On Youth Voters, Bill Clinton, And How He's Destroying a Legacy

Even Bill Clinton knows he went a bit too far.

His L.A. church tour this week, coupled with the general feeling that an invisible leash has been put around the former president's neck, come as clear indicators of a big "whoops" revelation the weekend before Super Tuesday.

In the coming months, Bill will likely regain (almost) all the respect he lost over the last few weeks from Democratic voters who remember a very different, exponentially more affable man from the 1990s. He deserves that opportunity; his contribution to U.S. policy and his abilities as a statesman were too great during his presidency to burn him at the stake for getting too enthusiastic about his wife's candidacy.

But the fact remains -- we've seen what happens when Bill Clinton gets "too enthusiastic." He gets mean. For the former president to politically skewer Barack Obama for inspiring a feeling that neither Clinton can truly recreate is a terrible tragedy for the Democratic Party. It stands against everything we thought we knew about President Clinton in the 1990s.

But the real long-term damage won't be to the party -- replete dislike of George Bush America will resynchronize us the very second the Democrats leave Denver with a nominee, and Bill will get his chance to restore his image to the people who really knew him. The real damage has been done to Clinton's long term legacy among the people who never really knew him: the next generation of Democrats.

The 18-25 year old demographic that's listening more carefully and voting more reliably in 2008 than ever before doesn't like what it's hearing from Clinton. And, for many of us, it's the first time we've really seen him in action. These first impressions will damage Clinton's legacy severely in the coming years, especially if Hillary wins the nomination as a result of what we see as the same baseless character assassination we always associated with the GOP.

We came of political age in the era of George W. Bush. We were the generation of No Child Left Behind testing and abstinence-only sex education at school. Your "sons and daughters" fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan were our best friends and classmates. We don't like Bush even a little bit, which goes a long way to explain the end of youthful apathy in 2004 and 2008.

We want to respond to George W. just like everyone else -- but we don't harbor a desire to "turn back the clock" to the Clinton years, because we don't remember them well enough. When Clinton left office in 2001, today's university seniors were freshmen in high school. Today's 17- and 18-year-old, first-time voters were 10 and 11. Even early in high school, the vast majority of students are totally disenfranchised from politics and are even less interested in policy. Most of today's young voters never followed the Clinton presidency to any useful degree.

We have grand memories of him, to be sure. The older Democrats (our parents and grandparents) who form Hillary's support base told us about the Clinton presidency and, from what we read in the news and in college, we've figured out that he was a "great" Democratic president. But Clinton never gave us speeches or had a real conversation with us, through no fault of his own -- he was simply before our time. Thus Bill, in his first chance to connect personally with young people in 2008, has left us with the same sour taste for politics we developed during the Bush years.

He hasn't been even nominally congratulatory of Obama, a man we see as the next true face on Youth America. With every snarky jab at the Illinois senator, Clinton is risking a long-term legacy that could have been one of the greatest in American history.

Obama is a totally new face on the country -- and, perhaps just as important, he represents a new voice that none of us has ever been exposed to. Every campaign has taken his message to a degree, but Obama remains "change" incarnate, in every possible way. And while Hillary Clinton's policy ideas connect just as well, particularly on college accessibility, politics will always be about character as much as one's credentials as a policy wonk.

Bill Clinton has ruined that character for his wife's campaign, and he's committed political arson against his long-term heritage. Young voters will always respect Clinton for what we've heard he did in the 1990's, but we will not tell our children that Clinton was a great man, because we don't see that today.

We never saw "President William J. Clinton." All we've seen is "Attack Dog Billy" on the news and in the papers. And whether you argue that Obama's vague message of "Change We Can Believe In" is simplistic and overly-positive, it's what the young people want and need after growing up to the neo-con war drums of Karl Rove.

Bill Clinton comes to us not as part of that change, but as a soldier of fortune, dividing a party and slaying our hero. If he wants to maintain a multi-generational legacy, he'll have a lot to answer for when this is all over.

