On leadership

I try never merely to link to or quote another writer, for what otherwise is the purpose of a web log? But sometimes I find my own views so cogently expressed elsewhere that there is little purpose in embellishment. In his column in the Evening Standard yesterday (not online, I think), Francis Wheen recounted the shady financial dealings, influence-peddling, mendacity and foreign-policy fecklessness of a man who will address the Labour Party conference today, and concluded:

When Clinton [for it is he] joins him in Manchester tomorrow, the PM ought to feel rather encouraged to see this sleazy, dishonest and downright useless president being greeted as an itinerant saint, only a few years after disgracing himself and his office. If Slick Willie can pull it off, anyone can.

I'm chastened to recall how strongly I wished for Clinton's nomination and election in 1992 (and, to a lesser extent, his re-election in 1996). He appeared to be a representative New Democrat, aware of how far his party had divorced itself from the political mainstream in the 1970s and 1980s. I was encouraged that, in choosing his running-mate, he looked to Al Gore (for whom I then had a lot of respect), ostensibly on his right, rather than construct a 'balanced' ticket emblematic of a supposed party unity. The party's platform in 1992 used language on law and order that sounds modest and sensible - "the simplest and most direct way to restore order in our cities is to put more police on the streets" - yet was never associated with the candidatures of a McGovern or a Dukakis. Clinton's language on welfare reform and defence, and his willingness to challenge Democratic interest groups, were apt and eloquent (surprisingly so, for a man who made an interminable and disastrous nomination speech for Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democrat convention).

Yet, as Francis points out, Clinton turned out to be a useless President and an appalling human being. I hope that at least one of the delegates at the Labour Party conference has the gumption to heckle Clinton on his support for capital punishment; however unlikely to work, it may be the only way to cut through the hypocrisy and unwarranted adulation.

Meanwhile, on the Prime Minister, Stephen Pollard not only expresses my own sentiments but also - weirdly, uncannily - does so in exactly the words I would have chosen:

What a load of hypocritical tossers (pardon my language but it's what they are) those Labour members are. They've spent the past decade bitching about Blair, and now that he's off into the sunset they cheer him to the rafters. Well live with it, you idiots. You're the ones who wanted rid of him, forced him to announce his departure, and rendered him impotent. Ha-bloody-ha: now you're going to have to live with the consequence: Mr Unelectable.