Barack Obama and Bill Clinton: Who is BMOC?
David Corn
Columnist
Posted:
07/2/10
Imagine you're a Democratic Senate candidate in a tough race in a tough year. You have a choice: either Barack Obama or Bill Clinton can come campaign for you. Whom do you pick?
Chris Matthews hurled this question at Politico's Roger Simon and me on Thursday night. I'll tell you our answers in a moment. But first the reason why this was even an issue: earlier in the week, Clinton had endorsed former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in that state's Democratic Senate primary against sitting Sen. Michael Bennet, the former Denver superintendent of schools who was appointed to fill the vacancy created when Ken Salazar left the Senate to become Obama's interior secretary. The White House was already backing Bennet in this increasingly bitter face-off--and had even discussed administration jobs with Romanoff that would keep him from challenging Bennet. Clinton's support of Romanoff fired up political reporters and pundits, who always relish a good fight. "Obama vs. Clinton in Colorado Race," USA Today declared. A Fox News website article--headlined, "President Clinton Defies Obama Again"--proclaimed a "political division is forming at the highest level" of the Democratic Party.
A civil war for the Democrats? A cat fight? A cage match? Not quite. There was a reasonable explanation for Clinton's action: Romanoff had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, and this was a small payback. Rather small because Bill Clinton apparently won't be campaigning or raising money for Romanoff, who trails Bennet by large margins in recent polls. Clinton merely wrote a letter backing Romanoff. So this is hardly full-scale war pitting the ex-president against the current chief executive.
But anything Bill is good for business. In the Obama years, he provides an intriguing subplot. During the 2008 primary campaign, Clinton made anti-Obama comments that were interpreted (correctly or not) as race-based. After Obama secured the nomination, Clinton was seen as a major factor in whether Obama would ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Then, after Obama won the election, Clinton was considered a major factor in whether Obama would ask Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. His relationship with Obama, who had replaced Clinton as the alpha dog of the Democratic Party, was widely perceived as icy or, worse, dicey.
Yet in the past two years, Clinton has been his best. While his wife has performed well as secretary of state and acted as a true team player, he has continued his admirable humanitarian work and helped out the administration occasionally. He collaborated with former President George W. Bush on Haitian relief efforts after the horrific earthquake. He has enthusiastically vouched for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who worked in his White House. And he has campaigned for Democratic House and Senate candidates -- most notably Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (who overcame a fierce primary challenge) and Pennsylvania Democrat Mark Critz (who won a difficult special election to succeed the late Rep. Jack Murtha). Clinton has demonstrated that he remains an important asset for his party.
Still, a political wrestling match between him and Obama would be must-see TV. I expect in the months ahead, as Clinton and Obama decide where and for whom to campaign, there will be efforts among the politerati to trump up a competition between the two men: Hey, look Clinton is campaigning for Sen. ______, and Obama hasn't yet. Hmmmmm.
But this is not a fair fight--if a fight at all. Obama is a president. Clinton is now a political celebrity. Presidents disappoint; they often don't do enough to satisfy their base, but they do enough to tick off the voters who didn't vote for them. And when unemployment is about 10 percent, there's a lot of disappointment for Obama to contend with. He comes with baggage: bailouts, unfinished wars, deficits, health care reform, an unplugged hole in the ocean's floor. Clinton comes with no strings attached. He doesn't disappoint -- not any more. He's not burdened with the no-good-solutions policy choices Obama inherited. These days, Clinton is a popular, upbeat campaigner. Obama is a president who ties any candidate with whom he campaigns to a host of tough issues and decisions. In dating terms, Clinton is Mr. Fun; Obama is Mr. Responsibility.
That said, Obama will no doubt be an effective campaigner in the fall in various states and congressional districts, though not everywhere a Democrat faces trouble. There will be calculations in certain campaign headquarters and in the White House about where the president should and should not go. Clinton, however, is cost-free. No matter that his presidency was nearly toppled by a sex scandal, his appearance with a Democratic candidate anywhere is unlikely to raise any awkward questions, and he may well be able to help in red districts where Obama might not be a boost for Democrats.
Back to Matthews question. Without hesitation, Roger Simon declared he'd pick Obama over Clinton. (Simon noted that he still worries about "Bad Bill" reemerging.) I hedged and said, why not both? Matthews howled at me. Okay, I said, Clinton, because he's easy.
