Would it be effective, as Tom Schaller argues, for John Edwards and Barack Obama to criticize the Clintons for not better strengthening the Democratic Party during Bill's two terms? While I think there's a lot to be said for this argument as historical interpretation, I don't believe it's a winning campaign strategy. "Progressive institution-building" has become a major concern for liberal funders, journalists, and politicos, but the average Democratic primary voter simply isn't thinking about it. Most Americans remember the 1990s as a time when the Democratic Party was stronger than it is today, although they tsk tsk at the unfortunate blight Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior cast on what they consider to be a very successful presidency. Holding Hillary accountable for the mistakes of the nineties might rub Democratic primary voters the wrong way, because ten years later, what they most remember about that period is Monica. Monica, economic security, and peace. That isn't to say that Bill Clinton, while in office, emphasized building a lasting progressive movement. He didn't. But voters aren't concerned with that question, and even if they were, it would be dicey territory trying to hold his wife accountable for particular failings of his presidency. That might not be fair to Hillary's opponents, because she's taking credit for Bill's successes. But c'est la vie. --Dana Goldstein
