Wash. Post's Kornblut repeated notion of "Clinton fatigue," provided no evidence
In an April 30, front-page Washington Post profile of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) pollster and campaign consultant Mark Penn, Post staff writer Anne E. Kornblut claimed: "While not her [Clinton's] campaign manager in name, Penn controls the main elements of her campaign, most important her attempt to define herself to an electorate seemingly ready for a Democratic president but possibly still suffering from Clinton fatigue." However, Kornblut did not provide any evidence that American voters "suffer[] from Clinton fatigue," either in the past or currently, beyond recounting an anecdote in which former Vice President Al Gore was said to have questioned Penn about "Clinton fatigue" during his 2000 presidential run.
Kornblut reported that during his 2000 presidential run, Gore asked Penn, who was Gore's pollster at the time, if there was "any evidence of this 'Clinton fatigue' that people kept talking about." Kornblut continued that Penn's "flippant response" -- " 'I'm not tired of him,' Penn replied. 'Are you?' " -- was "the final straw for Gore, who had long been wary of Penn and concerned that his real loyalty was to [former President Bill] Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton," and soon after the meeting, Penn was fired. Again, Kornblut did not provide evidence to support or combat the notion that the public had "Clinton fatigue."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, in an April 17 Washington Post article about fundraising reports from several presidential candidates, including Clinton, staff writer Dan Balz claimed: "Among Democrats, a sense of 'Clinton fatigue' has led some major fundraisers to reassess with whom they want to align." The phrase "Clinton fatigue," despite appearing in quotes, was not attributed to anyone cited in the article, and Balz did not provide any additional information to support the notion of "Clinton fatigue." Additionally, though Balz reported that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) first-quarter fundraising was "anemic," he did not raise the possibility of "McCain fatigue."
In another April 17 Post article, staff writers John Solomon and Matthew Mosk reported that "some" Clinton donors "cite fatigue after more than a decade" of various fundraising efforts for the Clintons -- but they did not quote any donors claiming to be tired of the Clintons. Solomon and Mosk added: "Most [Clinton donors], though, blame the defections on the enthusiasm generated by the upstart campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."
Media Matters also noted that, in a March 29 article, USA Today failed to challenge political psychologist Stanley Renshon's false suggestion that the public's views of the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies are comparable and his claim that the public suffers from "extraordinar[y]" Clinton "fatigu[e]." USA Today reported that according to Renshon, "the Clinton and Bush presidencies have been 'extraordinarily fatiguing' for Americans, who may be seeking 'a somewhat calmer presidency.' " In fact, according to USA Today's own polling, Bill Clinton's approval ratings remained in the 50s and 60s through most of his presidency; in the wake of the 1998 impeachment proceedings, Clinton's approval rating jumped to 73 percent. The article also reported that Clinton's current approval rating is 60 percent and that "[i]n the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 71% said he was a good president -- more than double Bush's 34% approval in the poll."
From Kornblut's April 30 Washington Post article:
It was fairly simple, Mark J. Penn said calmly to Vice President Al Gore, reporting the findings of an exhaustive survey he had conducted in the early stages of the 2000 presidential campaign. Voters liked Gore's policies. They just didn't like Gore.
Gore laughed, according to people who attended the meeting. He had heard that before. But the vice president, worried about the effect President Bill Clinton's scandals might have on his campaign, had another question for his pollster: Was there any evidence of this "Clinton fatigue" that people kept talking about?
"I'm not tired of him," Penn replied. "Are you?"
It was a flippant response -- and the final straw for Gore, who had long been wary of Penn and concerned that his real loyalty was to Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. His senior advisers agreed, regarding Penn as arrogant and controlling, someone who pushed the boundaries of his job by dispensing strategic advice rather than simply interpreting data. Shortly after the meeting with Gore, Penn was fired. One of the party's most prominent pollsters sat out the presidential campaign, but he signed up that year with a familiar face making her inaugural run for office in Penn's native New York -- Hillary Clinton.
Eight years later, it is Clinton who is running for president, and Penn, 53, is her chief strategist. While not her campaign manager in name, Penn controls the main elements of her campaign, most important her attempt to define herself to an electorate seemingly ready for a Democratic president but possibly still suffering from Clinton fatigue.
Clinton fatigue?
What about Bush Fatigue? And War Criminal Fatigue?
Bush and Clinton fatique - I wouldn't be surprised if the nation is suffering from both, in excess.
The Clintons did not get us into the most immoral war in American History. May be off topic but true. There is no Clinton fatigue, he has been out of office for over 6 years. Its lies by the GOP talking pointers.
There may be no Clinton fatique where you're concerned, but for me, fatigue has sent in from both families.
Doris:
The UN said 500,000+ Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions placed on Iraq. Of course, those sanctions were kept on Iraq because Clinton said Iraq had WMD.
