Former New Jersey Sen. Bradley is gaining on Gore because the latter, with his newly sandblasted owl eyes and his weirdly bulging, gym-hewn mammaries, seems slicker and slicker, a weightless creature of the Washington anthill despite his recent emergency eviction of campaign headquarters to his home state of Tennessee. Bradley’s drowsy, shambling style looks increasingly attractive to registered Democrats (like me) who are fed up with the narcissistic Clintons, but time will tell whether Bradley can re-create America’s aw-shucks Gary Cooper past or whether he will founder under the massive daily media bombardment that is politics today.

Other news of the past two weeks includes the official announcement of his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination by Arizona Sen. John McCain — who has given me the willies since his TV appearances in the months leading up to the impeachment vote. I continue to be dismayed by the coddling that McCain is getting by liberal Democratic journalists — a suspiciously easy ride that suggests he is being strategically used by the opposing party to help derail Bush’s onrushing electoral train.

The disciplined but darkly guarded McCain would make a good captain of the Praetorian Guard, but I just don’t see him in the Oval Office except in a “Doctor Strangelove” or “Fail-Safe” scenario. With his baleful eyes and unnervingly phoned-in smiles (always a beat too late), McCain utterly lacks the expansiveness, relaxed charisma and formidable managerial aptitude of Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose record as supreme commander of the Allied forces in World War II led to his elevation to the presidency.

As for the speech given by actor Warren Beatty at a Los Angeles awards ceremony last week, the televised excerpts were banal in content and nauseatingly coy in style. The man is a walking pair of parentheses, and his putative presidential candidacy is a very bad joke. All those filthy-rich Hollywood stars and moguls, with their smug, dated liberal rhetoric, should stop preaching to Washington about expanding the bureaucracy and endow their own private foundations instead for charity as well as arts grants.

The frontier between politics and art was commandeered for the past two weeks by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in his attack on the “Sensation” show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, a once dignified institution that has in my view disgraced itself by this detour into the tacky. Of the behavior of some museum curators and library directors, Salon reader Carl A. Moore writes to ask “why liberals charged with the public trust go out of their way to incense the public.”

The rote attacks on Giuliani have been deafening. While the mayor certainly exceeded his authority in demanding that the entire show be stopped (rather than simply denouncing individual works that did not merit public funding), I am frankly enjoying his assault on the arts establishment, which is in dire need of a shake-up. I have nothing but contempt for Brooklyn Museum director Arnold Lehman, who was hired two years ago and whose suitability for that position, on the basis of the present debacle, seems questionable.

“What a whiny slug!” I declared as Lehman nervously defended himself on TV. He struck me as an affected provincial oblivious to the fact that the zenith in campy collections of 1950s Tupperware and Formica kitchen tables was about, oh, 15 years ago. The liberal casuists who sprang to unqualified defense of Lehman and his show (which includes not just Chris Ofili’s dung- and porn-adorned Madonna but a rotting cow’s head and a formaldehyde-suspended bisected pig) seem to have lost sight of the larger question: What should be the role and status of art in the United States?

Since the Puritan hegemony of three centuries ago, it has been a struggle for art to win acceptance here. Each of these incidents of religious desecration or of ostentatious decadent display (I speak as a sympathetic theorist of decadence in “Sexual Personae”) simply poisons the cultural atmosphere and ensures popular hostility to art and artists.

The price for this pointless provocation will be paid by schoolchildren whose arts programs are gutted for lack of funding. Sure enough, Republican presidential candidate Elizabeth Dole has just responded to the Brooklyn exhibit (which she calls “highly offensive”) by calling for the complete abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts, which had nothing to do with this show.

As an arts educator, I think that the behavior of the Brooklyn Museum has been self-interested and shortsighted. I want to raise the prestige of art in this country; I want to expand opportunities for young artists and to radically increase funding for community arts projects. The entire future of American art is at stake.

How ironic that Jane Alexander rejoined her actor friends on the barricades last week to support the Brooklyn Museum, since in “American Canvas,” her valedictory report as she left the NEA chairmanship two years ago, she sharply criticized the elitism separating American artists from the communities they should serve. The Brooklyn show is a perfect example of the improper diversion of public monies — in this case to aggrandize a single British collector, an obnoxious advertising executive of dubious taste.

At the end of the 20th century, when popular culture has triumphed, the mission of museums must be to evangelize for art, to demonstrate art’s higher meanings and continuing relevance to a mass audience that will otherwise be consumed in the blood-and-guts literalism of slasher films and shoot’em-up action-adventures. The Brooklyn show illustrates the utter bankruptcy and sterility of the avant-garde, which collapsed 30 years ago and is now desperately grasping at straws to get a reaction, even of disgust, from an indifferent public.

Great works of art, like the monumental “Laocovn” (with its giant serpent strangling the agonized Trojan priest and his two sons), can be made out of Hellenistic sensationalism — coincidentally a focus of my advanced seminar in aesthetics this semester at the University of the Arts. But the most lurid works in the Brooklyn show are pure kitsch. If I want to see carcasses or body parts floating in formaldehyde, I’ll go to the M|tter Museum of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia — a spectacular and grisly 19th century medical collection that I recommend to everyone.

Contemporary art, with its postmodernist gimmicks, is so divorced from science that Damien Hirst’s high-school-project rot-and-fly cycle strikes some museum-goers as a profound revelation. (Wow, nature exists! Rise and shine, Manhattan!) We’re back to Fellini’s “La Dolce Vita,” which four decades ago showed the cul de sac of modern intellectualism in scenes where chic partygoers raptly listen to nature sounds on a tape recorder and where an erudite, angst-dazed father murders his children in their beds.

