What If Bill Clinton Had Run for President in 1988?

Former President Bill Clinton's recent attempt to slow Senator Barack Obama's rise and the words he chose to speak it raise a new question: What if Bill had run for president in 1988?

It's natural that a husband would be protective of his spouse's political ambitions. And when a rival candidate begins to build momentum in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus and in national fundraising who can blame Bill Clinton for taking that recent swipe at Barack Obama? In a televised interview with columnist Al Hunt, Bill echoed Hillary Clinton's claim that Obama is too "inexperienced" for the Oval Office. He said:

"I was, in terms of experience, was closer to Senator Obama, I suppose, in 1988 when I came within a day of announcing... I really didn't think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to run."

When Clinton did run for president, in 1992, he was the same age as Obama is today. The claim by a white male that at age 42 he had as much experience as a 46-year-old black man probably will bring unintended consequences by firing up a larger Obama vote among African-Americans. The hubris of that statement invokes, all too neatly, the gripes by other white males in affirmative-action friendly workplaces across America; it's a way of speaking in code that most white Americans don't notice, but that black Americans understand painfully well.

And while Obama has smartly ignored the bloodlust of pundits that goad him to "take the gloves off" and hit Hillary Clinton more directly (America may be ready for a black president, but probably not for a younger black man pummeling an elder white woman, even with mere words), Bill Clinton's attempted put-down offered Obama a clean shot at the rival camp through its surrogate: Everybody loves to see the younger athlete score on the aging former champ. And that's exactly what Obama did.

In an act of political jiu-jitsu, Obama turned Clinton's words about experience from 1992 into a Wayback Machine endorsement of his own 2008 quest. In a 1992 debate with George H. W. Bush, Clinton had said: "The same old experience is not relevant... you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience."

"He's exactly right," smiled Obama.

Score!

He was followed by the so-far neutral Robert Reich (one of the few cabinet-level veterans of the Clinton White House that is still widely beloved and trusted among Democrats) who jumped up from the sidelines and kicked in an extra point for Obama. Reich said: "While I can understand Bill Clinton's eagerness to undermine his wife's most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win."

Bill Clinton's statement begs a more interesting question: What if he had run for president in 1988, defeated Mike Dukakis for the Democratic nomination, and bested Bush the elder for the White House?

Would a younger President Clinton have been so obsessed as Bush, Sr. was with exorcising "the ghosts of Vietnam" to have invaded Panama in 1989?

Would Clinton have appointed William Bennett as "drug czar" in 1989 and begun the demonization of pot smokers and cancer patients, and wholesale imprisonment of young black males, that the escalation of the war-on-drugs wrought on America?

Would Clinton, in a speech before Congress on September 11, 1990, have said: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a New World Order -- can emerge"?

Would a younger Clinton administration have signaled to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (then a US ally) that it would look the other way if Iraq invaded Kuwait but then gone to war against Iraq once that happened?

Would hundreds of thousands of US military veterans of that Gulf War be permanently disabled and still suffering the ailments and syndromes of that trauma today if Clinton, and not Bush, had been president then?

Would Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist organizations have gained so much support had the US not led a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Gulf War?

Would Caspar Weinberger, Elliot Abrams, Robert McFarlane and others that conspired to traffic in cocaine and armaments to support right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua have received pardons from Clinton after their crimes, as occurred under Bush I?

Would Clarence Thomas be on the Supreme Court today?

Come to think of it, Bill Clinton probably should have run for president in 1988 when he was younger and less jaded.

Had Clinton arrived in the White House four years earlier, he probably would never have met Paula Jones back in Arkansas in 1991 or the state troopers there whose testimony later put the Clinton White House on a permanent political defensive, scuttling the progressive agendas promised during his 1992 presidential campaign for most the rest of his tenure.

Maybe if Bill Clinton had been president when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the peace dividend could have been realized at the end of the Cold War, an authentic peacetime economy could have boomed, and America wouldn't be suffering the blowback of the terrible foreign policy choices made by the first Bush presidency from 1989 to 1993.

But hindsight is 20-20 and we can't turn the clock back, right? Too bad we can't fix the mistakes of 1988 all over again in 2008 and after a two-term Republican president vote for a younger forty-something Democrat that is not yet so jaded by what Washington DC calls "experience."

Oh.

Wait a sec.

We can?

