"What, then, explains the failure of the Democratic succession? The answer is obvious enough. Clinton, though his poll ratings were high at the end of his term (when voters knew they would see the back of him), was an albatross in a way that Reagan was not. Partly this was because, unlike Reagan, it was plain that Clinton had no particular convictions, beyond the desire to stay in office -- he attracted no broad or dedicated following. More acutely, however, the scandals that surrounded his Presidency made it impossible to convert into any kind of a rallying-point. He was plainly guilty of the charges -- molestation in Arkansas, perjury and obstruction of justice in Washington -- against him, which were fully impeachable: the Constitution calling for the removal of a President culpable even of 'misdemeanours' short of such breaches of the law, which in other fields of office would have swiftly led to resignation or dismissal. Widespread resistance to this logic, strong enough to block it, comprised a number of elements. Partisan loyalties were affronted among Democrats and the academic following attached to the Party. Cultural susceptibilities were aroused by fears of Grundyism. Popular aversion to impeachment, however, rested on a much more powerful bedrock of sentiment -- attachment to the quasi-monarchical status of the Presidential office itself, as embodiment of national identity in the world at large, a late-twentieth-century fixation foreign to the Founders. But if popular opinion did not want impeachment, instinctively seeking to protect the Presidency, for the same reasons it did not relish Clinton's conduct, an indignity to the office not easily forgotten.
"Thus the very same -- non-partisan, independent -- sectors of opinion that produced big poll majorities against impeachment, well beyond the Democratic electorate, were also those that, on the same grounds, did not want to be reminded of Clinton two years later. They saved him for the sake of an office that he had nevertheless -- in their eyes -- besmirched. It was no good invoking him as a great President. Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton in 2000 was not stupidity or pique. It was the same kind of calculation as Clinton's decision to move towards Gingrich in 1995 ... Gore made no move during the campaign that was not intensively researched and developed by his pollsters and strategists, certainly not less proficient at their trade than Clinton's. Their key finding, widely reported, was that the independent voters whom either candidate had to win were put off by Clinton's name by a 2-to-1 margin. Faced with this evidence, however difficult it might be for loyalists to credit, Gore could not risk clinging to coat-tails to which so many swing voters were averse. Polls taken since the election (but before the final debacle of cash-for-pardons) show why. Asked how Clinton would be remembered as a President, 44 per cent rated him above-average or outstanding, 53 as average or below. But when asked what he would be remembered for, 14 per cent said 'economy/budget', 6 per cent 'foreign policy', and 74 per cent said 'scandals'.
"[Note: ...State by state, there was an all but perfect match in exit polls between Clinton's image and the electoral result. Gore took every state where Clinton's 'favourability rating' was average or above (57 per cent), with the exception of Florida, while Bush won every state where it was even a mere point below average, except for Oregon and New Mexico (where he lost by less than 0.25 per cent of the vote). Clinton was a dead weight on Gore even in Arkansas. For these calculations by Thad Beyle, see the Economist, 27 January 2001.]"
--Perry Anderson, New Left Review 8, March-April 2001
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Dennis Perrin wrote:
> I'm certainly no fan of the Clintons or of Gore, but I wonder about
> this. Yes, there was tremendous hatred for Clinton from "loyal"
> Americans, spurred on by rightwing talk radio and cable performers
> like Coulter; but I'd bet you 5 bucks that if Clinton had run against
> Bush in 2000, he would have wiped the floor with him, esp in the
> debates. Clinton is smooth and very talented in the public sphere, and
> Gore's biggest mistake was not using Clinton's talent during the
> campaign. As Doug pointed out, Clinton left office with a 60% approval
> rating -- and this after being impeached! My extended family is
> moderate to very conservative, and only two relatives I know of are
> pro-Bush. The rest never say anything bad about Clinton, and a few who
> voted for Reagan wish that Clinton was still in office.
>
> Bush's hard core will remain solid, but don't underestimate the amount
> of fear & loathing that Bush has stirred in moderates and swing
> voters.