The fugitive president Feb 22nd 2001 From The Economist print edition

We wish Bill Clinton a quiet retirement, without any tiresome opportunities to again be the “comeback kid”

IMAGINE his astonishment. Bill Clinton had served his country for eight long years, selflessly occupying a rather old piece of state property. In that cause, and to ensure that no inferior being could finagle his way into the nation’s highest office, he used that property in the most efficient way, raising donations from people fortunate enough to come for coffee or to use its bedrooms. Whenever he was faced with an onslaught from prosecutors, political opponents, scorned women or journalists bent on denying the American people their rightful choice as leader, he used all the gifts given him by God and the Yale law faculty to ensure his survival. A commandment or two might have been broken on the way, but it really depends on what you mean by “broken”. And now, after all that, he is being vilified by people who previously paid him to call them his friends. More counselling from Jesse Jackson will be needed—and fully deserved.

His crime? That, in his final days in office, he applied his acute legal mind to the question of whether Marc Rich, a philanthropist and friend of world peace, should be pardoned for having evaded millions of dollars of American taxes. Among others, Mr Rich’s ex-wife—such a forgiving person, an example to many other spouses—had lobbied on his behalf. Denise Rich had also given money and chattels to good causes such as the Democratic Party, the Clinton Presidential Library and the new Clinton home, but cannot all intelligent people keep such different matters in different mental compartments? Some also say that he flouted the usual procedure with pardons, by not consulting the Justice Department fully in advance. Do they not know, these critics, many of them former supporters, of Mr Clinton’s famed intellectual dexterity? As he put it himself, in an article in the New York Times, he had really been quite restrained: “Indeed, other friends and financial supporters sought pardons in cases which, after careful consideration...I determined I could not grant.”

But you have to feel sorry for them, those former supporters. Imagine their astonishment. In speeches, in television interviews, in newspaper columns, even in private, they had defended this man for eight years. Some papers, such as The Economist, had, after initially supporting him, decided early on that Mr Clinton was too dishonest an individual to be trusted with the presidency, however clever he might be. But such views were only for muddle-heads. Mr Clinton was a much-maligned person, being hounded by people who were politically or financially biased, or for private matters that had no bearing on his role as leader of the free world. So he committed perjury before a federal investigation? A mere technicality, and after all a lie told about the very private matter of an affair with a junior member of his staff.

Always the boy from Hope

Now, those former supporters are also in need of therapy, for they have suffered greatly. They are seeking this comfort chiefly through the op-ed pages, in which they have queued up to say how the pardon for Mr Rich has entirely changed their view of Mr Clinton. They have been betrayed.

Their pain is not, alas, over. For, along with his long record of legal and moral tightrope-walking, Bill Clinton is known for one other thing. You can never count him out. Politically brilliant, he thrives on the limelight, on being a big beast in the political jungle. Who else would have dreamt of moving his presidential office to Harlem when challenged about its extravagance? Even now, as he fumes at his friends’ refusal to return his calls or pay his speaking fees, he will be planning a comeback. Here is some advice for his supporters: don’t let him back—though, God knows, we’re sure you will.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001