DAN K. THOMASSON Clinton: Perfect in one respect

WASHINGTON -- Humorist Will Rogers once said about Republican Calvin Coolidge: "He was the best Democrat we ever had in the White House. He didn't do anything and that's exactly what we wanted done."
That may be a partial explanation for the continuing popularity of Bill Clinton. Polls indicate he could run again for the presidency and win handily despite his tawdry behavior and lack of sustained focus on most of the nation's problems while serving as the 42nd president. Certifying the accuracy of the surveys are the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have rushed to buy his ponderous life story, apparently in some part to revel in the spiciness of confessed peccadilloes. It is a public that never seems to tire of Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones and cigars and soiled dresses.
It is extremely doubtful that the former president's hastily written memoirs -- for which he received a $10 million advance -- would attract such enthusiasm based on his record in either domestic or foreign policy. Other than the fact he was a beneficiary of an economy inflated beyond reason by the Gold Rush psychology of the brand-new Internet, there isn't a vibrant record of achievement for one considered so bright.
Major failure
His major domestic initiative, the revamping of the nation's health-care system, was a failure. After initially opposing it, he did sign a Republican welfare-reform bill for which he now claims credit. He did win the North American Free Trade Agreement, but once again only with the support of the opposition party. And he managed to eliminate the deficit by doing nothing, including not replacing Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve, to interfere with the mountain of new revenues generated by the over-reaching "new economy" that lasted just long enough for him to end his watch.
On the foreign front, he failed to eliminate Osama bin Laden, although he tried. He didn't make any of the reforms in the national intelligence apparatus that might have helped avoid 9/11 despite evidence that both the FBI and the CIA were woefully deficient in this area. He knew terrorism was a threat, but didn't overemphasize it. He failed to win any kind of meaningful accord between Israel and the Palestinians. He did have a measure of success in the Balkans.
Some of his lethargy can be attributed to the fact much of his time and energy the last two years of office were spent preoccupied with a troubled marriage; the disgrace of impeachment because of indiscreet activities with a White House intern and lies told about the affair under oath in a civil suit and to the public, and in defending himself in a Senate trial -- only the second in the history of America. All of this was to the detriment of his official duties.
He presided over a mid-term election that returned Congress to Republican control for the first time in 40 years. His fund-raising activities for his re-election were tainted by an indication of contributions from China funneled through intermediaries. Only his attorney general's refusal to name a special prosecutor saved his administration from another debilitating investigation.
What is the answer to the Clinton mystique? One would hate to believe that it is simply his charm or a campaign technique that is indeed infectious. But that seems to be a major factor. To millions, he appears the common man, a charismatic kick-around guy, with whom it is easy to identify. His mistakes have been their mistakes. He clearly was helped by the fact that many thought the impeachment was too harsh and unfair. From a political standpoint, they probably were correct.
His contribution
Conversely, those who don't like Clinton really seem to hate him, and the animosity he engenders in them may be his contribution to the deep political divisions that have overtaken the electorate. The feeling toward the current president by his opponents is much the same. Those who revile George W. Bush seem to take their dislike to the utmost extreme. There is no middle ground, and chances are good the 50-50 split in this country will once again produce a narrow referendum not on who is the best candidate, but on Bush's performance. Sen. John Kerry could just be incidental.
XThomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.