Every political party has had leaders it would like to exalt and leaders it would like to forget. Former US president Bill Clinton has managed to be both.
He is the closest thing US politics has to a rock star, and he has sometimes behaved like one.
Luckily for US President Barack Obama, Clinton today is about as popular as a political figure can be. And he is popular with exactly the voters that Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party have a hard time reaching — which is to say, white people.
That is why even though they have not always been close, Obama invited Clinton to nominate him in prime time on Wednesday evening — the first former president to do that.
It is an extraordinary moment in the annals of presidential politics. Ex-presidents are sometimes useful for shows of party unity or reminders of good times. Richard Nixon did convince former US president Ike Eisenhower to endorse him just before the contentious 1968 convention, according to presidential historian Michael Beschloss. However, like the old soldier that Ike was, most ex-presidents have generally faded away.
They don’t want me around, Harry Truman once said. Al Gore, running for president in 2000, would not take Clinton’s help, which in retrospect looks like a big mistake. Jimmy Carter has been described as the nation’s best ex-president, but he will not be a big factor in the Obama campaign because his 1980 defeat by Ronald Reagan is too reminiscent of the present economic and political dynamic. And George W. Bush was nowhere to be seen at his party convention last week.
“After the White House,” said Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, “what is there to do but drink?”
But it isn’t history Obama is trying to change by bringing in Clinton. It is votes — white guy votes in particular.
The numbers tell a story. Obama was viewed favorably by 43 percent of white men in an AP-GfK poll last month. It is a key reason the US presidential race is so close this year. Overall, Republican challenger Mitt Romney beat Obama 54 to 39 percent among white voters in that poll.
White voters make up a bit more than 70 percent of the electorate in recent presidential years, according to exit polls. Obama doesn’t have to win among white voters to win the election, but he does have to keep Romney from building up such a lead that he can’t make up the difference by winning among blacks, Hispanics and perhaps even women.
Enter Clinton, who, at a year older than Romney, can’t really be the Comeback Kid anymore. However, 12 years out of office, he is viewed favorably by 63 percent of white men, according to a Gallup Poll in July.
He took his party and his country on a roller-coaster ride with sex scandals and an impeachment trial. However, looking back now, folks don’t see scandal, said Richard Harpootlian, they see what happens to the economy when you give a Democratic president two terms.
Harpootlian is a Democrat from South Carolina, a place where being a Democrat takes a special skill.
“He resonates with southern white folks dramatically,” Harpootlian said. “What they want to know is who is going to put groceries and grits on the table.”
Turns out, that is what the whole country wants to know now.
Clinton, the man from Hope, Arkansas, is now Obama’s chief messenger of hope that the economy will get better under Obama in a second term, as it did under Clinton, and that trusting the Republicans again is a mistake.
However, Clinton is more than just an economic messenger. Or, more exactly, his economic message is effective because he has a visceral connection to white voters, particularly white guys.
“We see ourselves in him,” said Gus Mansour, a 54-year-old delegate from Lynwood, Washington.
“Bill Clinton is a very intelligent man and he’s also ... able to communicate across a lot of levels,” South Carolina delegate Victor Rawls said. “It’s really bizarre that a Democratic president is able to maintain contact with the Fortune 500 companies like he has. No other Democratic president that I’m aware of in history has been able to do that.”
Clinton and Obama are strikingly opposite characters.
“Bill Clinton is effusive,” said Harpootlian, who has worked with both men. “He’s a hugger. He’s got an amazing memory for people names and places.”
“Barack, on the other hand, is cool, almost like hip cool. He walks into a room he radiates this Frank Sinatra coolness,” he said. “You can’t not sense him. It’s infectious.”
Obama is disciplined and cerebral; Clinton is, well, not.
That may be part of his appeal, Josh Lockman said. As a millennial voter, Lockman, 30 and from Los Angeles, sees the Obama campaign, which he has worked with, as cold-eyed and focused on statistical analysis of voting patterns.
“His campaign has taken almost a mathematical systematic statistical approach to appealing to key voting groups, whether Latino Americans with immigration or young Americans with student loans or Jewish Americans on Israel and Iran,” Lockman said.
That may be a winning strategy, but it isn’t always an inspiring one, he said.
Clinton is often said to have the best political mind in the business. Obama’s invite was in itself a kind of microtargeting at the biggest niche of voters, white guys.
However, Clinton’s real strength is his ability to soar above the mechanics of politics, Lockman says, “dispensing with the microtargeting statistical approach and emphasizing the humanistic one.”
Clinton has his own motives for delivering Wednesday evening. They are part of who he has always been.
“Throughout his political career he was focused, some might say obsessed, with reweaving the coalition between minority voters and the white working class,” his former speech writer Michael Waldman said. “He thought of it as repairing what was broken after Robert Kennedy’s murder. He argued passionately that if Democrats talked about the shared values of opportunity, responsibility and community, they could win the votes of both inner-city blacks and suburban Reagan Democrats.”
There is only one other recent ex-president who remains such a potent force in his party. He is to Republicans what Clinton is to Democrats. He redefined the party and reached toward the middle.
Reagan, dead eight years, still managed to be a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention last week, appearing relentlessly in video after video. Romney sought to cloak himself in Reagan, to bask in the rays of an absent legend.
However, when Obama turned to his own party’s political idol, he did not have to rely on digital smoke and big-screen mirrors. The legend, Bill Clinton, was standing right next to him.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS