Prisoners of Bill

Will the Democrats ever escape?

Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

(Wall St. Journal editorial)

Will the torment never cease? It's been three long weeks since Bill Clinton left the White House, and still the wails of agony, the cries of outrage and the shouts of denunciation continue. And that's from the former President's friends.

The rest of the country has moved on to the Bush era, to debating tax cuts and missile defenses. But these new "Clinton haters," if we may borrow a phrase, can't seem to let go. They are wallowing in his abuse of the pardon power, his new break-all-records office space (reported by NBC yesterday to have now been moved to Harlem), and his wife's end-run around the Senate gift ban. Every liberal columnist and Democrat seems to want to get his moment of moral distancing on the public record.

"I just think it's totally indefensible," says longtime Clinton defender Joe Biden about the Marc Rich pardon. Senator Paul Wellstone, another "no" on impeachment, says "it puts back into sharp focus all the questions about values and ethics in relation to the Clinton Administration."

And we about fell off our chair when the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne finally mustered up enough moral outrage after eight years to quote an equally outraged Barney Frank. That most fervent of all Clinton apologists now calls the Rich pardon a "betrayal" and "contemptuous." Even Joe Conason took a shot at his heroes, which is like Boswell doubting Dr. Johnson. Who's next? Sid Blumenthal?

The easy line for those never baptized into Clintonism to take here is, "Now they tell us." Now that the election is over and Mr. Clinton is out of office, liberals conveniently discover a moral afflatus and attack the man they protected for so long. But this being the era of compassionate conservatism, we will resist that temptation. We'd like to offer counsel instead, but not until examining the patient.

These angry liberals remind us of the inmates at Alcatraz pounding their tin cups against the jailhouse bars. After eight years of eating bad food and serving a brutal warden, they've finally had enough. And their rage is the more ferocious because they know they brought their incarceration on themselves.

They protected the Clintons for years, long enough to make West Virginia and other conservative Democratic states safe for George W. Bush. Al Gore, now privately blaming his former boss's scandals for his own defeat, is the same guy who in public, at a perfectly preposterous moment, called him "one of our greatest Presidents." Worse, these are the same Democrats who put the Clintons in a position to dominate their party for years to come.

They rallied behind Hillary to muscle Nita Lowey out of the primary and hand her that New York Senate seat almost by acclamation. But they're outraged about her handbags. Now they've acceded to putting Bill and Hill's money tree, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic National Committee. With their cash and clout, the Clintons plan to remain the face of the Democratic Party until they march back into the White House.

Barney Frank is right. The Clintons are "contemptuous"--of him and their other forgive-anything supporters. They're contemptuous because they know that in the end those same liberals will sign up for the Hillary restoration. They know this because these Democrats, liberals and pundits have been outraged before. And they always come back at election time, or fund-raising time.

The New York Times, bless its tortured soul, found outrage aplenty in 1994-95. But by 1996, with Newt Gingrich to beat, it was back saluting Mr. Clinton. The liberals did it again in the second term, denouncing the abuses of campaign finance and Monica, but then denouncing Ken Starr and Dan Burton even more. A brave few tried to show their disgust by supporting Bill Bradley in 2000, only to return to the campground once Al Gore won the primary campaign.

Her eyes on 2004 or 2008, Hillary Clinton knows the Times and the rest will return to her defense to beat the Bushes, convincing themselves it's an act of higher political morality. All she has to do is ride out the current rage, maybe combine a half-apology with an attack on Republicans, and her Democratic codependents will all find a way to forget.

Which is where our humble advice comes in. The first step toward liberation from the Clintons is for Democrats to recognize the terms of their self-imprisonment. The only way to break free is for someone prominent to stand up and speak the truth about the Clintons' tawdry moral legacy and the party's complicity in it. Something about defining Democratic politics downward.

Who knows what might happen? The media--prisoners themselves--might even applaud the independence movement. The voters might also begin to identify Democrats again with something more uplifting than "everybody does it" or "I got mine" or perjury is fine so long as it's "just about sex."

Absent any such honesty, the current rage will eventually burn out and the Democrats will remain what they were--prisoners of Bill.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001

Answers

I wonder if there is a web site that keeps track of the lucrative speaking gigs that Bill is still getting. I called my broker Morgan Stanley Dean Witter to complain about the 100-150K they paid him to speak at some phoney conference. It pisses me off that they would pay anyone that kind of money for a useless speech, but doing it now, for the slickster is an insult. I told them I would take my millions elsewhere.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Liberals would eat their own young.

-- Swampthing (in@the.swamp), February 13, 2001.

Right on, Lars. May I offer some guidance regarding your investments? Do not act impulsively. Keep emotions out of it at all cost.

I can help you in this arena. If you'll email me your FAX number I'd like you to quickly look over and sign a document for me which would guarantee you will never again act impulsively. Disregard the part which reads: This certifies I, Lars X, transfer power of attorney to the undersigned, Richard....

(What's the html code for subliminal messaging? Anyone?)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 13, 2001.