Bill Clinton says Romney win would be 'calamitous.' Why the harsh turn?

Just last week, Clinton called Romney's business record 'sterling,' undercutting a key Obama campaign attack. Now he's slamming Romney harder than the president's own team.

Carolyn Kaster/AP
Former President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama wave to the crowd during a campaign event at the Waldorf Astoria, Monday, June 4, in New York.

Bill Clinton slammed Mitt Romney hard at a Manhattan fundraiser on Monday night, saying that a Romney presidency “would be calamitous for our country and the world.”

Mr. Romney’s economic policies would mimic some of the austerity programs now in place in Europe, added the most recent former Democratic president. At the moment, that belt-tightening does not seem to be working.

“Who would have ever thought that the Republicans who made a living for decades deriding Old Europe would embrace their economic policies?” said Mr. Clinton.

Well, that’s a pretty quick about-face, isn’t it? Only last week Clinton referred to Romney’s “sterling” business record. The remark was made in the context of an interview in which Clinton criticized Romney’s economic record, but it undercut the Obama team’s attack on Romney’s leadership of private equity firm Bain Capital, and led to days of fact-free pundit analysis of the possibly tense relationship between the past and current Democratic Party leaders.

So why has Clinton brought the harsh now? On Monday he was tougher on Romney than Obama himself has been, going after the man personally, by name.

For one thing it’s likely he thinks he needs to make up for the “sterling” remark. We have no idea whether he knew what he was doing with that – predicting Clinton’s motivations has always eluded us. But if he’s going to serve as a Surrogate Number One (sorry Joe B.) for the coming campaign, he’s got to stay on board the Obama train. And all indications are that the reelection team wants Clinton to be their biggest non-Obama political weapon.

Second, Clinton was making a particular economic argument to a sophisticated audience at the home of Obama campaign bundler and billionaire hedge fund guy Marc Lasry. Presumably there were lots of other Wall Street types who paid the $40,000 necessary to get in, and they follow what’s happening in Europe at the moment. It isn’t good. Liberal economists such as Paul Krugman have continually insisted that budget-cutting policies instituted by such conservative leaders as Britain’s David Cameron are making things worse, not better. The European nations that are best weathering the storm are those traditional big-government social democracies that Republicans love to deride, according to Krugman.

Finally – and we just can’t help ourselves here – Clinton may have been thinking ahead to Hillary 2016. DC was abuzz with yet another Clinton boomlet on Sunday after House minority leader Nancy Pelosi gave an interview to the San Francisco Chronicle in which she predicted a female president in her lifetime – Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Asked about a Clinton 2016 race, Pelosi said “Why wouldn’t she run? She’s a magnificent secretary of state. She’s our shot [that election cycle].”

If that is ever going to happen, Bill Clinton needs to refrain from offending important Democratic constituencies. If Obama loses and his supporters think Clinton did not help enough, things would be that much tougher within the party for Hillary Clinton in coming years.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.