The Clintons are still running the Democratic Party. Hopefully, they'll be able to complete the project they started in the 1990s--totally destroying it. So far, they've only been able to turn over all three branches of government to the Republicans, but with a little more effort, they'll turn this country solidly Republican for at least a generation. (And I say that as someone who is not, and never has been, a Republican, but who believes that the Democrats have generally been a disaster for the nation for the past three quarters of a century.)

Some choice bits--first, just to point out the continued leftist bias, at least at the WaPo:

While Democrats, in general, have failed to capitalize on mounting job losses and other economic problems under Bush, the Clintons are getting renewed credit and respect within the party for the boom years that marked Bill Clinton's second term. Since he left office, the stock market has dropped while budget deficits and unemployment numbers have soared.

"The farther away we get from the [Clinton] presidency, the more the focus is on the substantive accomplishments," said Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.). "It's getting far easier to not only associate with, but embrace the former president and the senator."

Gee, I wonder why they don't point out that the stock market plunge and economic downturn started while Mr. Clinton was still in the White House, in 2000? Is it possible that he got out just in time to avoid the blame for his bubblistic policies?

Naaaahhhh...

Would it be too much, or display too much non-ignorance of economics, to point out that a) a president doesn't have that much control over the economy and b) that to the degree that the government in general has any control over the economy (mostly the Fed) it tends to lag by between one and two years, so that only now can Mr. Bush take the credit or blame for the economic conditions?

For the WaPo, I guess so.

Not everyone's happy, though:

Still, some Democrats want the Clintons to go away. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently did focus groups around the country with Democratic-leaning voters and found widespread resentment of both Clintons, according to a Democratic aide familiar with surveys conducted in several cities.

Many focus group participants called the former president "immoral, smooth, crooked" and dishonest, the aide said, while Hillary Clinton was seen as an "opportunist." "It gives us a brand we just don't need," the aide said.

"The rehashing of the negatives is something we all wish would go away," said Sen. John Breaux (D- La.). But the Clintons "clearly have the ability to excite people, probably more than anyone else in the party."

Well, Senator, not all of us want them to go away. Since 2000, the Republicans are just loving the Clinton brand. It's sort of like the old Chuck Connors television show, "Branded."

Mr. Simberg-

With Bubba and Hillary, and their loyal functionary, the despicable Terry McAuliffe, in charge, the Demos may end up giving the GOP the best chance of increasing their majorities in both the House and Senate in 2004, give W. his best chance at reelection in 2004 and provide Hillary her best shot at not winning the presidency in 2008. After all, this is the team that helped get Republicans elected as the Governor and Senator of Minnesota in 2002. Ya just gotta love 'em, Bill and Hillary--it never, ever was about anything other than them personally, and so it continues. If the Democrat party goes down the tubes, they'll still have their campaign slush funds and book advances, upper East Side dinner parties and trips to Hyannis to console them. The senior senator from South Dakota's fate might be a bit less cushy, however--being Minority Leader with a shrinking number in the minority can't be much fun. If you are right, it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. As the good Perfessor, Glenn Reynolds would say, "heh."
JonM.

> Gee, I wonder why they don't point out that the
> stock market plunge and economic downturn started
> while Mr. Clinton was still in the White House,
> in 2000?

Maybe for the same reason they don't mention that the previous turnaround started before he took office?

I was just pointing out to a lefty pal that the economy was showing signs of recovery in 1932 when Hoover was booted in favor of FDR. But as lefties do, he remains committed to the idea that the New Deal, and only the New Deal, could have possibly saved America from the abyss.

I'm also rather interested that the Hoover policy that hurt the economy most during his presidency -- that of raising taxes in a bad economy -- is exactly what at least some of the Democrats' Mudball Nine are advocating now.