« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

Triangulating Bill's affections

by Mark Gisleson

Recently Josh Marshall posted a link to this New York Metro article by Michael Wolff on the Aspen Institute conference for policy makers. The article's most obvious money shot was the one used by Marshall:

When Clinton took questions, a young man from a technology company who identified himself as chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 in California said he was offended by Clinton’s partisanship. To which Clinton, without hesitation, and with some kind of predatory gleam in his eye, said, “Good!” From there, Clinton went on, with emotion and anger, at a level seemingly foreign to most everyone here, to rip to shreds the motives, values, and legitimacy of the Republicans.

Big Dog, as James Carville and some of his supporters like to call him, is a master politician. His instincts tell him now is the time to attack, and to do so with some real ferocity. Clinton's political insights are legendary, although virtually everything this charming karmic chameleon says about 2004 needs to be examined in light of how it impacts Hillary in 2008. That's why I found this part of the article to be even more interesting:

[Clinton] was interviewed on the second day by Isaacson, who began by telling a story about how when he was a Rhodes scholar he’d done a paper that his Oxford professor had said was not at all in the same league as a similar paper written by a certain Rhodes scholar from Arkansas a few years before. This was one of those overachievement-upon-overachievement stories that was bound to subdue anyone.

The other Rhodes scholar was, of course, Wesley Clark, the retired general and fomer Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, who may soon announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Steve Perry, a seasoned political observer, and I disagree as to what this means. Steve thinks this is a giveaway that Bill thinks Clark is a loser in 2004, setting up Hillary for 2008. I can be that cynical on occasion, especially if the conversation turns to Microsoft products, but I can't quite agree with Steve on this one.

I think the politician in Clinton wants to win, and win constantly. I can't imagine Clinton doing anything that would undercut a shot at taking the White House or either house of Congress from the Republicans. I'm sure some readers are chuckling at my naivete by now, but my time in the trenches for the Democrats taught me to recognize passion, and Clinton has it. My suspicion is that Bill would rather be Clark's Secretary of State than Hillary's First Husband. This one should become more clear as it plays out.

[Note: see CORRECTION below!]

Oh, and this recent Fox article about Clark's polling numbers is, uh, interesting.

Grassroots organizations have encouraged the former NATO (search) commander to make a run. The DraftWesleyClark.com group commissioned a Zogby poll in which those surveyed were asked to select a candidate based on his bio without knowing the candidate's name.

The poll, released Monday, showed Clark with 49 percent support in the "Blind Bio" survey compared to 40 percent for President Bush.

Matched up against six of the nine Democratic candidates, Clark polled in first place. That number dropped to fifth place among likely Democratic primary voters, however, when the candidates were named.

Interesting polling approach: blind bio's? It's hard to imagine an objective Bush biography that would get any polling support! [More on Clark.]

* *

File under the heading, Dead Horse, beating thereof, but Orcinus' David Niewert has posted one of his patented Daily Howler-style, USS Clueless-length analyses, this time of Clinton bashing. Gratifying reading if you're still seething over the Right's treatment of Bill, and even if not, it's interesting for the perspective on how the Right responds to attacks on Bush.

Which takes us to this new Washington Monthly feature rating our last four presidents on their overall mendacity. The winner? Bush the Younger most mendacious, Clinton the least. Regardless of what you think of Clinton, any list of four people being rated on honesty where Bill Clinton wins is, well, an interesting list, to say the least. [via CalPundit]

* *

CORRECTION: Alert reader Dan wrote in to point out that while I may have taken hermeneutics and comp lit in college, my interpretation of the second Wolff quote above is clearly in error, and upon closer study, I see that he's correct. Isaacson is telling the story, and is referring to Clinton as the other Rhodes scholar. Given the folks gathered at the Aspen Conference, I doubt these three gentlemen were the only Rhodes scholars present, and I should have been a little faster on the draw.

Fortunately, this error mars my illustration, but not my point. I tired to do a little googling to find some new support, but instead found this:

Wes Pruden with the Confederate POV: With nothing but time on his hands, Bill is conniving to do for the missus what Pa Ferguson did for Ma in Texas, what George Wallace did for Lurleen in Alabama. The notion that Ma Clinton can wait until 2008 is nuts....To make 2008 happen, the Clintons would first have to pretend, convincingly, to work for the Democratic nominee next year while employing every trick in the shadows to sabotage his chances. If (horrors!) the Democrat wins, anyway, that would put Hillary's race off until 2012, when she will be pulling down Social Security. The year 2012 is in that long run when a lot of us will be dead....[Clark's] from Arkansas (he would just as soon you not notice), and he speaks well, looks terrific, and brings just what Hillary needs to her candidacy, which certain Little Rock folk say is exactly what's in the works. They see Bill Clinton's hand, barely hidden, making Wesley Clark happen. [Clark as Hillary's VP? Score this one for Steve.]

Sadly, Google News also brought up this Frontpage screed that makes an unpleasant allegation connecting Clark to Waco, as well as offering up some Nixonian smears that are as creative as they are vile. I'll be looking into that Waco thing more closely (essentially, the Army troops involved were under Clark's command, with the insinuation that no one knows if Clark himself was present).

NewsMax also sees Clark and Clinton as joined at the hip, but I don't take much solace in the fact that in my frenzied googling anything resembling an argument to buttress my speculation invariably came from news organizations that give their employees Jefferson Davis's birthday off.

Like a lot of surfers, I'm now sitting here scratching my head trying to remember where I read about Clinton being fond of Clark. In any event, hopefully I won't have any more "Sully" moments to report in the future.

ADDENDUM: It took a couple of days, but finally, after I quit looking, I found the quote that set off my line of thinking on Clark and Clinton. It's from Amy Sullivan's outstanding Wesley Clark article in Washington Monthly, ironically, cited above.

Clark just might get the biggest endorsement of them all. In a June interview, former President Bill Clinton told the Associated Press that he has been impressed by every aspect of Clark's career and uttered these magic words: "I believe Wes, if he runs, would make a valuable contribution because he understands America's security challenges and domestic priorities. I believe he would make a good president." The statement has been judged by many political observers to be a non-endorsement endorsement, and a signal to Democratic donors and consultants to wait for Clark.

Posted by Steve Perry at August 28, 2003 12:59 PM

« Rove to face the music on Plame? | Main | Hillary porn »