Edwards and the Clinton experience

Ryan Lizza tweets:

I don't really understand the over-the-top contempt/hatred for John Edwards from same people who defended/have forgiven B. Clinton for same.

Jonathan Bernstein suggests that there are important differences based on the concept of representation. Clinton was known to be a philanderer and basically just promised to put that aside during his presidency. Edwards, conversely, made family and loyalty to his ill wife a central part of his campaign. His betrayal of Elizabeth was a betrayal of the whole purpose of his campaign.

Let me suggest another important distinction: In 2008, Democrats had the experience of 1998 to reflect upon; in 1998, they did not.

In terms of martial problems, Clinton's nomination and election in 1992 were highly unusual. Certainly, we'd had philandering presidents and presidential candidates previously, but rarely had it been such an open issue in the middle of a contentious nomination battle, and almost never had the purported philanderer not only not dropped out of the race (a la Gary Hart 1988), but actually won the nomination. Having dealt with the issue in the winter probably, as Jon suggests, helped to inoculate Clinton for the fall campaign. And yes, there was an implicit deal that active Democrats would not make a big deal out of this issue and that Clinton, in turn, would keep his pants zipped while in the White House.

Now, when Lewinsky's name became public, yes, Democrats ultimately defended Clinton. The Republicans made that easy by determining that oral sex was an impeachable offense. (Yeah, perjury, sure.) But before the impeachment hearings started ramping up, Democrats, particularly the active Clinton loyalists, were hugely pissed at him. He had broken the contract. They'd taken a chance on him but he'd betrayed their trust. Everything they'd worked for for six years was now in jeopardy, and now they'd have to jump into the breach again, not to elect him or his successor, not to fight for health reform or economic justice, not to protect a legacy, but to save his horny ass. Of course, they did it, and Republican overreach, combined with the fact that Clinton's presidency overall ended up looking pretty successful, made it easy for Democratic activists to ultimately defend him, maybe even to forgive him... but not to forget what happened.

So then 2008 comes around and John Edwards draws the exact wrong lesson from history. He figures that if Clinton could get away with it, so could he. But Democratic activists did not want to go through that again, not if they didn't have to. So they dropped him like a hot potato.

Now, there are some other key differences, as well. Edwards' dalliances became public after he'd already dropped out of the presidential race. No one had to defend him. He was of no value to the Democratic coalition. Yes, when your president is under attack, you defend him, even if you find his behavior disgusting. But when a failed presidential candidate is under attack? Who cares?

Related to this, Clinton already had five relatively successful years as president to point to when Lewinsky's name surfaced. Activists could rationalize, "Okay, he's a dog, but he knows how to govern." With Edwards it was more like, "Okay, he's a dog."

How quickly we forget

A busy schedule and a tight budget unfortunately kept me from attending last weekend's Clinton '92 campaign reunion in Little Rock. I have no idea if the Washington Post's coverage of the event is representative of what really went on there, but I really hope not:

The class of ’92 cast its reunion as a tacit — and sometimes not so tacit — rebuke of the current president and his un-Clintonian aversion to the political fray. Some erstwhile Clinton aides wore “I Miss Bill” T-shirts and “It’s Still About the [Expletive] Economy, Stupid” buttons. Others privately regretted Hillary Rodham Clinton’s acceptance of the secretary of state post — the theory being that she would be better positioned to replace Obama if she had stayed in the Senate.

I'm pleased to see President Clinton himself in the article dismissing the Obama comparisons as off-base. But really, do these folks remember what that first term was like? I remember showing up to work when Clinton's approval ratings were in the 30s, lower than Obama's have ever been. And yeah, there was a lot of soul searching -- Were we doing it right? Why wasn't his message getting through? Did we misread the voters in 1992? Was he doomed to be a one-termer? But I don't remember any of us saying that the country would have been better if we'd backed Harkin or Tsongas or Brown.

