|
|
| |
| Mon, Dec. 1, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Remembering and then forgetting the Clintons Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 By David Sanders Hillary Clinton is far from being an afterthought in the Democratic presidential contest, but she is fading fast. It would be easy, but inaccurate, to assert that she has no one to blame but herself. At least some of the blame for her downward trajectory must be placed at the feet of her husband. Bill Clinton turned into an attack dog in New Hampshire and played the race card in South Carolina, but it's more than that. Conventional wisdom held that she needed him around to win, but having him around probably reminded Democratic voters of the Clintons' unsavory side, which has led some to seek a clean break from the past by way of Barack Obama. There was another time when Democrats wanted to forget the Clintons. It was a slow fade. In his farewell address to the nation in 2001, President Clinton extolled the virtues of his accomplishments and instructed the incoming president to stay the course. Before Bill and Hillary jetted to their new New York home following George W. Bush's inauguration, he told supporters and former administration officials at a crowded Andrews Air Force Base hangar, "We are not going anywhere!" At the time, Democrats hoped he would retain his rightful place as spokesperson for the loyal opposition by taking a page out of the British parliamentary system - Clinton as a shadow president? The thought at the time was that he who would be free of the White House's trappings and scandals and could help propel the Democrats back to power as the majority party in Congress. But, when presented with a fresh start, Clinton made no use of it. The same clouds of scandal and controversy, which cast shadows over HIS entire presidency set in at the beginning of his post-presidency. Clinton garnered unwanted publicity for a greedy duo of mini-scandals first, by lifting several thousands of dollars of White House furniture and his pursuance of a high-priced office in a palatial New York City high-rise. Then there was his pardon of fugitive-financier Marc Rich, who had been on the run for evading millions of dollars in taxes and doing business with the Iranian government while it held American hostages? There was an indissoluble link between the pardon and the millions of dollars given to the Clintons by Rich's ex-wife, Denise, through campaign contributions, donations to the presidential library and even personal gifts. Despite his assurances at the time to the contrary, the pardon had all the appearances of a quid pro quo. Clinton was on his own, calling friendly reporters and opinion-makers trying to explain his pardon. Democrats, who had defended all of Clinton's intolerable actions in office, openly castigated the former president. Daily, Democratic members of Congress made the rounds on the 24-hour cable news channels to express their disgust for Clintons' departing actions. Even The New York Times reported at the time that the Clinton/Rich scandal had a dramatic impact on the Democratic Party's fund-raising efforts. Various donors, who were being hit up at the time for campaign cash, cited the "cash for pardons" scandal as a key factor in their decision not to give. Shortly after he left office Democrats just wanted Clinton to go away, because - they'd had enough. Just last week, Hillary all but guaranteed that her husband wouldn't be the source of scandal in her White House if she was elected president. How could she be so confident? She can't control him when he's out on the campaign trail. Democrats have had to come to terms with what putting the Clintons back into the White House might mean for their party. Apparently more of them are seeking the same clean break some Democrats sought in 2001. ------- David Sanders writes twice weekly for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and is a host of the Arkansas Education Television Network's "Unconventional Wisdom." His e-mail address is DavidJSanders@aol.com. . |
