In recent weeks, there's been a lot of talk about Bill Clinton's often ham-handed interventions in the primary. Political reporters who've followed him for years, and long been in awe of his political skills, have been shocked. Some, like Vanity Fair's Todd Perdum, have even been wondering if he's suffering from post-surgery dementia caused by blood clots. It's all a bit odd because, as I explain in my column today, Clinton has never been all that good or disciplined when it came to helping the political careers of those around him:
Clinton proved masterful in repelling the onslaught when his back was to the wall, but the near-death experiences and unexpected comebacks that defined his career failed to provide him a solid base from which he could systematically build a movement or sell his beliefs. Clinton's political genius manifested itself not in the construction of a greater and grander Democratic Party, or a new and expanded progressive majority, but in the sheer fact of his survival, and his ability to govern competently, and at times brilliantly, against such odds.Clinton's time in office had its successes and its failures. But politically speaking, Clinton enjoyed the successes and the party often endured the failures. The party makeup of Congress tells the story: At the start of Clinton's term, Democrats controlled 57 Senate seats to the 43 held by the Republicans. In the House, they held the chamber 258 to 176. By 2000, the final year of Clinton's term, Republicans controlled the Senate, holding 55 seats to the Democrats' 45. They also ran the House, with 223 seats to the Democrats' 211. Large Democratic majorities had given way to total Republican dominance.
