Today's Krauthammer

[cairns]

For thought or discussion:

Clinton: Parenthesis In Search Of A Legacy
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Legacy? What legacy?

There was general amazement when (the now-muzzled) Bill Clinton did his red-faced, attack-dog, race-baiting performance in South Carolina. Friends, Democrats and longtime media sycophants were variously perplexed, repulsed, enraged, mystified and shocked that this beloved ex-president would so jeopardize his legacy by stooping so low.

What they don't understand is that for Clinton, there is no legacy. What he was doing on the low road from Iowa to South Carolina was fighting for a legacy — a legacy that he knows history has denied him and that he has but one chance to redeem.

Clinton is a narcissist but also smart and analytic enough to distinguish adulation from achievement. Among Democrats, he is popular for twice giving them the White House, something no other Democrat has done since FDR. And the bouquets he receives abroad are simply signs of the respect routinely given ex-presidents, though Clinton earns an extra dollop of fawning, with the accompanying fringe benefits, because he is (a) charming and (b) not George W. Bush.

But Clinton knows this is all written on sand. It is the stuff of celebrity. What gnaws at him is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama's statement that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that . . . Bill Clinton did not."

The Clintons tried to use this against Obama by charging him with harboring secret Republican sympathies. It was a stupid charge that elicited only scorn. Not just because Obama is no Reaganite, but because Obama's assessment is so obviously true: Reagan was consequential. Clinton was not.

Reagan changed history. At home, he radically altered both the shape and perception of government. Abroad, he changed the entire structure of the international system by bringing down the Soviet empire, giving birth to a unipolar world of unprecedented American dominance.

By comparison, Clinton was a historical parenthesis. He can console himself — with considerable justification — that he simply drew the short straw in the chronological lottery: His time just happened to be the 1990s which, through no fault of his own, was the most inconsequential decade of the 20th century. His was the interval between the collapse of the Soviet Union on Dec. 26, 1991, and the return of history with a vengeance on Sept. 11, 2001.

Clinton's decade, that holiday from history, was certainly a time of peace and prosperity — but a soporific Golden Age that made no great demands on leadership. What, after all, was his greatest crisis? A farcical sexual dalliance.

Clinton no doubt wishes he'd been president on 9/11. It is nearly impossible for a president to rise to greatness in the absence of a great crisis, preferably war. Theodore Roosevelt is the only clear counterexample, and Bill is no Teddy.

What is the legacy of the Clinton presidency? Consolidator of the Reagan revolution. As Dwight Eisenhower made permanent FDR's New Deal and Tony Blair institutionalized Thatcherism, Clinton consolidated Reaganism.

He did so most symbolically with his 1996 State of the Union declaration that "the era of big government is over." And more concretely, with a presidency that only tinkered with such structural Reaganite changes as tax cuts and deregulation, and whose major domestic achievement was the abolition of welfare, Reagan's ultimate social bete noire.

These are serious achievements, but of a second order. Obama did little more than echo that truism. But one can imagine how it made Clinton burn. He is, after all, a relatively young man who has decades to brood over his lost opportunity for greatness and yet is constitutionally barred from doing anything about it.

Except for the spousal loophole. Hence his desperation, especially after Hillary's Iowa debacle, to rescue his only chance for historical vindication — a return to the White House as Hillary's co-president. A chance to serve three, perhaps even four terms, the longest in history, longer even than FDR. The opportunity to have dominated a full quarter-century of American history, relegating the George W. Bush years to a parenthesis within Clinton's legacy.

It was to save this one chance, his last chance, to be historically consequential, that Bill Clinton blithely jeopardized principle, friendships, racial harmony in his own party and his own popularity in South Carolina.

Why not? Clinton knows that popularity is cheap, easily lost, easily regained. (See Lewinsky scandal.) But historical legacies are forever. He wants one, desperately. But to get it he must return to the White House. And for that he must elect his wife. At any cost.

Why was he out of control in South Carolina? He wasn't. He was clawing for a second chance.

[frogger]

Good article. Clinton was not a bad president (like Bush is), but he was not particularly good. He was just mediocre and will be mainly forgotten by history.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Was this written by a 10-year-old? Reads like a "what I did on summer vacation" assignment with the added benefit of "what I would like to have done" suppositions. and the premise, the very basis of the article, is false. Every President has a legacy, and they typically have more than one facet. Bill Clinton's primary legacy is of a scandal so repulsive to the nation that it elected the worst President in history at a time when it needed the best.

it's articles like this that dumb down the American people. But it's great to see K. keeping the hate alive.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Bill Clinton's primary legacy is of a scandal so repulsive to the nation that it elected the worst President in history at a time when it needed the best.

I agree with this comment, Shaun, but the rest of your post seems a bit over the top. You normally don't come across like that. Whassup?

