I beg to differ.

Matt Stoller writes...

Clinton is a loveable character in Democratic politics, like Barack Obama. He's perceived as a winner, as a good President, and as a strong Democrat who set a good tone for the party and the country…

Maybe it's a generational thing. Folks who don't remember the Democrats before Bill Clinton are likely to think of him as a "strong Democrat" more than those with longer memories, I suppose. The sooner all of us shed ourselves of the notion, though, the better off I think we'll be.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Big Dog. Hell, everybody likes the Big Dog. He's a sure enough "loveable character." As much as we might bitch about the current Preznit's ability, fading though it may be, to sell his own brand of aw-shucks frat-boy persona, there's always a sense that it's forced, and there's a mean streak that's undeniable. None of that for our boy Bill. He genuinely likes folks and folks, recognizing that, like him in return. Me too.

That's why he was, to the degree that he was, a winner, I suppose. People who didn't agree with him all that much, or who didn't even know enough about his platform to form an opinion, just liked the guy. Of course, he never quite won enough approval from over half the electorate for a clear majority win, but, then again, he never needed it. So "winner"? OK.

"Good President"? That's a tougher one. Peace and prosperity? Sure, but the debate continues over how much he actually had to do with either. Once again, it was his persona as much, or more, than his policies that created the air of public confidence that was the real success of his Presidency. It was nice to feel good about America and the American future, and it was easier to do because we felt pretty good about the guy in the White House. Of course, it also depends on who you're comparing him too. If you can't remember anyone before, say, Reagan, well, then, he was a great President.

But "strong Democrat"? Nope. Not. Negative.

Bill Clinton set universal healthcare, a core Democratic issue for over half a century, back about that long, and presided over the loss of a Democratic House for the first time in, well, about that long again, He abandoned, worse, he denigrated, the New Society ideals that had been the foundation of Democratic social policy since LBJ and left Congressional Democrats, who had advanced those policies for almost thirty years, out on a thin limb. If people today wonder what the Democrats stand for, it's in no small part because so much of Clinton's success at "triangulation" was won by force of personality. Personality, in the end, though, is no substitute for policy, and he left no meaningful policy legacy for the Party to organize around.

Bill Clinton made a mess of the Party, and left a mess for the Party.

So, OK, he won. And he did the work, and did it OK. Maybe better than OK. And he's a great guy. Loveable, even.

Lousy Democrat, though.