Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Washington fails to catch poll fever as Post sounds for Clinton

Rupert Cornwell
Thursday 31 October 1996 01:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

With a damningly tepid endorsement from the Washington Post ringing in his ears, President Bill Clinton yesterday began here the final campaigning of his national political career, a coast-to-coast swing that is set to culminate on 5 November with his overwhelming re-election to a second term in the White House.

From this industrial city west of Detroit, the Clinton victory progress will move across the country to California and then back to Florida and up the east coast to New Jersey. He will visit more than a dozen states, including places like Arizona, Florida, and Texas where Democrats normally have no chance - except in a year like 1996. Here in Michigan, usually a key upper-Midwestern battleground state, he enjoys a commanding lead.

Behind him, Mr Clinton left a capital trying to extract a little excitement from the continuing controversy over dubious campaign contributions to the Democratic party, a sidelight to an election season which has been one of the dullest on record but, at a total cost of $1.6bn or more, far and away the most expensive.

The Washington Post's endorsement amounted to a weary opting for the lesser of two evils. "The choice for President this year is pretty bleak," wrote the paper, which had been an enthusiastic Clinton supporter in 1992. On many occasions, "the strongest single argument for either candidate has been that he's not the other." On "too many fundamental issues," Mr Clinton's administration had been "disappointing, deficient and simply tawdry". Mr Dole, however, was if anything worse, with "little or nothing to say to the American public. He gives no affirmative reason why he should be President; his campaign offers several reasons why he should not." Mr Clinton's shortcomings were more evident and inescapable than four years ago, but he might become better at the job, the Post concluded. "On that uncertain basis, we choose Bill Clinton."

As for Mr Dole, after some dark and and scowling performances in recent days he has become more cheerful - a clue perhaps that he has already come to terms with his likely defeat next week.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in