I do think that perhaps Bill Clinton's contributions during this campaign seem to be more about him than about Hillary. Perhaps my perception is wrong, but, that is what it is.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by frogger

I agree with this comment, Shaun, but the rest of your post seems a bit over the top. You normally don't come across like that. Whassup?

I do think that perhaps Bill Clinton's contributions during this campaign seem to be more about him than about Hillary. Perhaps my perception is wrong, but, that is what it is.

I'm sorry, I guess it's just a response to the state of journalism today.

I agree, Hillary's campaign is as much about Bill as anything else, and if she becomes President, you can be sure he will be playing a big role. so write about that. don't create some contrived bit of hate to once again prove how much you (Krauthammer) hate Bill Clinton. that's what this piece boils down to: "Here's a new spin on why I hate Bill Clinton."

And in terms of journalism, what does this piece hope to accomplish?

[cmccuist]

That article was written by a Pulitzer prize winning columnist for the Washingon Post - and it's right on the money. Clinton himself whined about not having any great crisis in his presidency to prove his mettle.

I guess having terrorists bombing US interests all over the world (embassies, the Cole, Somolia) wasn't enough to get him to do stop using his intern as a humidor.

Clinton was irrelevant after 1993 (the great tax hike year). He will continue to be irrelevant.

Oh and it's pity, not hate that the right feels for Clinton. He's a caricature of himself.

And if he thinks Hillary is going to let him get near an actual policy decision (if by some horrible historical joke she gets elected) he's begging.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

That article was written by a Pulitzer prize winning columnist for the Washingon Post - and it's right on the money.

My dog has a Pulitzer, or was it a Peabody? But she doesn't hate anyone.

[frogger]

Nice doggie.

[tabs]

Krauthammer..piece is HORSE MANURE>.. Bill Clinton is all about POWER and having his wife wield it. They could give a fk about legacy at this point in time, legacy is for dead people not the living. They are still actors on the stage and the game is yet to be played out. Most people think that if Hillary becomes Prez that it will be a 2 for 1 Prez. Ain't gona happen, you will see Bill either being an attack dog or cheerleader because Hillary can say things through him that she couldn't otherwise say.

Lets get real people, and not listen to some shlock meister of a pundit.

[cmccuist]

Yea, the Pulitzer has lost some of it's prestige. Too many writters will do anything to win.

Fortunately, my pugs don't care who is president - they only care that I feed them regularly!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Cute dogs, and here's a funny story (don't take it the wrong way).

I used to live in NY and would go to Central Park with my dog all the time. One time I stumbled on "Pug Hill" (http://pughill.org/) and very unfortunately I had just taken her off the leash to untangle it. Normally, she's extremely well behaved, but she's also an incredibly curious dog. One look at all those Pugs running around was just too much for her and she took off to see what they were all about, maybe 30 of them. She's a lab-rott mix, which makes her the sweetest and strongest dog on the planet. well, it was quite a sight to see those Pugs scatter!!! and their snobby Upper East and West Side owners gasping wide-eyed trying to collect their little dogs (all off their leashes) as my 90 pound puppy is running up to them. It was priceless! wish I could have videotaped it.

Originally Posted by cmccuist

Yea, the Pulitzer has lost some of it's prestige. Too many writters will do anything to win.

Fortunately, my pugs don't care who is president - they only care that I feed them regularly!

[silverc4s]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Bill Clinton's primary legacy is of a scandal so repulsive to the nation that it elected the worst President in history at a time when it needed the best.


Frogger says:
I agree with this comment, Shaun, but the rest of your post seems a bit over the top. You normally don't come across like that. Whassup?

I do think that perhaps Bill Clinton's contributions during this campaign seem to be more about him than about Hillary. Perhaps my perception is wrong, but, that is what it is.

History judges these sorts of things. It will be 20 years or so at least before the reality can be seperated from the political emotions of the moment.

The fact that attacks on America finally ended in 2001, and the (Offense against)beginning of the end of global islamofacisiterrorisim was engineered by GWB and a few old guys may just turn out to be more important than you can envision right now, through the red cloud of anger in front of your eyes.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by silverc4s

The fact that attacks on America finally ended in 2001, and the (Offense against)beginning of the end of global islamofacisiterrorisim was engineered by GWB and a few old guys may just turn out to be more important than you can envision right now, through the red cloud of anger in front of your eyes.

another Bush deadender member of the 10% Club.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by frogger

Nice doggie.

Thanks. She's 12 now and slowing down.

[Superman]

I've never read Krauthammer before, and if this is an example of his "work," then I appreciate this opportunity to avoid wasting my time in the future reading his writing. He is an idiot. Apparently, he's an idiot who often says stuff certain folks like to read. And pretend. But an idiot nonetheless.

