Maybe it was the holiday, but I’m surprised more attention hasn’t been paid to the fascinating piece in yesterday’s New York Times by David Kirkpatrick suggesting that some of the most hostile and active opponents of the Clintons from their White House years are no longer so hostile or active. One of the long-held assumptions about a presidential run by Hillary was that she would face an unprecendented assault from the well-funded right, where a second President Clinton was viewed as the most appalling possible outcome to the 2008 race. Now, it seems, even Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife have had a “rethinking” about the Clintons:
“Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” Mr. Ruddy said. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today.”
I, for one, am fairly shocked by this. Anyone who covered the Clinton presidency remembers the intensity of the loathing felt by opponents like Scaife, Ruddy and others. If anything, they viewed Hillary as worse than Bill. The possibility that they might not work and (in Scaife’s case) spend money to keep Hillary from becoming President is astonishing.
In the end, I suspect that if Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the machine will rouse itself from its ambivalence and launch the expected assault. The Clinton campaign, and the candidate herself, certainly expect that to happen. But the change documented by Kirkpatrick is remarkable even if it doesn’t endure. If nothing else, it shows how profoundly the Bush 43 presidency has depressed, alienated and angered conservatives — so much so that, to some, the Clinton years don’t look so bad after all.
