Evan–
The situation is so damned odd. I mean, before I get around to trashing Clinton, I probably ought to say I think he’s really been a very good president, probably the best since Kennedy–maybe since Truman–and the country’s in remarkably good shape. The Republicans can deny him credit, but that’s churlish. After running up those mammoth deficits (you know, the ones that prevented Cheney from voting to free Nelson Mandela), after refusing to disavow the idiotic shibboleths that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, and after voting against Clinton’s deficit-reduction package, it’s unseemly for them to deny the man credit for governing responsibly. We’re in good shape partly as a result of his stewardship, and only the folks meeting in Philadelphia this week would have the chutzpah to deny it.
And yet, look at those polls! According to every model, Gore should be comfortably ahead; he should have this thing firmly in his pocket. Instead, he’s struggling unsuccessfully to stay even. Obviously, the distaste you feel for Clinton is widely shared; obviously, a great many of us find his undiscriminating, greedy, narcissistic omniverousness beyond the pale. Governing responsibly and behaving responsibly are clearly two very different things, and it seems as if the latter might count for more right now than the former. And somehow that bad behavior has slopped right over poor Al Gore, whose Oval Office conduct, as far as I know, has been exemplary.
If Gore can find a way to make this an election about policy, he’ll probably win. For the first time in a generation, more Americans agree with the Democrats than with the Republicans (we have the famously nutty Class of ‘94 to thank for that). But if there’s a general impression abroad that times are so good policy won’t make much difference, he’s in big trouble. It’s proving to be an uphill slog for him, made even tougher by the fact that people don’t seem to like him very much.
His vice-presidential choice? I’ve heard a rumor that I’m prepared to share with you, although I can’t reveal its provenance: Leon Panetta. It doesn’t strike me as terribly likely, but the name was proffered on quite impressive authority, and for what it’s worth, when I shared it with my wife, who worked closely with Panetta during Clinton’s first term, she responded enthusiastically. Make of all that what you will.
While waiting for your second note this afternoon, I flicked on the TV and surfed a bit. All in service of staying informed, so my contributions to the “Breakfast Table” would be worthy of the venue. And there on CNN was old reliable Bill Bennett, telling us all over again that the country needs a moral bath, a cleansing that only Republicans can provide. Has he forgotten how many Republican adulterers Larry Flynt outed last year, including several prominent members of the House leadership? Maybe a little moral humility would be appropriate, for him as for the rest of us. Maybe casting all those stones is a mug’s game.
I honestly can’t think of a stronger argument for voting Democratic than to forestall the prospective media ubiquity of the Bill Bennetts of the world, all those scolds and ayatollahs. The GOP convention is less than a day old and already he’s proving to be inescapable. Imagine what it will be like if Bush wins.
Since you’ve watched said Bush at fairly close quarters for six years now, I’m curious to hear some of your impressions of the fellow. For myself, I’ve only seen him up close once. It was back in 1993, before he held–or was even known to covet–high public office. But I think I learned something important about him that day all the same. I’ll save it for my next letter.
Cheers,
Erik
