i would argue that clinton was always at his best when he was fighting in a campaign and their decision to bring him in at the end reflected a recognition that he could have helped them.
when clinton was fighting impeachment, we got, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", but when he was campaigning, he could even say dumb things like "i didn't inhale and i didn't like it" (actually a less valid point than the grammatical one above) and *still* kick everybody's ass. he won the war of words with newt gingrich over the gov't shutdown. what happened in 2000 was they got the worst from clinton they could possibly have gotten, precisely because they muzzled him.
it's not a question of loyalty. it's a question of gore's campaign strategies and tactics, on the one hand, and clinton's talent as a campaigner on the other.
j
On Aug 11, 2004, at 2:54 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I think Perry Anderson's analysis (written prior to 9/11/01) had it
> right:
>
> 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.
yawn.