Bin Laden in 1997 said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation for those died Iraqi children. You add the hundreds killed in the bombings on our embassies in 1998, the 17 sailors killed on the USS Cole, and the 3,000 killed on 9/11 to that 500,000, and it's clear that Clinton caused a heck of a lot of deaths, far more than Bush has since March 2003.
I have had Clinton fatigue ever since the 60 Minutes piece in 1992. I think even Hillary has Clinton fatigue. She looks old and tired.
I am tried of Clinton
Tire to deal with it.
I think that many people think the Clinton years were glorious. Of course, compared to this administration, they were. We had a solid surplus, international respect, competency in FEMA and the rest of the federal gov't (for the most part), a reasonably healthy economy. etc. I don't see any Clinton fatigue, except from the neocons tired of fighting her. I disagree with a lot of her policy stances and unwillingness to admit wrongdoing for voting for the war, but I think she would be a competent administrator.
That said, I totally agree about the sanctions. They were horrible, and were an obvious answer to the post 9/11 question "Why do they hate us?" I suppose GWBush could claim that things are better in Iraq without the sanctions, but besides the mess that's there now, he'd also be slamming his father.
And YOU sound young and stupid. So you want to blame clinton for the Cole, go right ahead. The embassy bombings, be my guest. You can even fault him for deaths caused by sanctions levied by the first bush (lowercase intentional) administration and their failure to finish the job if you want. But for you to lump in the victims of 9/11 shows just how delusional you really are. bush (again, intentional) had plenty of chances to stop 9/11 and did NOTHING. Not to mention the thousands of brave American soldiers who have been killed and maimed by this ridiculous and unnecessary occupation (not war, that ended 4 years ago) as well as the tens of thousands of Iraqis. Wake up man, smell the reality. Or is that TOO pre-9/11 for ya?
That was directed at Kevin, just to be clear.
You're lying. The 9/11 pilots were in the country before Bush 43 was even elected. Clinton failed to stop them from getting into the country. Bush did not receive plenty of warnings concerning an imminent al Qaeda attack. There simply was not any specific information concerning the 9/11 attack. If Gore had been elected in 2000, it is almost certain that the attacks would have taken place exactly as they did. In the midst of all his grandstanding, Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission that 9/11 could not have been prevented even if 100% of his proposals had been accepted by the Bush administration.
9/11 is clearly part of Clinton's legacy since he did nothing to fight al Qaeda. He even allowed bin Laden to flee to Afghanistan when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter.
Rush, is that you? What about all of those Republicans who told him he was bombing in Afghanistan to divert attention away from Monica? What about the task force he set up with Clarke to brief the new regime when Bush came in?
Name one Republican in the leadership who said Clinton tried to divert attention from the Monica scandal by lobbing a few missiles at Afghanistan.
How about every stinkin' one of the Repugnant leadership? Either provocatively introducing rhetoric about "wagging the dog" into totally unrelated interviews and discussions, or, when not feeling especially clever, charging straight on into the denouncement - every single one of them individually, and all of them collectively, and to the detriment of this nation, would again if afforded the opportunity. And this, from the same party that criticized every military action taken by President Clinton.
He got a memo entitled Ben Laden determined to attack IN US. The administration got may briefings the intelligence community called hair on fire and described as 10 on a scale of one out of ten. Are you trying to say that unless Bush got a memo directly from Ben Laden describing the highjackers telling him what day airport and the flight number of the targetted planes there was nothing he could do? Which is the point he didnt do ANYTHING, knee deep into operation ignore terrorism. Bush made a counterterrorism taskforce in April which by Sept had not met A SINGLE TIME. Ashcroft told his aide he didnt want to hear anymore about terrorism. I am not blaming the whole thing on Bush but he certainly has more blame coming for 9/11 than Clinton. Maybe had Bush been paying attention he could have done something. Maybe there was nothing he could do but he didnt do ANYTHING AT ALL.
"He got a memo entitled Ben Laden determined to attack IN US."
Everyone knew that. No one needed a PDB to know that. However, there was nothing in that August 6 PDB that dealt with a specific attack in the future. In fact, most of the information was old, including the uncorroborated report from 1998 that said al Qaeda was planning on hijacking planes to win the release of extremists in US custody. If that required action to be taken, it should have been taken in 1998.
"The administration got may briefings the intelligence community called hair on fire and described as 10 on a scale of one out of ten. Are you trying to say that unless Bush got a memo directly from Ben Laden describing the highjackers telling him what day airport and the flight number of the targetted planes there was nothing he could do?"
No, and if you could read with any level of competency you would know I didn't say that. I said there was no indication on August 6, 2001, that al Qaeda would hijack planes on Sept. 11 and use them as missiles against targets in New York and Washington. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
"Which is the point he didnt do ANYTHING, knee deep into operation ignore terrorism."
