|
Bill Clinton had a pretty successful presidency. He led under fire from the right and the media, he was beaten up in the press, they impeached him--
And he left so popular he could give a speech on Bush's inauguration, which as I recall, nearly upstaged poor *. Al Gore could've used him more in his campaign, and I think his heart trouble didn't let him do more for Kerry, which was a pity. I just don't think we can afford, whatever hard feelings there might be regarding Hillary's not being the nominee, not using Clinton's great example of what a Democratic president can do--how the economy was strong, how foreign policy truly was about diplomacy and teamwork.
First thing--I admire Hillary even still, even though there were things about her campaign I didn't like. I think she is a person who can take a very strong lead in the senate one day, because her knowledge about policies is so strong. She was for some time the front-runner, almost like a "given". And she has a lot of fans. I remember back in the 90's, I was like a Hillary fan-girl. I hated when she got bad press because I totally admired her and didn't understand where all the hate came from. I kind of still think it was intimidation--she's a smart woman and she doesn't have a lot of "back down" about her. She'd call out a VRWC if she saw one. Although I support Obama whole-heartedly, I see no real problem with acknowledging that this was contest, and recognizing her supporters, and I do not think that it needs to be a divisive thing or "party-splitting". To much hand-wringing over it could make it that way, but it doesn't need to be. Instead, (because I think Obama's monination is a done deal, anyway) it can be a celebration that this party had two strong candidates. And we as a party tussled over who we really felt like beating McCain with ( :) ).
Second thing--at his best, Bill Clinton is a peacemaker. (He worked with that Republican Congress and walked out of office with us having a surplus--that's was an effort, working with "hostiles". And, yeah, well, Ireland. He did good work in the Middle East. W. sends him to raise money when bad stuff goes down--he gets stuff done.) I know there's a tendency to see him as this grudging old lion who feels slighted by the new phenomenon. I know it's easy to characterize him as an egomaniac--guess what? That's presidential politics. You have to have a set on you to think you can go around being the leader of the free world or whatever other hagiographic stuff they pin on you. But I hope and trust that he knows there is something bigger than himself and Hillary, and it's the theme he ran on, and I believe it's something he tried to work towards himself--hope, and realizing the work we do now, impacts our future. His legacy now, will have a lot to do with how he treats that speech. It could be a really good thing--a torch passing from one agent of change to another.
And have you *seen* Obama do a big event? His speech on race? He flooded Independence Mall later. He drew a 70K crowd in Portland(no disrespect to the Decembrists, but I don't follow that band myself, but I would follow Obama--so I do think he had a little something to do with the numbers.) 200K in Berlin. So he will fill a huge venue, and I don't think he needs more time. Just the right kind of time.
So, um, it doesn't have to be *bad*.
|