...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. Clinton was a capable communicator, if not in the Kennedy/Reagan class, but no outstanding tactician, as a glance at his first phase in office shows. What made him the dextrous professional who could finesse a Republican Congress was the hiring of expert polling advice ... on what would play best with voters. Similarly, 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'...
The whole article (at <www.newleftreview.net/NLR24201.shtml>) reads particularly interestingly now -- an indication of the (limited) changes 9/11 brought about. --CGE
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> ...two things, here: (1) to the extent that the above analysis is
> true, it is only a measure of gore's poor performance as a campaigner.
> if gore couldn't get more people to pay attention to him than to
> clinton, whose fault is that? moreover, couldn't it just as easily be
> argued, using the very same data, that clinton is the main reason gore
> did as well as he did? or do we just want to blame clinton for the
> states gore lost and credit gore for the states gore won?
>
> (2) as salon argued back in 2000, they should have let the big dog out
> of his cage, instead of refusing to let him campaign for gore. by your
> own argument, not letting clinton campaign did not remove his
> influence on the electorate. if they had let him hit the road, he
> might actually have helped more. if we could only test the hypothesis,
> i would bet you that clinton himself would have beaten W handily in
> 2000, despite everything.
>
> http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/20/clinton/index.html?
> sid=989490
>
> < clip > ...