Comments

[DeeperTruth]

I have spoken with many intelligent, clear-minded seniors who say that the Clinton administration was the the most accomplished and successful they witnessed in their entire lives.

JFK had many more affairs while in the White House, and he is almost romanticized for his womanizing ways. Luckily for his family, he was in office before the politics of scandalizing personal marital affairs and smearing them ruthlessly and relentlessly.

Why is it that no other countries have ever put their leader on trial for personal marital affairs? Because they know it is a ridiculous, complete waste of tax payer dollars and time!

Why did we do it here in America? Why do incompetent unintelligent leaders like Bush get elected because they seem likeable, and intelligent competent leaders like the Clintons get demonized?

How many people didn't get it until Bush made such a complete and obvious mess of it all?

Because our country is obsessed with all things superficial, and avoids and misunderstands all things truly substantial.

We will never solve our substantial problems, until we can see through the hype and recognize the difference.

There will be no "Hope" for "Change."

[WellbornBroad]

I was one of those who twice voted for
President Clinton. I also was one American that was totally disappointed by his actions in the west wing.

Both Clinton's are to blame for his loss of our respect. His by his acrimonious words and hers by complicity.

[AnninCA]

Perception is all. What is destroying the legacy was Obama's putdown of the Democrats with his Reagan spiel.

Obama is the one who attacked the Clinton legacy.

And, yes, I agree. It is sad.

[baudelairien]

I don't think Bill can help it. I don't think he can see where the demands of his ego end, and where the needs of the Democratic Party begin. It's not malice, or simple selfishness. It's narcissistic personality disorder.

[Lisette]

Those of us who do remember, especially don't want the Clinton's back, either.

[DeeperTruth]

What Bill did, was not so much get "mean" as get frustrated.

The press has been way too easy on Barack, and too hard on Hillary.

There have been too many double-standards.

For some reason, Barack can criticize the Clintons all he wants, but if they criticize him, they are "racist" and against "Hope." It's been one of the most ridiculous travesties I've ever seen.

The Clintons have always been tremendous Civil Right's Advocates. None of their comments were meant to be racist. It was the press that spun them that way.

Everyone, including the press, love to make the Clintons their scapegoats, it is one of the greatest injustices I have ever witnessed, considering all the two of them have done for our country.

Bill and Hillary know better than anyone commenting here, and in the media generally, what it takes to run this country successfully.

In any other job, experience and proven competence would be considered the most important qualifications. Surely they should be for the next President of the United States.

All leaders and Presidents will make mistakes. The issue is how quickly will they learn, and correct them? That has been Bush's greatest flaw. For too long he seemed incapable of even looking.

The Clinton Administration was one of the most accomplished and successful we've ever had. They made mistakes but they learned.

They don't want to go "backwards" at all. But they know that an Obama Administration would falter, and have to learn all the ropes from scratch. Wait till he makes his mistakes.

A Hillary administration would be much more efficient and effective at helping this country now. And a Hillary administration would never have gone to war in Iraq. I don't think she could ever have imagined the Bush Administration would, in a million years, be as careless and reckless as they have been.

What we need is real change - that Americans get better at looking at reality, and not listening to hype.

Real hope, for an America that can get its priorities straight.

The Clintons deserve much more respect.

[sweetsue]

Former President Bill Clinton is destroying his legacy by working his heart out for his wife's candidacy?? Get real. All husbands should be so supportive. Remember how Bob Dole gave money to McCain even after Liddy declared her intentions to run?

[whichchange]

What exactly has Bill Clinton done??? Nobody seems to have any facts to back up all the accusations.

Yesterday on Meet The Press, Tim Russert asked his panel what exactly Bill Clinton had done that was so bad. Nobody could answer. They all twisted their way out of the question.

I'm now convinced that Obamaism is a religion.

[itsnotmyfault]

I am perplexed by the conventional wisdom that has said that Bill Clinton overstepped, went a "bit too far" or even invoked racist sleights against Obama. My reading is that the Obama campaign has purposely promoted those notions choosing to paint Bill's statements with the taint of racial prejudice as opposed to defending against the actually implications of Bills assertions. In that way Obama has established an indefensible position that any criticism thrust against Obama is race based, and out of bounds. The main stream media, who have a long and less than endearing capacity to jump on a bandwagon, have willingly furthered this notion.