Ultimately, Obama and Clinton will likely work everything out. The Romanoff episode does not signify the start of a Kanye West/Taylor Swift-like feud. The two men will do what each can to prevent the Democrats from being eviscerated in the fall. Yet the commentariat will be ever -- watchful for any hints of a rivalry. After all, there can only be one BMOC.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
Chris Matthews hurled this question at Politico's Roger Simon and me on Thursday night. I'll tell you our answers in a moment. But first the reason why this was even an issue: earlier in the week, Clinton had endorsed former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in that state's Democratic Senate primary against sitting Sen. Michael Bennet, the former Denver superintendent of schools who was appointed to fill the vacancy created when Ken Salazar left the Senate to become Obama's interior secretary. The White House was already backing Bennet in this increasingly bitter face-off--and had even discussed administration jobs with Romanoff that would keep him from challenging Bennet. Clinton's support of Romanoff fired up political reporters and pundits, who always relish a good fight. "Obama vs. Clinton in Colorado Race," USA Today declared. A Fox News website article--headlined, "President Clinton Defies Obama Again"--proclaimed a "political division is forming at the highest level" of the Democratic Party.
A civil war for the Democrats? A cat fight? A cage match? Not quite. There was a reasonable explanation for Clinton's action: Romanoff had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, and this was a small payback. Rather small because Bill Clinton apparently won't be campaigning or raising money for Romanoff, who trails Bennet by large margins in recent polls. Clinton merely wrote a letter backing Romanoff. So this is hardly full-scale war pitting the ex-president against the current chief executive.
But anything Bill is good for business. In the Obama years, he provides an intriguing subplot. During the 2008 primary campaign, Clinton made anti-Obama comments that were interpreted (correctly or not) as race-based. After Obama secured the nomination, Clinton was seen as a major factor in whether Obama would ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Then, after Obama won the election, Clinton was considered a major factor in whether Obama would ask Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. His relationship with Obama, who had replaced Clinton as the alpha dog of the Democratic Party, was widely perceived as icy or, worse, dicey.
Yet in the past two years, Clinton has been his best. While his wife has performed well as secretary of state and acted as a true team player, he has continued his admirable humanitarian work and helped out the administration occasionally. He collaborated with former President George W. Bush on Haitian relief efforts after the horrific earthquake. He has enthusiastically vouched for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who worked in his White House. And he has campaigned for Democratic House and Senate candidates -- most notably Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (who overcame a fierce primary challenge) and Pennsylvania Democrat Mark Critz (who won a difficult special election to succeed the late Rep. Jack Murtha). Clinton has demonstrated that he remains an important asset for his party.
Still, a political wrestling match between him and Obama would be must-see TV. I expect in the months ahead, as Clinton and Obama decide where and for whom to campaign, there will be efforts among the politerati to trump up a competition between the two men: Hey, look Clinton is campaigning for Sen. ______, and Obama hasn't yet. Hmmmmm.
But this is not a fair fight--if a fight at all. Obama is a president. Clinton is now a political celebrity. Presidents disappoint; they often don't do enough to satisfy their base, but they do enough to tick off the voters who didn't vote for them. And when unemployment is about 10 percent, there's a lot of disappointment for Obama to contend with. He comes with baggage: bailouts, unfinished wars, deficits, health care reform, an unplugged hole in the ocean's floor. Clinton comes with no strings attached. He doesn't disappoint -- not any more. He's not burdened with the no-good-solutions policy choices Obama inherited. These days, Clinton is a popular, upbeat campaigner. Obama is a president who ties any candidate with whom he campaigns to a host of tough issues and decisions. In dating terms, Clinton is Mr. Fun; Obama is Mr. Responsibility.
That said, Obama will no doubt be an effective campaigner in the fall in various states and congressional districts, though not everywhere a Democrat faces trouble. There will be calculations in certain campaign headquarters and in the White House about where the president should and should not go. Clinton, however, is cost-free. No matter that his presidency was nearly toppled by a sex scandal, his appearance with a Democratic candidate anywhere is unlikely to raise any awkward questions, and he may well be able to help in red districts where Obama might not be a boost for Democrats.
Back to Matthews question. Without hesitation, Roger Simon declared he'd pick Obama over Clinton. (Simon noted that he still worries about "Bad Bill" reemerging.) I hedged and said, why not both? Matthews howled at me. Okay, I said, Clinton, because he's easy.
Ultimately, Obama and Clinton will likely work everything out. The Romanoff episode does not signify the start of a Kanye West/Taylor Swift-like feud. The two men will do what each can to prevent the Democrats from being eviscerated in the fall. Yet the commentariat will be ever -- watchful for any hints of a rivalry. After all, there can only be one BMOC.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.