A big part of the Democratic second guessing following the defeat of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in the 2000 presidential campaign centered on the use of Bill Clinton. As Gore’s campaign began to take shape, there was considerable debate over whether to embrace Clinton, as one of the most popular Democratic stars on the field, or keep him at arm’s length to highlight Gore as his own man.
Except for a few high-profile events — including a Hollywood style entrance at the 2000 convention — the decision was to keep the out-going president out of sight. As is the case even today, while many remember him fondly, others see his scandal-plagued time in the White House as one big steamer chest of political baggage. Instead of destination stickers covering the outside of the chest, there are names and phrases like: impeachment, Lewinsky, Ken Starr, Whitewater, government shutdown, gays in the military, Hillarycare and so on.
After the razor thin Gore/Lieberman defeat, the Clinton loyalists were telling everyone the outcome would have been different if Gore had run his campaign as a continuation of the Clinton presidency. Clinton had rebounded from the low approval ratings he suffered as a result of the impeachment trial, the economy was doing well, the rough times had been forgotten, the First Lady was about to be elected senator from New York.
Clinton Fatigue
The same debate over how to use the former president must have taken place as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House began. Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the advisors that helped Bill win and hold the White House now populate his wife’s campaign and not surprisingly they believe the former president is an unmatchable asset.
He still has a loyal base. He still generates crowds. He is — at the very least — a political curiosity. Someone you want to see, if you get the chance, because he is living history. On the other hand, many view him as floating through life enveloped by a Pigpen-like cloud. That cloud seems to have limited his effectiveness on behalf of his wife.
Sen. Clinton has her own baggage to deal with so it is unfair to say her second place showing against Barack Obama can be blamed entirely on Bill. But just as he could have provided the slight boost Gore needed in 2000, in 2008 he may have provided the extra drag that made it easier for Obama to pull away.
Obama is running against the status quo and Bill Clinton is a symbol of the Bush/Clinton/Bush years. Intentionally or not, the former president has made race an issue when there was a hope the Obama campaign meant we had moved beyond that. In his most spirited moments on behalf of his wife, Bill Clinton has at times stretched the truth or brought up topics that should have been left buried. As a former president, he cannot be tamed by staff. His freelancing as strategist and commentator-in-chief reminds everyone of why the term “Clinton Fatigue” was coined toward the end of his time in office.
None of this has helped his wife. A recent New York Times profile of the former president quoted several people close to the Clintons as saying there is no doubt he brings more to his wife’s campaign then he takes away. It’s unclear — even to insiders — whether his approach is the result of an out-sized personality unleashed, or part of a strategy hatched privately by the Clintons themselves. Eight years after the Gore campaign decided to go it alone, Obama’s march past Hillary may be validating the decision.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
