It seems like Bill Clinton did more than free the willies during his presidency. He also fathered some children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link
The future of the Democrats may lie in the mid-west
IT IS the fate of angry political parties, no less than angry people, to look everywhere but the obvious place for the answer to their woes. Consumed by Bush-hatred, rank-and-file Democrats are flocking to the standard of the mad-as-hell Howard Dean. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Democratic commanders bicker over which establishment candidate to back as the ?Anyone but Dean? alternative. Surely John Kerry will reassert himself eventually? Perhaps John Edwards isn't really too wet behind the ears? Maybe Dick Gephardt really has reinvented himself? Sooner or later Hillary Clinton is mentioned?and then misery sets in again.
This sense of failure is compounded by America's political geography. The new electoral college, adjusted to reflect America's continuing drift towards the west and the South, would have given Mr Bush an extra seven votes in 2000. From a Democratic point of view, the South seems beyond saving. The Republicans have just picked up two more governorships there. Mr Dean is already in trouble for saying he wanted the votes of people with Confederate flags in their pick-ups. Even if the party turned to a southerner, such as Senator Edwards or General Wesley Clark, it probably won't help that much: in 2000 Al Gore failed to win even his native Tennessee. Meanwhile, in the west, Mr Bush is on the offensive in New Mexico and Oregon, both narrowly claimed by Mr Gore in 2000. Even California, that great Democratic redoubt, has just been Schwarzeneggered.
Amidst all this gnashing of teeth, the Democratic high command may have missed a trick right under its nose: the encouraging things that are happening in the mid-west. This slice of the heartland is familiar territory to any Democrat with national ambitions, since its factories, farms and suburbs are where presidential elections tend to be decided. It is also an area where an interesting group of moderate baby-boomer Democrats now controls many of the governorships.
The newcomers include Jennifer Granholm (who won the governorship of Michigan in 2002), Rod Blagojevich (Illinois, 2002), Jim Doyle (Wisconsin, 2002), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas, 2002), Bob Holden (Missouri, 2000), Tom Vilsack (Iowa, 1998) and Joe Kernan (who stepped up from lieutenant-governor of Indiana on the death of Frank O'Bannon, another moderate Democrat, earlier this year). So far they have kept a fairly low profile from a national perspective, though Mr Vilsack becomes chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association next year.
The hallmark of the mid-western Democrats is a virtue usually scorned in their party's primaries: pragmatism. The mid-westerners have their liberal traits, but they have mostly steered a centrist course, building ties with local business, balancing state budgets and treading lightly on taxes. Part of this is born of necessity: American states are facing their worst budget deficits in decades, so there isn't much money to lavish on great projects. Yet something else is at work.
The new governors cut their political teeth during Bill Clinton's time in the White House. Mostly modernising ?New Democrats?, they saw their champion swing first to the left?supporting ?gays in the military?, failing to pass health-care reform and being trounced in the mid-term elections of 1994. But once Mr Clinton moved back to the centre, he won re-election easily in 1996. For many of Mr Dean's supporters, Mr Clinton's centrism was a betrayal. Not in the mid-west: he scooped up 100 electoral college votes from the region in both 1992 and 1996.
When these governors ran for office, they sold themselves as chief-executive types who would run the states in a more up-to-date way than older Republicans would. Mr Doyle and Ms Granholm, both former attorneys-general, have focused on modern styles of crime, such as terrorism and internet scams. Messrs Vilsack and Kernan are in the business of economic transformation, trying to push rural economies towards biotechnology.
It is easy to explain part of their success as good timing. The Democratic newcomers were lucky that several established Republican governors, including Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin and John Engler in Michigan (both engaging centrists), stepped down. A few of the new Clintonians have had a bumpy ride: Messrs Vilsack, Doyle and Blagojevich are all stuck in rows with their legislatures. And it is hard to draw broad lessons from local races often fought on local issues. ?The closer you get to home,? admits Mr Kernan, ?the less philosophical people become.?
Nevertheless, Clintonism suits the region. The number of independent voters has increased. The population is also relatively old, so health care, hitherto a Democratic subject, has been an important issue. Culturally, gay marriage is not popular, but neither is ?southern? intolerance. Ms Granholm mentions both her Catholicism and her opposition to banning abortion.
Running by Bill's book
These Democratic governors may make a difference next year. Support from a popular local governor may add a point to a presidential campaign, and the mid-west is home to plenty of crucial swing states. Kansas and Indiana still look safe for the Republicans, but Mr Bush has to defend Ohio and Missouri; and he would sorely love to capture Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
However, the real significance of the mid-western governors may come after the next election. Imagine that the furious Democrats pick the angry Mr Dean and he is shot down in flames by Mr Bush. This time next year, the Democrats might do worse than look to this group for their next set of leaders. More important, the Democrats should look hard at the sort of politics that works well in the region. Mr Clinton was a southerner, but the mid-west was where he won the presidency. And it is where his legacy is being most respected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link
The future of the Democrats may lie in the mid-west
IT IS the fate of angry political parties, no less than angry people, to look everywhere but the obvious place for the answer to their woes. Consumed by Bush-hatred, rank-and-file Democrats are flocking to the standard of the mad-as-hell Howard Dean. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Democratic commanders bicker over which establishment candidate to back as the ?Anyone but Dean? alternative. Surely John Kerry will reassert himself eventually? Perhaps John Edwards isn't really too wet behind the ears? Maybe Dick Gephardt really has reinvented himself? Sooner or later Hillary Clinton is mentioned?and then misery sets in again.
