POL: The Comeback Id

[NoMyths]

For those of us who actually enjoy a well-written article of some length, here is a Sunday treat: one heck of a profile of post-presidential Bill Clinton which spends the first thousand words loading up for a quote summing up my thoughts about one aspect of the modern Democratic Party:

The sensitivity among Clinton’s staff to these questions is such that, after I posed some queries about Clinton’s relationship with Burkle and Co., a spokesman, Jay Carson, e-mailed me this comment: “The ills of the Democratic Party can be seen perfectly in the willingness of fellow Democrats to say bad things about President Clinton. If you ask any Republican about Reagan they will say he still makes the sun rise in the morning, but if you ask Democrats about their only two-term president in 80 years, a man who took the party from the wilderness of loserdom to the White House and created the strongest economy in American history, they’d rather be quoted saying what a reporter wants to hear than protect a strong brand for the party. Republicans look at this behavior and laugh at us.”

A fascinating (if gossipy, but hey, it's Vanity Fair -- and besides, it's this kind of discussion which part of Clinton's presidency certainly fathered) article in a number of ways, and which certainly has made for some consideration. It also is written by the husband of President Clinton's first press secretary, Dee Dee Myers (though he reports she was not a source for the article). I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts.

Link: The Comeback Id

The best way to read it may be to click the "Print" link, which takes you to a page on which the article is complete, without having to click through pages.

[NoMyths]

Heh...appears the length was as much of a problem as I expected.

Here's the followup -- the article is making waves: Journalist Defends Article Slamming Bill Clinton

[cuervo72]

That is a stunning Vanity Fair cover.

(ok...now on to the article)

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah.... can I just look at the pictures of Jolie?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah.... can I just look at the pictures of Jolie?

Actually, the article about her is compelling as well -- a strong profile.

[Tigercat]

See THAT is why many truly progressive Dems moved away from the Clintons.

The Clintons, Carville, and company tried/try to pattern themselves too much after the Republicans. So many conservatives deify Reagan, so what? The more progressive party should be more about issues than about winning and losing; but the Clintons lost sight of this long ago when they decided to beat the Republicans on their terms in '92.

[ISiddiqui]

They went third way and actually won an election, gasp!

Seeing as there have only been 3 two term Democratic Presidents in the 20th Century, I'd imagine his lessons are important to learn.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They went third way and actually won an election, gasp!

Seeing as there have only been 3 two term Democratic Presidents in the 20th Century, I'd imagine his lessons are important to learn.

And how many two-term Republican presidents were there in the 20th Century?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And how many two-term Republican presidents were there in the 20th Century?

6

TR -who finished McKinley's term & then won his own, giving way to another (R)
Coolidge - who finished Harding's term & then won his own, giving way to an (R)
Ike - two terms
Nixon - although he didn't finish his second
Reagan
Bush II

edit: By the way I'd count this, I might also include LBJ for the Dems, having finished JFK's term & then won one of his own (before the party lost the office) which could put him with FDR, Truman, and Clinton.

[cuervo72]

Ok, I was looking more two-term elected (otherwise LBJ? Truman?), which would knock out TR, Coolidge. Bush II I'm not sure should count, as most of his term has been in the 21st century.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And how many two-term Republican presidents were there in the 20th Century?

And Reagan's and Eisenhower's and Nixon's aren't important for Republicans to learn their lessons?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And Reagan's and Eisenhower's and Nixon's aren't important for Republicans to learn their lessons?

My point was that it wasn't a particularly meaningful stat. It sounds nice, but the stat itself isn't as relevant as the article made it seem IMO.

[lordscarlet]

Yeah, I would count only 3 republicans as well. Bush II was elected to 1 term in the 20th century. The ones only elected once don't count in my book. So that means only Ike, Nixon and Reagan.