Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton: They Genuinely Dislike Each Other

For the last two years I've been writing a book, Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House, about Bill Clinton's post-presidency. It will be out in May and I certainly do not want to step on my material. That material was too hard to gather because for most of the period in which I was actively interviewing people, Hillary was the inevitable nominee; she had no doubt that she would win, and much of the public and the press seconded that certainty. People who hoped for a job or a state dinner invitation or a diplomatic posting often did not want to talk to a writer whom the Clintons did not select and could not control.

Two former presidents, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush, are major characters in this story, which opens with the scandal-scarred Clinton unhappily leaving the White House on January 20, 2001 -- his wife off to Washington as the new Senator from New York, his own future hazy -- and ends on March 4, 2008, with Hillary and Bill salvaging, for the time being at least, Hillary's candidacy with wins in Ohio and Texas.

CNN reported on its website that Jimmy Carter, a superdelegate, seems to be readying himself to endorse Barack Obama. It came as no surprise to me. Handing out awards for Guinea Worm eradication in Abuja, Nigeria, Carter mentioned, as he had last January in an interview with Wall Street Journal reporter Douglas Blackmon, that everyone in his extended family, with the exception of one, was supporting Obama, and that members of his family found Obama "titillating." (It was an odd word choice, but of a kind with Carter's confession in a 1976 Playboy interview that that he lusted after women, but only in his heart.)

Only those who know little of the two former presidents would be surprised. The enmity between them dates back to 1980 when Clinton was in his first term as Arkansas governor and Carter in his first term as president. A Carter policy, Clinton believed, caused him to lose the governorship after only one term (he later won it back). Both men were depressed losers that November 1980. The enmity festered, heightened by Carter's ham-handed public criticism of the Clintons before they moved into the White House and the Clintons' high-schoolish -- junior high-schoolish even -- snubbing of the Carters at the first Clinton inauguration. Jimmy Carter repaid Bill Clinton and then some by going his own way on foreign affairs in the 1990s; by publicly rebuking Clinton's morals when he was at his nadir; after Monica, after the Marc Rich pardon; in that schoolmarmish manner that only Carter can muster.

Worst of all, as if some angry deity were directing things and punishing Clinton, Carter, the failed president, became a highly admired post president; a humanitarian par excellence, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a man who built the Carter Center as an incubator for good ideas and good works. Carter mostly eschewed the $350,000 speeches that have made the Clintons millionaires many times over and Carter still sometimes uses commercial airliners. He became a model for how a post-president should conduct himself.

Bill Clinton had no choice but to pay attention. Still he had no intention of looking, sounding, being anything like Jimmy Carter; so he made his post-presidency into a glittering version of Carter's. Clinton's sleek, expensive library has been criticized for being mostly about self-aggrandizement. His good works -- fighting AIDS in Africa -- are very good to be sure, but still tinged by the glitz of his star and billionaire studded annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meetings in New York, his trips to Africa on board the lavish private jets of his billionaire buddies. Clinton is cool, the rock star; Carter, the Sunday school teacher, is not.

If Carter does bestow his coveted superdelegate vote on Obama, and if Obama ends up winning the nomination, Jimmy Carter will have had the last word in a long quarrel between two hugely ambitious men whose backgrounds would not have suggested to anyone but them that they would one day occupy the White House; two of the most unlikely presidents of the 20th century whose relationship could make the Great American Novel, if it were not non-fiction.

Comments

[transformer08]

Carter to meet with leader of Hamas.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973417.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html

These are the folks that do things like this http://www.ic-creations.com/Israel/Images/Photos/Terror/terror3.jpg

[SteveZorro]

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton: They Genuinely.......sucked as Presidents

[AurigaRa]

I remember when the Pope died and the fiasco around getting the ex presidents to the funeral.
(It was Carter that did not attend)

I have always admired President Carter. Nothing would make me happier for him than his endorsement of Obama.

[FCBarca]

Great observation that is otherwise lost on the American Public in the media...Carter has to be the most active post-presidency President in history, and in a good way - in a humanitarian and peace way.

Switch gears and look at Daddy Warbucks at the Clintonian post presidency and it's pretty easy to see where the eagerness on Hillary's part to parlay politics into more $$$

[BubbaC33]

Another Obama supporter attacking Bill Clinton without any regard for the truth. Bill Clinton has made money since he left the White House, as has Jimmy Carter. But to imply President Clinton has not done anything for humanity is a lie.

[geobushono]

some of us DO remember robt. reich explaining how the pain was coming...............and not to worry, nobody makes buggy whips or sealing wax either.
Clinton sold out the working class in this country.
I am not sorry that I moved to LR to work for the Campaign, but I'm sorry that the Democratic Party has not learned by it's wrong-headedness.
The workers can't unite if there is no work.....from the unpublished DLC bible.

[BobOnThis]

I was serving in naval special forces during the carter admin and hastily blamed him for the disasterous failed iranian hostage rescue... it was all that mattered to me at the time... and carter was the man we blamed!

It's important to remember that carter was the only presidient in modern times to strongly condemn the drug war... specifically the continued unlawful practice of a marijuana prohibition!

Carter claimed that "when the punishment for a crime caused more harm then the crime itself... you have an injustice". And, what did that wimp-liar Clinton say about marijuana "he did'nt inhale"... well he should have!

[RandyRP]

I remeber Carter's I have lust in my heart revalation. I was a teenager, it taught me a lesson about integrity, a man that could amdit his frailties honesty.

I remember the Fleetwood Mac song "Dont Stop - Thinking about tommorrow" and how the Clinton used it.

I also remember another Fleetwood Mac song too. "Merry Go Round - When I first met you baby, I didn't even know your name. Yes, when I first met you babe, I didn't even know your name" and how it applied to Monica Lewinsky.

And of course, Bill definining "is" for us. Power seems to turn a blind eye, when character matters, Carter has it and Clinton...well that depends on you definition of "character".

[YvonneH]

No big surprise here - to read this. Jimmy Carter is a man of truth, peace, compromise, compassion, grace and integrity. Bill Clinton is the exact opposite of all the above mentioned attributes. I can easily see why Carter wouldn't have an ounce of respect for Clinton.

[Plowboy]

Jimmy Carter is a good man. Bubba is Bubba.
Jimmy Carter is the best ex-president we've had. And Bubba is still Bubba.

[memphispaul]

Bubba can never personify the Davos William character no matter how hard he tries. The thing for Bubba is that his Davos "friends" will start to evaporate once it becomes plain that his influence in on the wain.

[Sanjong Thapa]

'...punishing Clinton, Carter, the failed president...'

BEST THING I'VE EVER READ ON HUFF PO

can't wait for the book

[racetoinfinity]

Not to mention that the Clinton presidency's reputation has been revised way downward by progressive/liberal historians, commentators, and citizens in the last seven years. We've taken another look at all the pro-corporatist free trade bills he rammed through, at the repeal of laws he signed, like the post-depression New Deal Glass-Steagall act (which separated commercial banks from investment houses) (and look what a mess that has made - recession here we are). Between the odious Dick Morris urging him to triangulate and Bob "Citibank" Rubin urging him to support Wall St., not Main St. he appears to be more a continuation of the Reagan devolution than any sort of progressive at all. Carter looks better all the time; Clinton looks like the narcissistic elitist money-hungry hypocrite he may (at least partly) be. Tough words, but actions must be called out.

[BubbaC33]

The only folks who are very critical of Bill Clinton are the Obama supporters on HuffPo and the MSM, which has displayed a hatred for the CLintons since he was elected President. And what is amazing is Obama supporters are big on attacking the Clintons for harming the Democratic Party when the stupid and senseless rhetoric employed during attacks on the CLintons is much more harmful.

[MiraMcB]

Precisely. After reading this thinly disguised slash job, I don't need to buy the book. BTW, who gives a rat's rear about who Jimmy Carter endorses or what he feels about the Clintons or anyone else. He was one of the worst presidents we've ever had and he's about as relevant as buggie whips. I admire his humanitarian work, but that's as far as it goes.