In 2000, the press furthered the framing by Rove of Al Gore, that he had a "Pinochio Problem." In 2004, the press furthered the framing by Rove that Kerry was an elitist and "flip-flopper." In 2008 they have adopted the Obama notion that Bill and Hillary have played the race card, without ever explaining this unfounded position. Bill & Hillary Clinton are not racist. They have in fact done far more to promote programs and policy that were a direct aid to the black communities and to further the cause of civil justice than Obama has ever even conceived.

Obama while talking a good game does not walk the walk. I recommend reading Krugman's piece in today's NYTimes on Healthcare. I recommend reading yesterday's NYTimes piece titled "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate." They reveal more about Obama than any political poetic speech or Obama sponsored website, in revealing a true boots on the ground understanding of the real Barack Obama.

[Purple Girl]

If WE have raised OUR children to be citizens of this country and all it stand for- THEN HOPE STILL REIGNS OVER THE STATUS QUO.
If we have done our jobs well- they will see right past the Exterior Facade and will support the Priciples of Our Founding Fathers.
They too will fight for the Rights and Freedom our ancestors sailed across the ocean and died to possess. OUR CONSTITUTION IS OUR BIRTH RIGHT and the light of hope for the rest of the World.
WE REJECT A CORPORATE LOGO AS MUCH AS WE REJECT A CROWN!
I've reviewed my undying support for Bill- it's now Circling the drain, But it's still in the Sink. I can not say the same for Hillary's- long gone down the tubes!
SHE HAS BEEN INDOCTRINATED INTO THE CHENEY AGENDA.
SHE IS NOT OUR GIRL, SHE IS THEIR GIRL!!!

[partyofone]

I really disagree with the prediction that "Bill will likely regain (almost) all the respect he lost over the last few weeks from Democratic voters who remember a very different, exponentially more affable man from the 1990s."

Bill Clinton has seriously demeaned his stature as a "former president" just as debased the stature of the presidency. By all creditable reports, we are seeing the true, unvarnished Bill Clinton in public, in the way we have been told by insiders he behaves in private. You simply can't "unring the Bill."

[ljsfolly]

The Supreme Court is stacked with Republicans who vote like it. Will the Clintons face a challenge to her run if she wins the nomination on the face of the 22 amendment? Yes We Can!

[ljsfolly]

will.i.am Yes WE Can!! on u tube now!

[ljsfolly]

Try the will.i.am version of YES WE CAN!On u tube now...

[Wasp35]

"Clinton is risking a long-term legacy that could have been one of the greatest in American history."

Clinton's legacy was lost forever on 9/11. In the coming years, Islamic Fundamentalism will continue to envelope the EU and remain the greatest threat to our freedom and survival, regardless of whether the man or woman who occupies the Oval Office does anything about it or not. The post-9/11 age will erase everything that Clinton hoped would be his legacy (a prosperous economy, the budget surplus, free trade), along with everything Clinton FEARED would be his legacy (impeachment). 9/11 ripped Clinton's legacy from his hands and it will remain out of his control no matter what steps he might take to recover it (and thereby, try to fashion it). He will be left with nothing but his trademark, inauthentic affability, which is formidable, but certainly not enough to plug the crumbling dam holding back the tidal wave of his shameful, atrocious foreign policy "decisions" that sent an empowering message to the Islamofascists that terror attacks against the U.S. would be answered with nothing more than petulant, cowardly shrugs.

The booming 90s economy, free trade, Lewinsky, impeachment--these issues will be the trivia questions and footnotes of Clinton's legacy, which will be re-written from scratch in the context of the Islamist threat and their unwavering commitment to destroying the West. What were once the "footnotes" of Clinton's Presidency will become the chapter headings: Khobar Towers, Mogidishu, Kenyan Embassy, Tanzanian Embassy, USS Cole, WTC (1993),...