I would agree that Clinton had more of a love for the rough-and-tumble of partisan politics than Obama does, but exactly what did he have to show for it by this point in his first term? Yes, Clinton's first budget passed, including a tax hike on upper income earners, but he lost on the stimulus that year. Health reform was in ruins. Don't-ask-don't-tell was a compromise that no one liked. His only other big legislative wins were NAFTA and the crime bill, both of which were staunchly opposed by sizable chunks of liberal congressional Democrats. Contrast that with Obama's record on health reform, student loan reform, financial sector reform, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the end of DADT... it's really quite impressive, and not something liberals should be dismissing. Sure, liberals have plenty of reasons to be upset with Obama's concessions to Republicans on budgetary matters, but does no one remember Clinton's concessions? His triangulations after the 1994 election? His hiring of Dick Morris?

This is not to disparage Clinton's accomplishments as president. There were many, and I am proud of the very small role I played in them. But the fierce partisan fighter some folks seem to recall is largely fictitious, and to the extent it was real, just how great was it? Winning the news cycle is not the same as enacting an agenda.

Did Clinton moderate?

Jon Bernstein had a post recently asking whether President Clinton moved toward the center following the 1994 election.  Bernstein largely comes down on the side of no, although he cites a Brendan Nyhan post offering evidence that Clinton did moderate somewhat.

Actual quantitative evidence of presidents' ideological dispositions (no less shifts in them) is difficult to come by.  For what it's worth, I was working for Clinton during this election cycle.  While my low-level job was far removed from the Oval Office, in terms of both geography and power, there was a sense of moderation felt throughout the office in the wake of the '94 midterms.

One of the major changes at the time was really one of tone.  Mack McLarty, the chief of staff who was close with the Clintons and whom all the Arkansans knew and liked, was out, replaced by centrist Leon Panetta from California.  And a signal was sent (although I can't recall a specific mechanism) that it was time to get serious.  My office in Correspondence had been quite a fun place to work prior to the '94 election.  We worked hard, but the environment had been one more like that of a campaign than a government office -- very informal, a bit rowdy.  Pretty quickly after that, the office environment changed.  It became less fun, more professional.  I stopped wearing Star Trek and Elvis ties.  (Seriously, I did.  Granted, I probably shouldn't have been wearing them in the first place.)

Now, only in the broadest, non-political sense does a making a chaotic office more professional constitute a rightward shift.  But I also had a sense of movement toward more conservative public policies.

As a letter writer, one of the issue areas I dealt with was health care.  I recall working on a letter in early 1995 related to the treatment of drug abuse as a public health problem.  I wish I could remember the specifics of the policy, but there was a notable shift between 1994 and 1995, where the White House was no longer supportive of providing certain funds to help those dealing with drug addiction.  This sticks in my memory because I remember double-checking with the Office of Domestic Policy about it, as it seemed like we were adopting the Republican position.  I then had to check yet again when my supervisor didn't believe what I'd written in the letter.  I believe there were other modest shifts in policy around then, although nothing that would generate major headlines and nothing that sticks out in my head.

That's my boy

The above photo comes from a 1978 Farrell's Ice Cream newsletter.  The gentleman at right is Arkansas' then-Attorney General Bill Clinton, about to win an ice cream eating contest.  According to the newsletter,

Farrell’s at McCain Mall in N. Little rock, Arkansas celebrated George Washington’s birthday this year by building a giant birthday sundae. The festivities began on February 20 with an ice cream eating contest between Arkansas’ Attorney General, Bill Clinton, and Sonny Victory and Deanna Scott of KLAZ-98 radio station. And the winner was Bill Clinton, who reached the bottom of his Pig’s Trough first.

Next came the construction of the sundae with strawberry topping, cherries and lots of whipped cream. As everyone sang “Happy Birthday to George,” Bill Clinton blew out the candles and presented the first serving to John Waddle, Arkansas’ Muscular Dystrophy poster child. Free ice cream was served to all guests attending the celebration. Donations were accepted and all proceeds went to the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

(Source: Farrell's Facebook page)