[transformer08]

No, that's not true -- it is possible to support Obama, to think well of President Clinton and to not think highlyt of President Carter, especially his at times strange foreign policy ideas. The present campaign for the nomination is not a between Bill Clinton and Sen. Obama, it is between Sen. Clinton, a completely different person with her own record, viewpoints, thoughts, feelings, etc.
The idea expressed in this artcile that Carter would endorse Obama to *spite* the Clintons (especially President Clinton), rather than for Obama's own merits, if true, is really unfortunate and should not make any Obama supporter happy.

[thrutheseasons]

During Monica, Rwanda never really made it to the media, and the Clintons dragged their feet in Bosnia. 250,000 people had to die before we responded. Hillary supposedly told Bill not to do anything. After listening to Michelle Obama, I am so very impressed, I am almost want her to run instead of her husband. I never felt that way about Hillary. If you think something should happen to protect the people of Sudan or the people of the world, the Clintons are not the ones.

[BubbaC33]

This is past absurd. Obama supporters attack Bill Clinton for bringing an end to the ethic cleansing in Bosnia. Now an Obama supporter attacks Clinton for "dragging" his feet. The facts are a bit different and, as usual, an Obam supporter ignores the facts in order to attack the Clintons.
When Bill Clinton decided to work with the UN to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia he was forced to work with a very hostile GOP domintaed Congress. A number of Republicans made statements about our involvement that were isolationist and short-sighted. It took some time to get adequate support to go forward with the plans to stop the Bosnia war, which was done with no loss of American lives. There was no foot-dragging by Bill CLinton, it simply took awhile to get Congress to move forward with his plan. As for Rwanda, Clinton has spoken to his failure on a number of occasions. But the fact is the Republicans in COngress would have never agreed to any commitment of US troops to Africa.
I find it amazing anyone can declare pride for Ms. Obama. Are you proud of her because she said any black voter who does not vote for Obama is a race traitor? Or are you proud of her for finally discovering pride in the United States? Are you proud of the horrendous remarks she has made about other candidates? And all with a minimum of media scrutiny.

[Sanjong Thapa]

'...dragged their feet on Bosnia...'?

What?

Clinton targeted Christian positions to clear the way for the Islamic Invasion of Europe!

Clinton knew exactly what he was doing.

[nightwind928]

I have always admired Jimmy Carter for his personal and philosophical views. He is a kind and gentle man who's benevolence will be his legacy. He was not, however, a very good president. Had he run at any other time in history, he would never have seen the White House except from the sidewalk. He is a man who came from humble beginnings as a peanut farmer in Plains Georgia and remained true to his beliefs. The Clintons are pure political machines who may be many things but "humble" is not one of them. They change ideals like most of us change clothes.To equate the Clintons with the Carters is to make comparisons of the sun and moon. There is little doubt as to who was the better president, Bill Clinton wins that hands down. As to who is the better man...well President Carter stands clearly above both Clintons in that reguard (no pun intended at Hillary's tacky pantsuits). The point is, that Hillary is neither Bill Clinton nor Jimmy Carter. She is a seperate entity and to me lacks the positive qualities that made each of those men who preceeded her stand out as leaders. Somehow, I can't form a mental picture of Hillary putting up houses for the poor no matter how hard I try. Neither can I see America putting the same degree of trust in her abilities to solve the problems of our country as they did her husband.

[thrutheseasons]

Nightwind, I agree with most of your contentions, especially your positive portrayal of Carter. However, now that I review the Clinton years in the presidency, I don't see it quite as positively as you. At the time Bill Clinton was a spring chicken, not as befuddled with "experience" and he really meant something new. Carter inherited many of his problems from Nixon, he inherited an oil crisis, and he was sabotaged by treasonous people in the Republican party to prevent his efforts in the Iran hostage crisis. This is fact. He could have been much more socially adept and he should have been better to fight off the criticism he was given. He was not as tough as he should have been. Clinton inherited the dot.com boom, he took part in deregulation, he brought a lot of attention to a lot of issues for the first time like global warming and some practical sense about supporting small businesses in the economy. He was inspirational, which I have come to believe to be a very important in a presidency. In a way presidents are like a summer camp group leader. The presidency can make the times exciting or regrettable. Bill's lies from "I didn't inhale", to sexual relations with that woman, cost this country more than it recognizes.

