Clinton's Coattails

In the NY Times today, there's another little example of Left-wing bias. I only point it out because I think it's an example of how UTTERLY PERVASIVE their bias is. Here's the headline:

THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
Clinton Tries on His Long Coattails for Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN
Published in the NY Times: October 26, 2004

The UNEXAMINED PREMISE or presupposition of the piece is that Clinton has long coattails that could pull in votes for the Kerry Campaign. AND THIS IS PURE RUBBISH.

(1) Clinton NEVER polled a majority of votes - not in 1992 or in 1996. Gore out-polled Clinton; in fact: Gore was the 2nd best vote-getter the Dems have had since FDR; only LBJ got more.

(2) In 4/5 of the national federal elections that took place during the time Clinton had a starring role in the Democrat Party THEY LOST SEATS IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AND IN EVERY STATEHOUSE, AND ON THE GUBENATORIAL FRONT, TOO!

THEREFORE, one must conclude that Clinton's personal political magnetism NEVER helped any other candidate or the party. Clinton never had ANY coattails, let alone LONG ONES!

BUT THERE"S MORE: Clinton was successful because he ran as a centrist; he was pro-free trade, and pro-business - and even ran to the right of Bush 41 on foreign policy. (That's why people like me - centrist DLC/Zell Miller Democrats - voted for him; he even "dissed" Jesse at the '92 convention and promised to govern from the center - promising to "end welfare as we know it.") BUT, even as a centrist Democrat, Clinton couldnt get 50% of the popular vote. (And don't tell me it's because of the third party candidate! If Clinton was truly a strong candidate himself, he would have pulled the voters that went to Perot, marginalizing Perot as Gore and Kerry and Bush have marginalized Nader.)

In spite of these FACTS, the NY Times - and the rest of the Left-wing dominated fonts of the Old Media - continue to promote Clinton as some wunderkind - a vote magnet. Nonsense.

Clinton SURELY outshines, out-performs -- and would even out-poll Kerry, but that's ONLY because Kerry is so weak a candidate, and because Kerry is much much much MUCH further to the Left than is Clinton.

What does it say about the Democrats that their biggest vote magnet is an impeached president who presided over the biggest bubbles since Hoover - "Bubba's Bubbles" - and who did the least to make America safe; in fact: the president who made us MUCH MORE VULNERABLE!

(How? DURING CLINTON'S TWO TERMs, THE US MILITARY WENT FROM 18 DIVISIONS TO 10, AND THAT'S WHY HE'S THE BLAME FOR OUR MILITARY'S RELATIVELY WEAK DEPLOYMENT CAPABILITY. Not to mention the fact that Clinton responded FEEBLY to numerous attacks against the USA and our allies by the Jihadoterrorists. Which only encouraged more attacks. And Clinton let UBL get away. And the fact Clinton met with Arafat more than ANY OTHER FOREIGN LEADER, aggrandizing the master terrorist, strengthening Arafat even as Arafat grew ever more recalcitrant in negotiations and tyrannical toward his own people.)

So what does this say about the NY TIMES description "CLINTON'S LONG COATTAILS"!? It's says that in addition to being biased Leftists - they are fantasists. Or jerks. Or both. Grabbing hold of "Clinton's Long Coattails" is impossible: they're phantoms of the Left's imagination, a product of wishful thinking, and revisionist history.

When the Left tries to pull themselves up by Clinton's coattails, they'll only end up pulling down Clinton's pants. But that's something he won't mind...