Reply #19: There is NOTHING dismissive in what I said of Clinton - reread it

[karynnj]

As to best politician, many pundits have said so since 1992.

I think he is brilliant, very charismatic and in 1992, had the same ability Obama had to project an infectious optimism and sense of possibility. He, more so than Obama, won over a huge proportion of the moderate to liberal media and in 1992, they helped a huge amount in allowing him to overcome the various pieces of baggage that emerged all too regularly. Winning the hearts of the media is a major part of anyone being a great politician and he excelled in that.

His media support and his ability as a politician were what allowed him to win the nomination and then to narrowly win the Presidency, in spite of personal liabilities that would have sunk others. His record in Arkansas was not all that fantastic. Arkansas was near the bottom on nearly any metric - before he was in office and after he was in office. If you looked just at his accomplishments and his personal life, he was less impressive than most of his competitors. It was his political ability, including winning over his "cool kids" fans in the media that made him beat his primary opponents.

I still think Clinton and his team are all given way too much credit for winning the 1992 race. GHWB was at 33% approval near the election! The media was entirely positive on Clinton in the last month, while repeating GHWB vomiting far more often than needed. Yet, we are told Carville and Begala were the best campaign team ever and Clinton, the most talented politician of his generation. All for a campaign where at one point, he was 3 out of 3. The fact is that like 2008, who ever won the primary was the overwhelming favorite to win the Presidency. Where his political ability showed was in winning that primary. I think Obama was at least as good a politician - facing far stiffer competition in his primary and pulling off an upset. Unless you put Obama in another generation by splitting the baby boom generation, I disagree that Bill Clinton is the best politician.

While I think Clinton excels at being charismatic and winning allies in the media, he is less good at two other elements of being a politician. His track record is more complex than just being the charismatic candidate of 1992. You might want to look back at 2008 and consider whether he was a net positive or negative on Hillary's campaign. I completely believe that he would not intentionally undercut his wife, but there were things he did that did just this. (A clear example - excusing the sniper fire story she included in prepared remarks 4 times as resulting from her being old and tired. Just what a candidate would want to hear.) This reflects another part of being a good politician - being disciplined - and here he is not good at all. Another part is strategy, and while he is good here, he did not see the danger in the putting ll the eggs in one basket strategy that HRC had in 2008. Had the campaign given serious thought to HRC not having a blow out win on Super Tuesday she would have won.