Clinton did not roll the dice on a longshot, bucking popular and conventional and time-honored wisdom from all corners of the globe like Dubya did. So......if a "president" has to do that in order to have a "legacy" then Clinton does not have a legacy and Dubya will have one. But if running the government efficiently, balancing the budget, etc., is the measure, then Clinton was one of the best Presidents in recent memory and Dubya was the worst. From an administrative perspective, Clinton was one of the most effective Presidents.......ever.

Unless of course.......unless you like to read stuff that makes you hate. Stuff that makes you angry. If you like drama, then Dubya is your MAN. A complete and total failure, but your Hero nonetheless.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

That article was written by a Pulitzer prize winning columnist for the Washingon Post - and it's right on the money. Clinton himself whined about not having any great crisis in his presidency to prove his mettle.

I guess having terrorists bombing US interests all over the world (embassies, the Cole, Somolia) wasn't enough to get him to do stop using his intern as a humidor.

Clinton was irrelevant after 1993 (the great tax hike year). He will continue to be irrelevant.

Oh and it's pity, not hate that the right feels for Clinton. He's a caricature of himself.

And if he thinks Hillary is going to let him get near an actual policy decision (if by some horrible historical joke she gets elected) he's begging.

Good Krauthammer article (as usual) and good post, cmccuist.

[cairns]

Wow the hate you guys on the left have is palpable. Supe you especially. If you've never read Krauthammer I suspect you don't get out much. One of the best columns I ever read was his take on Australia.

I can't stand Hillary or Bill but that doesn't mean I'm not going to read an EJ Dionne or Richard Cohen. I sure as heck don't agree with them most of the time but I respect them as pretty good columnists who logically state their positions.

Too bad you guys are so starry eyed over hating Bush and loving Bill. I think history will be the judge and Krauthammer (and cmccuist) pretty much nailed Bill (I do applaud him for NAFTA). But of course time will tell.

Very nice dogs BTW.

[nostatic]

if you use "soporific" in a piece, they have to give you a Pulitzer. It's in the rules.

I thought the op ed was ok...had some salient points, but others were off the mark. The reality is the Clinton didn't drive the country into the ground. You don't need a "crisis" to rise to the occasion. The job is tough enough as it is. If anything, a crisis makes things *easier* for a leader, because you can get public opinion behind you and get things done that otherwise would take herculean effort. In that regard I think the Bush will be viewed historically as a rather significant failure. In the days after 9/11 he could have done nearly *anything* and the country would have supported him. He had carte blanche as long as he said a few good quotes and did the obligatory live appearances (which all candidates know how to do these days). But his leadership put us into a quagmire war and arguably teetering economy.

Time is cruel and history is constantly revisionist. And stuff happens. Timing is everything. Clinton's claim to fame was the ability to compromise and get people talking. That is no mean feat in this country. Bush otoh has become a great polarizer. You can blame the media all you want...but both sides have to deal with it. Kinda like our softball game the other night. One of our guys complained that we couldn't hit because of the wind. My response was that both sides had the same wind when they had a bat in their hand...

[cmccuist]

Originally Posted by Superman

I've never read Krauthammer before, and if this is an example of his "work," then I appreciate this opportunity to avoid wasting my time in the future reading his writing. He is an idiot. Apparently, he's an idiot who often says stuff certain folks like to read. And pretend. But an idiot nonetheless.

Clinton did not roll the dice on a longshot, bucking popular and conventional and time-honored wisdom from all corners of the globe like Dubya did. So......if a "president" has to do that in order to have a "legacy" then Clinton does not have a legacy and Dubya will have one. But if running the government efficiently, balancing the budget, etc., is the measure, then Clinton was one of the best Presidents in recent memory and Dubya was the worst. From an administrative perspective, Clinton was one of the most effective Presidents.......ever.

Unless of course.......unless you like to read stuff that makes you hate. Stuff that makes you angry. If you like drama, then Dubya is your MAN. A complete and total failure, but your Hero nonetheless.

Clinton balanced the budget and made the government run effectively?!?! I don't think they're going to be carving his grill on Mt Rushmore for that kind of epic leadership. I also don't think those great pieces of legislation rise to the level of "best president in recent memory."

Clinton was a small man, with small accoplishments. And reforming welfare, and federal guidelines for baby car seats and school uniforms are all small accomplishments for a pathetic man - which was the whole point of that idiot Krauthammer's article.

Maybe you can get a copy of the New York Times and flip to the section that has Maureen Dowd, and Frank Rich and Paul Krugman. Those guys aren't idiots like Dr. Krauthammer (he's an MD). They love Bill Clinton and hate W. And their writing is identical to your post.

[Jim Richards]

Craig, from your comments, you seem to prefer financial ruin for our country.