A Democrat Falls in Love with McCain by ROBERT ZIMMER, JR. Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2000 LOS ANGELES, CA. Would that it were 1936. We're not waxing nostalgic for the Great Depression, nor World War II on the horizon, but for the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. His apolitical leadership, vision, and willingness to try new solutions steered America through one if its darkest eras. Neither physical (Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair) nor personal (Roosevelt was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife) handicap prevented him from tending to the business of the nation, and indeed, the world. The press of the time valued personal privacy; they did not even photograph the president from the waist down, much less dig into other waist-down matters. We can only speculate as to how the nation would have reacted if President Roosevelt's infidelities were generally known. I suspect, however, that Americans would respond much like they did when the ugly details of President Clinton’s sex scandal were laid bare. They were repulsed but they still thought he was doing a great job.

RELATED LINKS... Yahoo! Full Coverage Common Cause Project Vote Smart Road to the White House Lewinsky Guide Zogby.com McCain's Official Site Bradley's Official Site Bush's Official Site Gore's Official Site   Jump to the FRONT PAGE of...   .

Under the stewardship of President Clinton, the nation has reached the pinnacle of its economic health and stands poised to soar to new heights in the 21st century. But due to term limits and the modern press’ revolting sexual voyeurism, President Clinton’s time is nearly up. If we could re-elect Bill Clinton this November, would we? Hard to say. We could all do without the distracting investigations, the sophomoric sex scandals, the outright lies to cover his ass. But what I think most Americans would re-elect, if they could, would be his charisma, his reform-minded policies; and his willingness to forgo ideology for practical solutions, even at great political cost. Which 2000 candidate fits that description best? It is not the heir apparent to the Democratic nomination, Al Gore, who in deed and word not only appears to be an old-fashioned liberal, but an old-fashioned slick politician. The eras of both have passed. Who best to carry on the spirit of the Clinton presidency? How about Republican candidate John McCain? Is it blasphemous to favorably compare McCain and Clinton? Mr. McCain would likely think so, but I say: Not at all. Set aside the Lewinsky scandal, and let's look at the virtues of these two men: In 1992, President Clinton appealed over and over again to a younger, disenfranchised segment of the voters, appearing on MTV and the Arsenio Hall show. He was at ease, funny, and candid in a variety of unscripted formats, traveling across the country in a bus. McCain has used the same modus operandi, preferring direct, freewheeling interaction with the public and the press. He has stated over and over that one of his missions is to end the cynicism that keeps young people from voting. I met then-Governor/candidate Clinton when his campaign visited Austin, Texas. After a rally speech at the UT-Austin campus, he met privately with a group of student leaders and dazzled all of us -- regardless of political persuasion -- with his charisma, specificity, and candor. There was not an issue we threw at him that he did not a) know a ton about, and b) have a personal anecdote about. I know I was among many voters -- of all parties -- in whom Clinton re-energized a hope for presidential politics. Sadly, President Clinton’s 1998 vow that he “did not have sexual relations...” rendered his promises unbelievable for the rest of his presidency, and ended many people's (not just voters’, but friends’ and colleagues’) faith in the man. But what still lives on is that part of us that responded to Clinton -- his populism, candor, and his reformer's mind. McCain’s surging support among Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike is proof of this, because he pushes the same buttons. Candidate, then president Clinton was not afraid to step outside the shield of his handlers. (Until, of course, creepy adviser/pollmonger Dick Morris suggested Clinton act more “presidential,” thus cementing the president's return to Reagan-style media relations.) McCain is cut out of the same self-reliant cloth, unlike George W. Bush, who makes an ass out of himself practically any time he deviates from the pre-programmed agenda prepared by his handlers. The Bush campaign finally woke up after their candidate was trounced in New Hampshire: they have embarked on a pitiable effort to copy McCain’s open, freewheeling style. Another trait Clinton and McCain share is a willingness to commit to something because it's right -- because it works. Clinton went to bat against the tobacco companies; he fought to let gays serve in the military. He advocated a balanced budget, ratification of NAFTA, welfare reform, air war against Serbia -- all seemingly Republican turf, and all politically dangerous. The cynical press and pundits term this “triangulation,” as if it were all a game of political masturbation for the president and his advisers. In practical terms, Clinton was simply doing what needs to be done, and to hell with the labels. The American people like that, and that’s why they like McCain’s plans too. He's taken the extraordinarily risky stand in favor of campaign finance reform, because it's the right thing to do. Even though it may cost him South Carolina votes, McCain bluntly criticized Bush for appearing at Bob Jones College, which prohibits interracial dating amongst its students. McCain also had the courage to state that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol, and that it ought not to fly over the South Carolina capitol. Where has George W. Bush been? Racking up a record $57 million in sleazy campaign donations, naturally -- and of late, pandering to back-asswards conservatives, pretending like you can walk through shit and not get it on your shoes. People are sick and tired of politicians who respond like this: Al Gore was asked in a town meeting whether he used Microsoft OS or Macintosh. He hemmed and hawed for almost a minute, repeating the question twice and giving a mini-lecture on computer technology, before finally stating that he used Mac for a long while but had software problems and switched to Windows. In short: waffle, waffle, best of both worlds, offend nobody. If the VP can’t even answer this question directly, what will he do when the tough stuff comes up? George W. Bush was asked about the Confederate flag issue: “I think it's up to the state to decide.” A meaningless non-answer designed neither to overtly offend African-Americans, or the South Carolina white Republican establishment by calling them what they are: racist. Gentlemen: answer the damn questions. Honestly, succinctly, and without undue political calculation. We, the people, aren't stupid, and can see through you. Be like McCain. Like Clinton used to be before he lost his way. Or, frankly, lose the election, and the faith of the voters. John McCain’s got ideas. He tells you what they are. If you like them, great. If not, tough. He wants you to vote for him because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He doesn’t care if his being elected is right or wrong for the party. Screw the party. What about the country? Contrast this with Mr. Bush: “People are welcome to come into the [Republican] party, that's fine with me,"' Bush said. "I just don't want Democrats coming in to vote against me because they think my opponent will be easier to beat in November. We're trying to get rid of the Clinton era, not reinforce it." Dead wrong, Governor. Most people want to keep the Clinton era going, because minus Lewinsky, it's worked. They don't care if it continues with a Democrat, a Republican, a Reformer, or a Blue Bandit from Uranus. They're tired of partisan politics, and calculated divisiveness. They want a government that transcends party politics, that searches for ways to better the country in the most efficient way possible. And they want a courageous president, who gives a straight answer to a straight question. How about John McCain? ROBERT ZIMMER, Jr., IS FROM W.'S TEXAS. HE VOTED FOR BILL CLINTON IN 1992 AND 1996, AND IS RELENTLESSLY MOCKED FOR IT BY HIS DIE-HARD REPUBLICAN FAMILY.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times pop culture critic Robert Zimmer, Jr.