[transformer08]

President Carter is also widely considerted to be the first born-again Christian with a very public, in-your-face evangelical Christian candidacy and identity. Some would say that he paved the way for the introduction of religion into Presidential elections and enabled what transpired afterwards, especially recently.

Very good point on how Hillary Clinton is her own person, and Bill Clinton (good or bad) has almost nothing to do with whether or not she's the best candidate. Surely no one would suggest that Chelsea Clinton run for the White House based on her father's legacy and having lived in the White House for 8 years?

[RuleofLawNow]

Influence peddling has been, and remains, a disturbing currency of the realm. It is elitist and conservative by definition. Clinton more or less embraces it, and Carter more or less eschews it. Conservatives have always hated Carter for his stance, and they have feared Clinton's for his.

Conservatives managed to convince the so-called Reagan Democrats that their interests aligned with elite influence peddlers in chief, which subsequent years have proved to be the most dubious of propositions. When Clinton arrived on the national scene and coopted this message and turned it back on conservatives, they were terrified and dismayed.

However, Clinton's success came at a cost for the Democratic Party. Instead, of standing up for the instincts, motivations, and principles that once made the Democrats the party of choice for the working class, the Clintonian approach convinced many Democrats that a more ends justify the means approach was warranted. Moreover, in fairness to Clinton, many of his ends were excellent, e.g., a balanced budget.

In the end, the resort to any means consumed his presidency. He purchased his presidency in part with influence peddling currency, and he apparently believed he was so adept at working the rarefied realm that he could not be taken down. Carter did not pursue that route, and I would imagine that he viscerally believes that Clinton should have been able to predict the damage that he would ultimately do to the party.

[ntmessage]

Clearly, influence peddling transcends class and ideology. There is no line between politics, activism and influence peddling. Indeed new interests are influencing the traditional Democratic Party to more radical positions, just as the Republicans moved more right in recent years and less libertarian. Clinton could not pass some things with a republican controlled congress. At the same time, what he did accomplish was tremendous for all Democrats and the world.

There seems to be a more cynical and pure power struggle between the actual establishment elites of the DNC like Kennedy, Carter, Pelosi, Hart etc and the Clintons. Frankly, I like them all, but I really believe all this fighting is really between those two factions of the party and we are all resultant symptoms of that split.

Yes the success of the Clintons may have made some mad on both sides, but the good thing was that their success was also the success of many of the people in the country for whom success was elusive. Did they raise every boat, probably not. Did they raise many boats that were down, No doubt.

Carter on the other hand. Not so much until he left office, where I had nothing negative to say until this stupid primary system the DNC needs to fix.

[RuleofLawNow]

While I agree there may be no clear lines between politics, activism, and influence peddling, only the last one thrives on the lack of transparency to the point of dependency. In various democracies, I have found the first two are generally difficult to keep in the shadows, and in some fortunate cases, may actually thrive on transparency.

Carter is far from an establishment elite in any sense that I understand, which I would attribute at least in part to his unwillingness to play traditional ball with the elite. Moreover, I find it puzzling that your comment seems to indicate that Clintons don't constitute establishment elites. In terms of money, contacts, and social circles, it would seem hard to categorize them otherwise.

All of that is not say that Clintons have not achieved a lot of good things. They clearly have, and I believe most Democrats, and a fair number of Republicans, can appreciate that. Nevertheless, it still seems like that these successes have come at a significant cost on occasion.

Moreover, it appears that the Obama candidacy has drawn at least some of its appeal from a recognition that there are other alternatives to the old way of handling politics. People of all political persuasions seem to be fairly exhausted with cabal aspects of Washington politics, and the more that is revealed about the current administration's handling of Iraq, the more disturbing the clubby aspects of Washington politics becomes.

[jonlmills]

i didn't know any of this. if what Carol wrote is any indication, the book will be fascinating.