Clinton is one of those figures in recent history who is incredibly polarizing. Reagan used to be that way, particularly when he was in office. But after his presidency he largely got off the stage. And Reagan had a way of charming people who really disagreed with his policies. Although his policies might be terrible, people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Clinton got no such break. Those who disagreed with Clinton's policies have always imputed them to his charectar.
Clinton was power-hungry, greedy, covetous, aggressive, grabby, betraying, catchy, deceitful, deceptive, disloyal, double-crossing, double-dealing, duplicitous, faithless, false, false-hearted, fly-by-night, insidious, misleading, perfidious, recreant, shifty, slick, slippery, traitorous, treasonable, tricky, two-faced, two-timing, undependable, unfaithful, unloyal, unreliable, unreliable, untrue, untrustworthy, chicken, cowardly, dastardly, fearful, gutless, lily-livered, mean-spirited, nebbish, poltroonish, pusillanimous, scared, timid, timorous, unmanly, weak-kneed, wimp, wimpy, wuss, yellow, blue, cheap, coarse, dirty, erotic, gross, indecent, indecorous, indelicate, lascivious, lecherous, lewd, libidinous, licentious, lustful, obscene, prurient, ribald, risque, rude, salacious, suggestive. Probably some other things too.
I personally lead to the idea that while he may have had some noble ambitions, he only wanted to win elections and didn't care that much about the American people. He was willing to risk his presidency and to tie up the Government for months in order to have an affair with an intern. So I don't like him that much myself, or have much respect for him.
I can tell you who does love Clinton; conservative Republicans. They are thrilled with his desire to stay in control of the Democratic Party. I'm sure many large corporations are too. One presumes they know what we all know--Clinton is no enemy of Business. He stated recently, about the Democrats, "
We've got to be pro-business and pro-accountability." So he's not too dangerous to the desires of Wall Street. On the other hand he's such a polarizing figure that one Clinton is worth 20 real liberals (proposing Progressive reforms) in terms of energizing the conservative base. Bizarrely, most conservatives seem readily able to accept Clinton as both a loser sell out who never stood up for anything and as a blazing Communist reformer dedicated to destroying America.
Anyawy I hope some figure within the Democratic party rises who can challange Bill Clinton's hold on the party. He needs to retire from public life if the Democratic party is ever to return to its progressive roots. As William Greider has stated at
the Nation, commenting on the effect of Clinton on the Democratic party, "
one consequence could be to smother any internal debate about what the party really believes and how to enlarge its sense of purpose. Democrats and allied constituencies are deeply riven on that question--some wishing to revive an aggressive reform spirit and the big progressive ideas that Clintonism effectively dismantled with its small, symbolic answers to big problems. Congressional Democrats are beginning to understand that Clinton's "rope a dope" style no longer works in the Bush II era (when they make a smart gesture, Bush simply grabs it as his own). On the other hand, most Dems seem to have internalized Clinton's conservative economic doctrine as party gospel--fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the first principle of governing, and managing the economy for growth is ceded to the Federal Reserve. This doctrine conveniently has wide appeal among the major contributors from business and finance, but it doesn't promise much for the folks who vote."