Here's a link to the August 6 PDB. Pretend you were president on that day. What would you have done after reading it? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
"Bush made a counterterrorism taskforce in April which by Sept had not met A SINGLE TIME. Ashcroft told his aide he didnt want to hear anymore about terrorism."
If you read chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission report, you'll see that the Bush administration held dozens of discussions about terrorism prior to 9/11.
"I am not blaming the whole thing on Bush but he certainly has more blame coming for 9/11 than Clinton. Maybe had Bush been paying attention he could have done something. Maybe there was nothing he could do but he didnt do ANYTHING AT ALL."
That's a lie, and the August 6 PDB and the 9/11 Commission report prove that.
That assertion, "that is a lie", that is the lie. As to the proofs you adduce, they prove exactly which is the lie. Thanks.
Its NOT a lie, spin all you want. Since the briefing specifically mentioned highjacking perhaps he might have done something to beef up airport security? Maybe ask the FBI to look into any suspicious activity related to highjackings, like say the FBI people who were suspicious of those learning to fly planes but didnt care about landing them which at least one FBI agent had talked to his superiors about. Its laughable for you to keep talking about lack of specifics. Like it didnt say they would use the planes as missiles. Wow, what analysis, seems to me that whatever you do to STOP highjackings would be the SAME THING no matter WHAT those highjacked planes were used for. I give you high marks for tenacity at appologizing for Bush's lack of any substantive actions on terrorism, your logic not so much. So they held dozens of meetings about terrorism yet strangely their terrorism task force DIDNT MEET A SINGLE TIME. THAT is a fact. So what it was just window dressing? You are spinning so hard you are corkscrewing yourself into the ground.
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had. I have to confess to Hillary fatigue tho. When she completely froze out advocates of single payer from her behind closed doors health care commission (setting a precedent for Cheney's energy task force) presenting us with a disaster of a plan that succeded only in neutering a major campaign issue for more than a decade, she was providing a snapshot of how she would govern. I've watched her carefully since then and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Having said that though, she would be infinitely preferable to any Republican - but I'd much prefer a real Democrat to another DLC DINO.
Guess what? There may be a bit of "Clinton fatigue" but the country is sick to death of Republicans.
Wasn't this the same Anne Kornblut who snarkily wrote about Hillary "faking a cell phone call" when asked about Obama's presidential bid. Yeah, she has tons of credibility. Say, why isn't she at the NY Times anymore?
Hillary Clinton's lead over Barack Obama has been constantly shrinking in all major polls.
So freakin' what.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
"Clinton Fatique=We Want Anyone But Clinton To Run Against"
Republican Speak, needs only a 84 I.Q. and a 3 sec attention span! Democrats are too nuianced, remember! they think too much, and rely on the honest interpretation of facts, or intelligence to support their policies!
This is also why Democrats make better lovers, we aren't the "3 Second Man" like the Republican, we like to take our time, and have a "bi-partisan" result!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"CLINTON FATIGUE" -- the condition of being sick to death and tired of having a GREAT President maligned regularly, and his wife the target of character assination daily, when our CURRENT President is the worst America has ever had in her history.
I am TIRED of longing for the days when America was still great, and we had not plunged into the abyss of "preemptive" wars based on lies, torture, crooked Administration officials, and gross incompetence across the board that is CAUSING DEATH AND INJURIES to our troops.
It is time for our long national nightmare to be brought to a close, and a CLINTON would be a wonderfully refreshing change. Two years is too long to wait, in fact. Time to IMPEACH Cheney, Bush, and clean out the White House.
will someone start asking these people when they say people are saying to ask them who are these people .give names . these people are giving there own opinions and talking to no one just saying that people want this or people want that. who was this lady talking about when she says there is fatigue make her give names or she should just shut up
There is no such thing as Clinton fatigue for either President or Senator Clinton. #1. President Clinton enjoys approval rating more than twice as high as our present president and #2. Mrs. Clinton is widely admired by the residents of New York
To report otherwise is a bald faced lie!!!... Strange how these newsies just seem insanely jealous of Mrs. Clinton. Reesidents of New York are well satisfied giving her a high approval ratind for her Sanate duties.
Curiously enough, this third round in four weeks, of the "Clinton fatigue" repetition in the Corporate Media, has indeed induced a malaise:
I call it "fatigue fatigue", wherein I am sick and tired of some dumb poop telling me I am "tired" of good things merely because I am tired of Bungle and bad things (think Repgunants). I might even vote for Hillary in the primary, just for spite.
Yeah, right, "Clinton fatigue". That's why at the end of his Presidency, people were trying to figure out a way we could (constitutionally) have Bill Clinton as President for another term or two. We are suffering from rightwing extremist neocon hawk liars blame it all on Clinton fatigue. And how about "journalists", "reporters", "pundits" and "commentators" (sigh, whatever they are), who pick up and keep repeating one old cliche' and party-line after another because they are so biased, mindless and/or lazy they ignore the obvious. I'm tired of them, too.