How much damage will Bill Clinton's book do to John Kerry's campaign? Virtually zero, for two reasons:
First, although it feels today as if we're in all-Clinton, all-the-time mode, these things pass and are very quickly forgotten. If Kerry has trouble getting on the front pages this week, well, that's nothing new; it can't be pinned on Clinton, anyway. But soon enough, Kerry will be on the front pages. In, say, two weeks' time, he'll name his vice-presidential candidate. The week after that will be the week before the Democratic convention. Presumably, Kerry and his veep choice will embark on some pre-convention barnstorming, earn themselves plenty of free media, as the consultants like to say. Clinton will still be out hawking his book -- but in terms of the news cycle, he'll be an old story. There's plenty of time, in sum, for the focus to return to Kerry before the convention. And by then, Clinton will be completely out of the way.
But second and more important: Clinton is simply not the net minus the punditocracy makes him out to be. The pundits have their view of Clinton, and it's fixed. Clinton could develop a cure for cancer, and the spin in the mainstream media would be, “Typical Clinton; butting his nose into other people's work, taking all the glory.” But the pundits' view of Clinton is not the American public's view of him, and the vast majority of voters have long since tuned this nonsense out. The people who will eat up the cablefests over the next few days are, by and large, a self-selecting group that wants to hear more ceaseless Clinton-bashing -- and that's probably already voting for George W. Bush. The 95 percent of voters who don't watch cable television (cable TV has about five million nightly viewers; the 2000 election comprised about 100 million voters) just don't care. They don't care what O'Reilly says, what Hannity says, what Matthews says, what Scarborough says, what Michiko Kakutani writes; they don't care what any big shot in New York or Washington says or writes. They can all scream and scowl until they can't scream and scowl any more, and they will have convinced no one who doesn't already agree with them. And John Kerry will have suffered nothing.
Michael Tomasky
If ever there was a time when we didn't need a book called My Life by Bill Clinton, it's now. For months -- ever since he became the presumptive Democratic nominee -- John Kerry has been squeezed off the front pages of newspapers around the country. Fighting in Fallujah, torture in Abu Ghraib, Ronald Reagan's week-long funeral -- as our own correspondent, Karen Finney noted on this site last week, in the previous two weeks, only two stories about Kerry had appeared on The New York Times's front page.
Sure, some stretches were all bad, all the time for President Bush, which was good news for Kerry. And it's true that Kerry's big moment will come at the Democratic convention later this month. But Kerry's biggest job between now and November is getting his name and his face into people's heads.Instead we'll see Clinton stealing the spotlight for at least the coming week, stirring up affection among those Americans who like him and renewing the fury of those who don't. He is arguably the most recognizable and prominent Democrat in the country today.
But another Democrat, John Kerry, is himself trying to become the most recognizable and prominent Democrat in the country today. This is the time when Clinton should stand behind Kerry, supporting him and building him up. Instead, he is casting his enormous shadow. Did someone think this was a good strategy for the Democrats? No. It was only a good strategy for Clinton.
What's worse is the content of the publicity. Clinton could have used this moment as an opportunity to unify the party behind some shared goals. He couldhave made his book tour about Democratic and democratic values. He could have reinforced the public's positive associations with the Democratic party, he could have told his publisher this particular book would have to wait until after November, and he could have written a more politically useful book.Instead, he's turned the spotlight on himself -- on his own greatness and his own great flaws. He's walked with Dan Rather to his childhood home and his mother's grave. He's taken us inside his flawed marriage. As ever, he's once again tried to endear himself to the American public. Sure, you can blame the media, but you can also blame Clinton, who in his 60 Minutes interview and elsewhere has stayed distinctly on message: This is a story about me: My Life, by Bill Clinton.
The worst part about this all is that at the very moment when the public needs to feel good about the Democratic party and its leaders, Clinton is reviving the ugliest part of it's recent history. (Don't tell me he didn't know his affair with Monica would take up all the airtime.) His was arguably the most promising Democratic presidency in decades, and it ended in a sickeningly disappointing mess. That's the last thing we need to be revisiting.
Sarah Blustain
I'll readily admit it: Watching Bill Clinton at the Chicago Book Expo a few weeks ago, I was reminded of how much -- despite Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Denise Rich -- I really like our 42nd president. He was charming, erudite and self-deprecating. He masterfully wove cultural and historical analyses into his folksy tales about his boyhood in Arkansas. And he charmed the pants off the crowd. It was a perfect performance. As I switched off the TV, waves of nostalgia washed over me: I miss having Bill Clinton in the White House.
But I'm angry.
Ultimately, I dislike George W. Bush more than I miss Bill Clinton. I want nothing more than to see John Kerry win the presidency in November, and I don't want anything to ruin his prospects. As my colleagues have already noted, Bill Clinton casts a long shadow. And like it or not, for many swing voters in Red America, renewed attention on Bill Clinton means guilt by association for John Kerry. Kerry already has to compete with a failed war in Iraq for attention from the media. In the run-up to the convention, I want to see more of Kerry -- not more of Clinton.
Ultimately, I hold Bill Clinton responsible for the awful timing of this book release. Why now?
Ayelish McGarvey
It could have been worse. Clinton's not exactly known for his self-discipline -- all those Big Mac and French fries? (Not to mention the other stuff.) So when he told Knopf he'd finish his book in time for a June pub date, it was not clear when it would actually come out. But in recent months something happened to Bill. He went on the South Beach diet; dropped a few pounds; and in the springtime turned into Johnny Deadline, churning out copy like an AP reporter. A friend of mind from The Washington Post says he wrote out the pages of his book (in longhand) and had them faxed directly to the publisher. This frenzied burst of writing may have resulted in a sloppy, undisciplined, 957-page book. But he did finish the book on time, and it's in bookstores weeks before the Democratic National Convention. That is really Kerry's moment. And since Clinton's book is out now -- and not in late July -- most people will have forgotten about it by the time Kerry gives his speech in Boston.
Tara McKelvey
Clicking over to The New York Times's Washington section on Monday morning, I saw four featured stories: "U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantanamo Detainees," "9-11 Panel Members Debate Qaeda-Iraq 'Tie,'" "U.S. Is Accused of Trying to Isolate U.N. Agency," and "Clinton Book Puts Familiar Foe Back In Conservatives' Sights." Unfortunately, the Clinton headline is at the top of the page.
This is how it goes: Insofar as the press and the public are focused on actual news stories about events in the world and around the country, the news can't help but be bad for the president. A long string of objective failures in Iraq has finally shaken the media out of its post–9-11 stupor; in addition to the coverage on the ground from there, we're seeing a flood of revelations about various administration misdeeds.
In that context, even the most favorable coverage imaginable of the Clinton book couldn't help but distract attention from the best issue John Kerry has going for him: that George W. Bush is a bad president. Add the fact that the coverage, predictably, has been overwhelmingly negative and unfair, and what you have is a gift -- perhaps a large one, perhaps a small one -- from the former president to the incumbent. It's a distraction, a sideshow, and one that anyone with any recollection at all of the press coverage of the Clinton administration could have known would reflect poorly on the Democratic Party.
Matthew Yglesias