This sense of failure is compounded by America's political geography. The new electoral college, adjusted to reflect America's continuing drift towards the west and the South, would have given Mr Bush an extra seven votes in 2000. From a Democratic point of view, the South seems beyond saving. The Republicans have just picked up two more governorships there. Mr Dean is already in trouble for saying he wanted the votes of people with Confederate flags in their pick-ups. Even if the party turned to a southerner, such as Senator Edwards or General Wesley Clark, it probably won't help that much: in 2000 Al Gore failed to win even his native Tennessee. Meanwhile, in the west, Mr Bush is on the offensive in New Mexico and Oregon, both narrowly claimed by Mr Gore in 2000. Even California, that great Democratic redoubt, has just been Schwarzeneggered.
Amidst all this gnashing of teeth, the Democratic high command may have missed a trick right under its nose: the encouraging things that are happening in the mid-west. This slice of the heartland is familiar territory to any Democrat with national ambitions, since its factories, farms and suburbs are where presidential elections tend to be decided. It is also an area where an interesting group of moderate baby-boomer Democrats now controls many of the governorships.
The newcomers include Jennifer Granholm (who won the governorship of Michigan in 2002), Rod Blagojevich (Illinois, 2002), Jim Doyle (Wisconsin, 2002), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas, 2002), Bob Holden (Missouri, 2000), Tom Vilsack (Iowa, 1998) and Joe Kernan (who stepped up from lieutenant-governor of Indiana on the death of Frank O'Bannon, another moderate Democrat, earlier this year). So far they have kept a fairly low profile from a national perspective, though Mr Vilsack becomes chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association next year.
The hallmark of the mid-western Democrats is a virtue usually scorned in their party's primaries: pragmatism. The mid-westerners have their liberal traits, but they have mostly steered a centrist course, building ties with local business, balancing state budgets and treading lightly on taxes. Part of this is born of necessity: American states are facing their worst budget deficits in decades, so there isn't much money to lavish on great projects. Yet something else is at work.
The new governors cut their political teeth during Bill Clinton's time in the White House. Mostly modernising ?New Democrats?, they saw their champion swing first to the left?supporting ?gays in the military?, failing to pass health-care reform and being trounced in the mid-term elections of 1994. But once Mr Clinton moved back to the centre, he won re-election easily in 1996. For many of Mr Dean's supporters, Mr Clinton's centrism was a betrayal. Not in the mid-west: he scooped up 100 electoral college votes from the region in both 1992 and 1996.
When these governors ran for office, they sold themselves as chief-executive types who would run the states in a more up-to-date way than older Republicans would. Mr Doyle and Ms Granholm, both former attorneys-general, have focused on modern styles of crime, such as terrorism and internet scams. Messrs Vilsack and Kernan are in the business of economic transformation, trying to push rural economies towards biotechnology.
It is easy to explain part of their success as good timing. The Democratic newcomers were lucky that several established Republican governors, including Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin and John Engler in Michigan (both engaging centrists), stepped down. A few of the new Clintonians have had a bumpy ride: Messrs Vilsack, Doyle and Blagojevich are all stuck in rows with their legislatures. And it is hard to draw broad lessons from local races often fought on local issues. ?The closer you get to home,? admits Mr Kernan, ?the less philosophical people become.?
Nevertheless, Clintonism suits the region. The number of independent voters has increased. The population is also relatively old, so health care, hitherto a Democratic subject, has been an important issue. Culturally, gay marriage is not popular, but neither is ?southern? intolerance. Ms Granholm mentions both her Catholicism and her opposition to banning abortion.
Running by Bill's book
These Democratic governors may make a difference next year. Support from a popular local governor may add a point to a presidential campaign, and the mid-west is home to plenty of crucial swing states. Kansas and Indiana still look safe for the Republicans, but Mr Bush has to defend Ohio and Missouri; and he would sorely love to capture Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
However, the real significance of the mid-western governors may come after the next election. Imagine that the furious Democrats pick the angry Mr Dean and he is shot down in flames by Mr Bush. This time next year, the Democrats might do worse than look to this group for their next set of leaders. More important, the Democrats should look hard at the sort of politics that works well in the region. Mr Clinton was a southerner, but the mid-west was where he won the presidency. And it is where his legacy is being most respected.