Cross posted from Raising Kaine
Apparently, with the caucuses and primaries about to begin, Bill and Hillary Clinton have shifted tactics and are now claiming that the two of them constituted a 'co-presidency" during the 1990s.
As part of the Clinton strategy, the former president is playing an increasingly prominent public role as an advocate for his wife. He appears to have overcome concerns within the campaign over how closely she should associate her candidacy with his time in office and over whether his appearances could draw attention away from her.
Both Clintons are making the case that theirs was a co-presidency -- an echo of Bill Clinton's controversial statement during the 1992 campaign that voters would get "two for the price of one" if they elected him. At times, the former president has seemed to cast the current race as a referendum on his administration.
Two questions spring to mind here. First, is this true? Were the Clintons really a "co-presidency" as they are now suggesting? Second, is this smart political strategy for Hillary to tie herself so closely to her husband?
On the latter question, the political strategy might be sound here, but only up to a point. No doubt, the American people remember the Clinton years fondly, especially in contrast to the disastrous (in every way) Bush administration. There are a number of risks here, however.
For starters, the Clinton administration had its bumps, including the failed health care initiative and a series of (relatively minor) scandals (or alleged scandals). Also, I'd argue that what worked for the "peace and prosperity" 1990s might not work for the challenges and threats we're facing today in the world. More to the point, I'm not sure if Clinton administration policies are what voters are looking for in today's world.
For instance, is "free trade" -- NAFTA, for example -- what people want today? The Clinton administration did, after all, take the lead on NAFTA; is that something Hillary Clinton wants voters to be reminded about right now? I have my doubts.
With regard to the Clinton administration being a co-presidency of Bill and Hillary, I simply don't remember that being the case, certainly not after the 1994 Republican landslide. If anything, I recall the post-1995 Clinton administration as more like a Clinton-Gore co-presidency (if anything), or maybe a Clinton-Greenspan-Rubin co-presidency (fiscal conservatism, the end of "the era of big government," individual -- but most definitely NOT corporate -- welfare, etc.). But honestly, I can't recall a Bill-Hillary "co-presidency" after 1994. Is my memory failing me? Does anyone else remember this? Or, is it simply Bill Clinton exaggerating in order to help his wife, just like a few weeks ago he said he had always been against the Iraq war? As we demonstrated, that simply was not true. Nor, as far as I can determine, is the current claim about a Bill and Hillary "co-presidency."
P.S. Also, during and after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I seem to recall the Clintons barely even talking to each other, with photos of Chelsea separating the two of them as they walked across the White House lawn, etc. Anyone else have a different recollection?