Follow Al Giordano on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlGiordano

Comments

[LondonInNY]

WHAT IF?
(i) There was no electoral college and Al Gore’s amassing of 500,000 plus more votes than GW Bush had carried him into the Oval Office precluding a corrupted Supreme Court and dishonest Secretary of State in Florida who was working as a Bush Campaign operative while making critical decisions about vote recounts;
(ii) There was no 9/11 attack because the Neo-conservatives who orchestrated and designed the attack had to wait 4-8 more years to hijack an election;
iii)JFK, RFK, MLK, Jr. were not assassinated;
(iv) JFK, Jr. & Paul Wellstone did not die in "mysterious" plane crashes;
(v) the 9/11 Commission was not a coverup;
(vi) voting machines were not rigged;
(vii) Corporate Media engaged in Journalism so that our citizens did not have to read News from outside the USA to understand what is happening in our own country;
(viii) More Americans knew the truth about the Bush family ties to war profiteering & working alongside the Nazi’s in WW II and had a better understanding of American History since the rise of the Military Industrial Complex ("MIC");
(ix) Americans were skeptical of CIA created Bogeymen (Osama, Saddam) & lone gun men (Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhaan Sirhaan) & questioned the gov't conspiracy theory that a guy in a cave in Afghanistan who was a "former" CIA operative, brought Western Intelligence & Military Power (USA, Britain & Israel)to their knees with a band of idiots with box cutters; (x)More Americans questioned why OSAMA is only relevant when the gov't needs to rebuild the case to fear an external enemy in order to ratchet up security and trample over civil liberties;
(xi) Americans viewed the Bill of Rights, including the First & Second Amendment as guaranteed rights worth dying rather than technicalities that can be waived or marginalized every time the government seeks to protect us from external enemies; (xii) Americans turned off the infotainment on TV that is distracting them from the reality in America...that we are an Empire at the Tipping Point?

[deepintheheartoftejas]

And then he could have suffered the blame for the Savings and Loan crisis and its hundred-bi­llion-doll­ar fallout, as well as the recession of 1990 and 91 (don't pretend he could magically avoid it--it was a world wide phenomenon) and the crushing unemployment of 91 and 92. Who knows if Perot would acted as a spoiler then, taking away 2 republican votes for every democrat that shifted to him. Maybe Jack Kemp would have won in a landslide in 1992 with a slogan like, hmm... maybe 'It's the economy, Stupid', and gotten all the credit for the longest economic expansion in US history.

Or, heck, maybe I'm completely wrong. Perhaps space aliens would chosen 1989 to invade the earth, if Clinton had been president...

[Lon]

There were no touchdowns or kicks through the upright on this one. Almost nobody followed the story, so on political terms it was a non-event.

It may prove to be good practice for Obama though.

If Clinton had run in 1988 he would have lost in '88 and never been president since Democrats don't forgive their losers.

On the otherhand had he bested Dukakis in the primaries, Massachusetts likely would have been spared 16 years of Republican govenors.

[Superfelo]

Lon, the short of it, is that your failure to find "touchdowns" and "kicks" in this article
does not belie its validity. to write as well
takes knowledge and deep thinking. A very good
rebuttal of the Clinton's "no experience"
mantra. So he did not think he could win, so he did not run.
Well, the more reason to love, admire, and vote for Obama. He is running, he thinks he can win; and he is not weighed down by the "old experience".
Obama for President.

[1000TonyRomoDJs]

I don't see how it's good practice for anyone in camp Obama to try and score points by arguing with Bill Clinton, who's the biggest star the party has and is immensely popular. Is that really going to win him votes in Iowa?

[ebbasta]

Brilliant!!! Simply brilliant. Thanks for the history lesson from another time continuum. If only we could travel back to when Bush was given the election by the Supreme Court...or, rather, when the elections was stolen for him by his brother, Jeb.

[DrVandy]

Agreed. Brilliant. This is by far one of the best posts I have ever read on this website. This should be much higher on the front page where it can be read my everyone. Instead of this disingenuous argument and attempt to rewrite history about his past statements on experience. Bill would do better to continue his work with the CGI.

Go Obama!

[mindermast]

Al, the key question is whether he would have run in 1988 as bigger, lefter and more outside.

[SensibleAmerican]

We can go on ranting about hypotheticals and "what ifs". The fact remains that Bill Clinton had already been a 2 term Governor of Arkansas by the time he threw his hat in the ring

Barack Hussein scraped through in 2004 contesting non-opponents both in the Dem primaries and the actual Senatorial race. Since then, he has spent more time selling his boooks and image, hobnobbing with the elites like Oprah and rich rappers and ducking out of critical/crucial votes in the Senate

Not only does he lack experience but he is simply all fluff and hot air! You can slice and dice it any which way you want, the fact remains that he should spend some time actually being a Senator, learn something, do something concrete and then maybe, just maybe, 12-16 years from now, give it a shot again

[TJS]

Would Clinton as a younger white lawyer been a better President compared to the slighly older white lawyer he was when he became President? Let's extend this "experience" question to the current field of candidates:

Is the younger black male lawyer too inexperienced compared to the older white woman lawyer who was married to the youngish white male lawyer when he was president. Or should we go with the macho Italian white male lawyer who takes credit for 9-11? Or the Mormon white male lawyer who does not want people to be afraid of him because he is a Mormon? The ambulance chasing lawyer from North Carolina certainly has the requisite trial experience. The lawyer from Connecticut has some good ideas, but he's way behind in the polls. The lawyer from Delaware has matured into a quasi-statesman, but then there's always that nagging plagiarism issue from his past. Of course, there's always the crusty old lawyer from Tennessee who became an actor and made a lot of money by playing a crusty old lawyer on TV

Which lawyer to choose from? That's democracy folks!

