign.' It's rather hard to raise money off stories like that."
Here's another mention of Clinton ? in David Frum's piece on the Bill Bennett gambling dustup:
"In back of the anti-Bennett talk lurks--as so often in Washington!--the memory of the impeachment battles of 1998-99. In the memory of the anti-impeachers, President Clinton's many critics wanted him removed from office because of his immoral personal conduct--and ever since, they have regarded any infraction and deviation by any anti-Clintonite as news that can be legitimately blared from the rooftops. . . . It's tedious to have to repeat it, but let's say it one more time: Clinton's offense was abuse of office.
"But for many of Clinton's defenders, even abuse of office--perjury and the use of presidential power to encourage and induce others to commit perjury--had to be excused if the alternative was admitting that concepts like right and wrong had any relevance in public life. So offensive do they find those concepts that anybody who invokes them in any way--as Bill Bennett has so effectively done for a decade now--becomes suspect."
Journalists hiring themselves out as pitchmen? Check out this New York Times piece:
"Aaron Brown of CNN, Walter Cronkite and other broadcast journalists have been hired to appear in videos resembling newscasts that are actually paid for by drug makers and other health care companies, blurring the line between journalism and advertising.
"Mr. Brown and Mr. Cronkite, the former CBS News anchor, are the new hosts of video 'news breaks' produced by a Boca Raton, Fla., company called WJMK Inc. that are shown on local public television stations between regular programs. They are replacing Morley Safer of CBS, who has appeared in hundreds of the videos but has concluded, according to a '60 Minutes' spokesman, that the work does not meet the standards of CBS News.
"Based on information that it received yesterday, CNN said it was reviewing its decision to allow the participation of Mr. Brown, who has not yet appeared in a video. . . . According to WJMK documents, the companies pay WJMK about $15,000 in connection with the segments and other services and are allowed to edit and approve the videos, which are two to five minutes long."
Doesn't smell good.
Here's what smells far worse: Stephen Glass taking five years to apologize for defrauding the New Republic. Check out our report in The Washington Post on his prime-time confession.
A Democrat has finally taken issue with Bush's adventure at sea, says the Washington Times:
"Sen. Robert C. Byrd yesterday criticized the 'flamboyant showmanship' he said President Bush showed by declaring victory in Iraq from aboard USS Abraham Lincoln last week.
"'It is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech,' said Mr. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat."
It took him a week to figure this out?
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn says the press was, well, missing in action when Bush landed on the carrier:
"During the presidential campaign of 2000, it started going around that Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then the leading Republican candidate, had significant gaps in his military record. Specifically, that Bush failed to report for duty for an entire year toward the end of his hitch with the Texas Air National Guard. . . .
"The 'Bush AWOL?' story appeared in this newspaper and was based on good reporting and still-unanswered questions. It faded away--a scant 14 mentions in the database for all of 2001 and 2002 due to the age of the allegations, the lack of any new developments and the urgency of current events.
"Last week, though, the president all but wore a 'Kick Me!' sticker on the back of his flight suit when he decided to land on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the co-pilot's seat of an S-3B Viking jet."
washingtonpost.com |
