Wait, what does Bill Clinton have to do with the Birther argument against Obama's presidency and thus election and legitimacy? Well actually, I was referring to the continually repeated falsehood that Ross Perot "elected" Bill Clinton by siphoning votes from George HW Bush in 1992. Almost 25 years after Clinton first announced, this myth continues to come up, often in connection with the primaries with respect to either the electoral map, electability, etc. However, its also used as a general attack by some against the Clintons.
They may seem very different, the Birther movement and the Perot-Myth, but let's look at the similarities. (While I am aware of the racial aspect of the Birther movement, this is about the other motivations/aspects of the Birther movement.)
1. They were both used mainly by Republicans to render both Bill Clinton and Barack Obamas' elections "illegitimate." That they didn't have a right to be in the Oval Office. They didn't "truly win."
1 (tie). They both have zero empirical basis.
-The Perot myth has several places where its debunked, in terms of electoral college and popular vote.
-Obama has shown his "long form" birth certificate, which has only crazy nuts still doubting its authenticity (eg. Donald Trump).
3. Both times, both myths were used to advance and promote an obstructionist agenda (either from politicians or activists) and a conservative agenda. Both lies were used to rally the troops after a lost election. Both in 1994 and 2010, it helped the GOP in Congress as their candidates used both myths.
4. Both times, when confronted with the empirical data, the peddlers of both myths start to delve into metaphysical or conspiratorial analysis.
-In the case of Obama, its "well da Obama gubbermint produced it" or "we need to look further". They talked about the PDF layering, but that was debunked using empirical, rather than wishful thinking methods. For some, that wasn't good enough, note how the Birther lie is still around. They also point to the Harvard Law Review thing.
-In the Clinton case, its that Perot "did something" to the overall race that would not have happened that had enough of a big impact to change the ultimate winner. No basis. Once again, when you have the kind of approvals Bush I had on election day 1992, you're not going to win. The steep and unending downward trend began long before Feb 1992 (Perot's LKL appearance). The only times in modern polling (1952-now, when the techniques had been refined after the Truman election), when an incumbent president (or his VP) sought re-election with such low job approval numbers were 1968, 1980, and 1992. Also, note how each of those elections had third parties polling over 6.6% nationally. Ford, Bush II, and Obama had in the 45-49% approval range, the toss-up area.
I am not the only one to liken these two myths. Rachel Maddow, who also debunked this on TV for the world to see, compared them as well.
I also liken the Perot myth to climate denial. Climate denialists ignore or dismiss empirical numbers/statistical data to push their case. Perot-myth peddlers do the same.
Some here may disagree with Bill's and Hillary's, or Obama's politics (many here also call him a "Neocon Corporate TPP Democrat" as some have the Clintons). I haven't seen anyone recently use the birther meme here. However, when you spew the Perot-smear, you are doing something no different than using the Birther myth, just with a different name and myth attached. I did do a diary on this topic before, as well as Clinton's revolutionary electoral college impact, but the fact the Perot myth is still alive from some here, and isn't HR'ed on sight (as Birther stuff currently is) is why I wrote this.
Whether you support Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, or Lawrence Lessig, you are on a Democratic blog, and thus ought to be expected to do what Democrats do: honour math and statistics as opposed to GOP peddled lies used to discredit distinguished members of our party.
I expect members of the media, both from the GOP and not-necessarily GOP but Clinton-haters like Cillizza and Dowd peddle this myth again if Hillary is the nominee, and it must be fought as well, or at least, exposed now. Their lies have no place here.
3:56 AM PT: To see Rachel Maddow's comparison of the two myths, read the transcript of her 7/23/15 show:
I understand why Republicans want to tell each other this story. It delegitimizes the whole Clinton presidency in the same way they tried for years to delegitimize the Obama presidency saying he wasn`t really the president. He swooped in from Kenya somehow to steal it. They don`t like to think they`ve been beaten fair and square.