A Little History

Not long after the term "BHDS" (Bush Hatred Derangement Syndrome) came into vogue on the right, the left (in its seeming quest to become "The Party of No New Ideas") cleverly coined the term "Clinton Hatred Derangement Syndrome" to describe the presumably completely irrational groundswell of animus which (for no apparent reason, of course) plagued the Clinton administration during the 1990s.

As a sometimes-adopter of the term "BHDS" -- and also as an opponent of the Clinton administration during the 1990s -- I think I can speak to this charge.

When Bush took office, it seemed that my liberal friends started to suffer a sort of mental dysfunction. To give one example (among so, so many) a dear liberal friend of mine who had been quite vocally angry (during the 90s) that ethanol had been added to our gasoline suddenly started blaming Bush for it. I pointed out that Clinton, not Bush, had passed the law adding ethanol to her gasoline, but she was in no mood to let reality interfere with her animus.

That was one incident among many, on countless topics. Liberal friends implied we'd never had any terrorism in the 1990s. The Gulf War had never happened. Saddam had never been viewed as a threat. Gay marriage had always existed, and the right was trying to take it away. Bush had somehow caused China to become a trading partner. Bush or his peers had even faked the very documents which Dan Rather tried to use to discredit him.

I noticed other voices on the 'net saying the same thing: their loved ones were consumed with a seemingly super-rational hatred for Bush which led them to contradict their own long-held stances or values, well-known facts, or recent history. So when some conservative wag coined the BHDS "diagnosis", it seemed more than apt.

In contrast, I don't believe there was much irrational about the bulk of the criticisms of the Clintons during the 1990s. It's hardly a fever-dream of the right that Clinton is a bit, shall we say, integrity-challenged. He promised, for example, to isolate China and soon did the opposite. From the start, his administration was plagued with scandals and broken promises. By the late 1990s, even Bill Clinton's supporters began to be disgusted with his incessant dishonesty: some remarked that telling the truth seemed to be a last resort. Eventually even the media had had it with him, and seemed to give Al Gore very little slack.

Remember the term "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", coined by Hillary? It's instructive to remember that she created the term to explain why Monica had gone to the press with (obviously-false, to her at the time) charges of sexual relations with Bill. Only those charges turned out (undoubtedly, to her great chagrin) to be provably true (thanks to recent advances in DNA analysis), and thus no "Vast Conspiracy" was necessary to explain them.

During that period (and regarding many other issues, not just Monicagate), many of Bill's harshest critics were people who had formerly been close to him. Many feminists, for example, turned away in disgust. Close associates publicly distanced themselves. And, in fact "the women" were one-time allies and strong supporters of the Clinton campaign -- not "Right Wing" operatives as Hillary posited. Richard Clarke wrote a book about Clinton's inattention to national security. George Stephanopolous fell out. One-time and long-time supporters finally aired their disdain on Sunday morning talk shows.

Given that even Democrats were disgusted with Bill, one hardly needed to resort to a diagnoses of irrationality to explain conservative criticisms and distrust.

History Repeats?

Though memories fade, it seems the left is learning, anew, exactly why many of us emerged weary from the 1990s, despite the relative prosperity of that decade. I'm certainly late to the punch (as part of my never-ending quest to keep Random Observations irrelevant as a political news source) in noting that many, including even Jonathan Chait (of "I Hate Bush" fame) are now repeating words I seem to remember hearing even from liberals at the close of the 1990s:

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons...

Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We’re not frothing Clinton haters like … well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they’d go away.

To know them, is not to love them, eh Jonathan?

Yet, as a conservative, "wish they'd go away" is pretty much how I felt, and still feel, about them. To be clear: I don't mind Bill as a light-and-fluffy talk-show persona. When there's nothing on the line, he can be quite likable. Even during the 1990s, I really enjoyed his public persona, and the many cute videos the White House released. I just became weary of his political behavior and tactics. (And Hillary's policies strike me as far more harmful than Bill's ever were, but I would think that, being politically conservative and all.)

And it's not just Chait (Los Angeles Times) -- Bob Herbert (New York Times), Colbert King (Washington Post), and other media liberals who are now joining the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" against the Clintons. And now even the Kennedys (whose very name means "Democratic Party" to many old-schoolers) have thrown their chips behind, um, that other leading candidate. You know, that one who isn't a Clinton.

CNN:

The New York Times reported Monday that Sen. Kennedy endorsed Obama despite pleas from the Clinton camp to remain neutral in the Democratic race.

The Massachusetts senator decided to endorse Obama after becoming concerned about the often-bitter campaigning involving former President Clinton before Saturday's South Carolina primary, which Obama won, the newspaper reported.

The Times said Kennedy was angry the former president had introduced what he felt were racial themes into the campaign and that Bill Clinton had made misleading statements about Obama, matters Kennedy and Clinton discussed during two heated telephone conversations earlier this month.

Fox News:

Clinton’s base seems to be eroding fast as liberal Democratic stalwarts join up with Barack Obama, whose message of change seems now to apply not only to the Bush administration of the last seven years, but the eight-year Clinton administration that preceded it.

Obama’s biggest “get” was Sen. Ted Kennedy, who abandoned his neutrality in the presidential race and endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton on Monday. While Obama insists the Massachusetts senator’s endorsement was not a repudiation of anyone, it was clear that Kennedy - along with his niece Caroline Kennedy and son Rep. Patrick Kennedy — had reached beyond the Clintons to pass the mantle of the Democratic party’s liberal wing to Obama.

And while the Kennedys may open the floodgates, they were hardly the first liberals to abandon the Clintons for Obama. In recent weeks the Clintons have watched many of their supporters drift to the young senator from Illinois.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential candidate, endorsed Obama recently. On Tuesday, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius climbed aboard, the morning after she delivered the Democrats’ rebuttal speech to President Bush’s State of the Union address.

Even novelist Toni Morrison, who once called Bill Clinton the “first black president,” has come out for Obama.

And, as usual, some of the criticism comes from those who knew the Clintons best, and served them faithfully.

Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary, on his personal blog: “Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party … Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.”

"The old politics"? To what could he be referring? I thought the dislike we expressed during the 1990s was unfounded, a case of "the vapors". There are a long list of similar quotes from liberal critics in that piece -- and this is after only a few months of the Clintons' return.

The main difference between now and the 1990s is that the press has another candidate they can endorse. Back then, the media remained pretty tight-lipped about "their guy" until after the second election, when even they couldn't stand it any longer.

I don't hate Bill. I certainly don't hate Hillary. But, obvious policy differences aside, I certainly am concerned about their political behavior. And now that there's another dance partner, liberals are again publicly admitting their own feelings as well. At least until the nomination.