[Doofus]

If Hillary Clinton should win in 2008, I
think we all realize there's going to be
a 200 pound (or so) silver-haired 'gorilla'
in the room right next to the Oval Office.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with that?

For a totally different tag team, choose...

Kucinich/Paul - Tag Team 2008 - The 9/12 Candidacy!

[Halsey]

I take my 20-20 hindsight..and don't like Clinton one bit...and his "character" would not have changed in 4 short years... he was a affable president..did some good things..did some very bad things (his so=called welfare reform..re­sult..more homeless children)..His cabinet had more multi-millionnaires than even W's has..Bill C still NEEDS to party with social elites..(Steve Bing in Paris)..no..Bill got lucky with the economy...then believed HE was responsible..would that also make him responsible for the dot.com bust?

I am sick of Bushes and sick of Clintons..and want to neuter the whole lot...

I'll take Obama's lack of experience, over Hilary's entrenchment in the "corporate" community any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[JimR]

Let's look at the top 3 Democratic presidential candidates, according to the polls, and their experience in elected office:

John Edwards: 6 years, U.S. Senate
Hillary Clinton: approx. 8 years, U.S. Senate
Barack Obama: 8 years, Illinois State Senate
approx. 2 years, U.S. Senate

[FearlessFreep]

"The same old experience is not relevant... you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience."

Mrs. Clinton clearly has the wrong kind of experience. (As do Biden and most of the Republicans.)

[BushSunkOurShip]

Sounds like when you take a statement and curve it into what you wish , it could have it say likes of things...

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Nice essay. Good case for Obama. Without slamming Hillary, or even comparing the two.

Thanks for taking my mind off Duhbya.

[LondonInNY]

This blog reflects the kind of insight and perspective that more Americans need to consider in terms of evaluating a candidate's experience instead of listening to polls and being programmed into picking prospective winners, rather than each of us individually deciding who deserves our votes on the merits. I read the Huffington Post religiously and read many other alternative voices. The "mainstream media" is what I view only to see watch how the rest of society is being programmed unfortunately. When I began to listen in earnest to OBAMA I started to hear a great man who has not lost touch with people at the grassroots level. Sometimes politicians can spend too much time in the company of establishment elites raising money and spinning the electorate and not enough in places like Washington Square Park, Harlem or the south side of Chicago. Obama is the genuine article who's experience and substance match his wit and spirit. This is a man that America needs engaged in moving this country forward. I still have not decided who I am voting for but the fact that our society can still produce people like Obama gives me hope that our country can emerge from the darkness of the Bush/Cheney years.

[ECJLA]

Mr. Giordano,

Excellent summary of what might have been in an alternate universe where authentic leaders had wound down the Cold War in an orderly way and made a "clean break" with the Reagan Revolution after 8 miserable years, 1981 - 1989. The world was poised for exactly such a optimistic scenario under the leadership of Gary Hart. He led the Democratic field by a wide margin in early 1987 and was favored to win the 1988 general election until the Miami Herald and Washington Post intervened.

I'm coming around to the view of Hart's departure in May '87 as a combined press coup (fomented by his political rivals quite possibly including the Clintons) AND an abdication along the lines of that British royal who left to pursue his personal life in peace in the 1940s or 50s. (The ironies abound that a "son of Dust Bowl farmers" as Hart described himself in his 1984 presidential candidacy announcement speech, would take such an elitist course.)

I'm also beginning to look at the mayhem rightists are perpetrating under W (Reagan and Bush I on steroids) and figure to continue to under his successor (alas 2008 is shaping up as a status quo general election), as a form of payback to all the elements of the culture that conspired to reject what Hart was putting on offer, in tandem with Gorbachev. Basically the alternative version of "soft landing" from the end of the Cold War, etc. that you describe so well. It all pivoted on the staying power of two men, each of whom were instead essentially purged and abdicated power.

Such things happen in history. Some believe JFK and Kruschev were poised to go along a similar road a generation before and blocked. It is time for Gary Hart to start expounding on all this or risk it going down an Orwellian memory hole. And for all of us to listen up. He has been become a prophet without nearly sufficient honor in his own country and time.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[Thorn]

Bill Clinton couldn't run for president in '88 because his convention speech lasted well through November.

[Doofus]

Exactly so. Anyone who noticed & endured
Bill Clinton's '88 Demo convention speech
realizes he must have got a whole lot of
coaching leading up to 1992.

Another explanation for the BJ Clinton mystery
may be found in 'The X President' by Philip Baruth.

[AnotherunhappyDemocrat]

You're right...we can!

And as much as I know that a Clinton restoration would be infinitely preferable to our current criminal administration, restoration is nonetheless restoration. We are - I hope - NOT a monarchy. Or are we?