Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

What was missed in these commentaries is that a paradigm shift occurred in 1992 and the person responsible was Democratic candidate Bill Clinton.  The then Arkansas governor studied the tactics used against his friend Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts four years earlier and was determined that history not be repeated.

Clinton made a move that the Obama campaign should have put into place.  He ran a two-tiered campaign that rendered him invulnerable to such attacks.  

Check the record and you will see that they were there, including lies so extravagant that while I was in London I read an article on how Clinton had fathered an African American child while he was governor, complete with the woman posing with what was allegedly Clinton's child.

Clinton's ability to "take a punch" as the Republicans termed it did not come about by accident.  He was shrewd enough to realize that with the country hurting that domestic issues would ultimately trump the "hurl mud on the wall and hope enough of it sticks" that the Republican mudmeisters employ as a substitute for debating issues if a certain kind of resistance was employed.

While Clinton and one group of subordinates framed issues, talking consistently on the economy.  This strategy was enhanced by solid debate performances over an incumbent George H. W. Bush who was so outmatched in public policy discussions that in the final debate he was seen nervously looking at his watch, the message being, "When will this be over?"

Running mate Al Gore underscored the message, focusing on bread and butter issues while mixing in references to one of his own favorite topics, our world and climate control, as the basic talking points were drummed relentlessly into the consciousness of voters.

While Clinton and Gore concentrated on basic policy the second tier of the campaign evolved with a fervent effort to counter the traditional Republican slime fest.  Clinton organized what was called a rapid response team, that rebutted opposition attacks not only of the below the belt variety but on those occasions when their spokespersons actually discussed issues.  

Republican Convention media personnel were astonished when, prior to Bush finishing his acceptance speech, the Clinton rapid response team had already thoroughly rebutted it.

Remember that the Republicans in 1992 stooped so low that the law was violated when Bill Clinton's U.S. passport files were pilfered and rummaged through in the hope that travels during his Oxford University years to Communist countries could be used to paint him as disloyal to America.

In addition to the rapid response team, Clinton did a good job of protecting his own flank.  A memorable moment occurred in his first debate with Bush after the incumbent chief executive questioned his having participated in an anti-Vietnam War rally in London.

Clinton invoked the image of Bush's father, Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut, when he criticized the demagogic and reckless policies of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  In the final analysis, what was the difference between demonstrating at an American or British anti-war rally and embracing the same position taken by prominent Democratic Party spokespersons such as Robert Kennedy, George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy?

As for the polls, Clinton obtained a huge convention bounce and surged so far ahead of Bush that the incumbent was compelled to alter his earlier announced strategy of not launching his campaign until after the Republican Convention in Houston.  Clinton was aided also by the fact that strong third party independent candidate Ross Perot was siphoning votes from Bush's traditional base.

A Republican surge toward the end of the race showed Bush briefly on top, after which the same effect occurred that was reflected in 1976 in the Ford-Carter race.  Just as, when it appeared that Ford might be re-elected the momentum shifted enough for Carter to pull out a close victory, the same result occurred in 1992 as a shift occurred that benefited Clinton.

The final result was Clinton garnering 43% of the vote total while Bush had 38% with  independent Ross Perot garnering 19% , the largest popular vote total of any third party presidential candidate in history.

Four years later Clinton ran a campaign citing job creation and using incumbency to  advantage.  After the Democratic Convention his lead was so large that Dan Rather asserted that Clinton was in a stronger position to secure re-election than Ronald Reagan had been in 1984 following his party's conclave.

While enjoying a whopping 20-point edge at one point, in the latter stages of the campaign a factor that had emerged in the 1976 and 1992 campaigns resurfaced.  

Perhaps fearing what occurred following earlier presidential landslides such as Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972  and Reagan in 1984, when presidents were perceived to overreach based on what they construed as substantial mandates, Republican nominee Senator Robert Dole trimmed Clinton's lead, but not in a way to threaten his re-election.

This time Clinton triumphed with 49% of the vote to 41% for Dole.