Let’s get past this adolescent wallowing in slack “oppositional” art. The Romantic era of “subversive” gestures is over. As I have consistently maintained since my 1991 defense of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe in Tikkun (where I derided his sentimentalizing liberal supporters), no self-respecting avant-garde artist should be on the government dole. Free speech protections in the United States do not extend to financial support of “cutting-edge” new art by taxpayers. Commissioned projects — whether by the Pharaohs, the Medicis, the popes or the French kings — always require the artist’s subordination to the values and publicity needs of the patron.

And I’m just as sick of “Catholic-bashing” as Giuliani himself. I may be an atheist, but I was raised in Italian Catholicism, and it remains my native culture. I resent the double standard that protects Jewish and African-American symbols and icons but allows Catholicism to be routinely trashed by supercilious liberals and ranting gay activists. Missing from media accounts was that this Brooklyn Museum flap disastrously broke in the midst of a furor over the alleged anti-Semitism of the Irish Catholic presidential wannabe Pat Buchanan.

That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris Ofili’s dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice. The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country — as witnessed by the placard of a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a demonstrator outside the museum on opening day. Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?

As I wrote last year in the progressive London magazine Index on Censorship, culture has shifted as we approach the millennium. Through “over-repetition and feeble imitation,” I asserted, transgression and subversion have lost their once-potent charge: “We should be concerned now not with defiling and defaming traditional beliefs but in reconstructing out of the nihilistic ruins left by modernism and post-structuralism some enlightened new system of affirmative spiritual and political values.”

I oppose Mayor Giuliani’s arbitrary and needlessly inflammatory use of city power to intimidate and harass an arts institution, but I applaud the position he has taken against an arrogant, pretentious, parasitic arts establishment that has made a mockery of art and injured its reputation in the eyes of the nation at large. The Brooklyn Museum has turned itself into Madame Tussaud’s Wax Works — a collegiate carnival and tinny video game for desensitized poseurs who fiddle while Rome burns.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Richard Rail writes to ask my view of the ongoing controversy
about literary critic and Palestinian spokesman Edward Said, whom the September issue of Commentary accused of fabricating details of his childhood and adolescence in Jerusalem. Rail observes that “today’s Left seems even more dishonest than the old Left of Stalin’s day” and that it is “increasingly comprised of those who force fit ‘reality’ to their ideology, inventing and lying as they go.”

My admiration of Edward Said is on the record in my review of his 1993 book “Culture and Imperialism” in the Washington Post. Said is a true man of the world, an intellectual who has blended art and politics in a sophisticated way that makes most American campus leftists look like callow schoolboys. That Said did embroider elements of his history seems to be so, and he must take responsibility for it. However, the exaggerations don’t fundamentally alter his brief against the European interventions in the Near East that led to the creation of Israel and the unjust displacement of Palestinians.

More troubling to me, as I observed in my Sept. 30 op-ed piece on archaeology and education in the Wall Street Journal, is Said’s pivotal role in introducing Michel Foucault to American literary criticism and, second, Said’s slighting of the enormous contributions to modern knowledge made by Egyptologists and the great schools of Oriental studies. I also wish that, over the past two decades, Said had been more forthright in publicly decrying the weak scholarship of his academic followers, who have little feeling for literature and art and who have vitiated the humanities programs in this country.

As the current president of the Modern Language Association, however, Said has indeed tried to swing the profession back to concern with literary values, though a great deal of damage has already been done. In summary, whatever his sins of omission or commission, they do not alter my view of Edward Said’s stature as a world-class scholar, whose only peer is my distinguished mentor Harold Bloom.

On the pop front, I must make a terrible confession. I actually liked the dreaded Gwyneth Paltrow for one fleeting moment — in her parody of Sharon Stone on a recent repeat broadcast of “Saturday Night Live.” Though Stone herself denounced the skit (ostensibly because of its jab at her “creepy” husband), it was clearly Stone’s incandescent femme-fatale divinity that inspired Paltrow to transcend her usual simpering self-consciousness. The satire was hilarious, and Paltrow carried it off with lighthearted drag queen flair.

Finally, I must register bitter disappointment with the new female private-eye series “Snoops,” which ABC flagged with tantalizing ads all summer. Its beamish creator, the overextended producer David E. Kelley, didn’t develop this program a whit beyond its initial hip concept. What stilted writing, limp direction and muddy camera work! Assignment: close scrutiny of three episodes of Aaron Spelling’s “Charlie’s Angels” (1976-81) to see how such sex-and-mystery shows can be crafted for the ages. Discuss among yourselves!

And there’s no excuse for the show’s prodigal waste of the mercurial talents of Gina Gershon. She has a cerebral Suzanne Pleshette directness and intensity with a tough touch of Ida Lupino and a whiff of the mischievous Juliet Berto (see Jacques Rivette’s “Celine and Julie Go Boating”). For Sarah Siddons’ sake, will someone please write Gina Gershon a decent script? Until then, I’ll continue to revel in the vintage films of the American Movie Classics and Turner Classic Movies channels. Long live old Hollywood!

I’ve mostly dismissed stories about rivalry and tension between Obama and Clinton, at least after 2008, as media mischief. But the former president’s comments last week in an interview with Harvey Weinstein on CNN can’t easily be explained away, even as the two men get ready to put up a united front to raise a ton of money tonight.

Clinton got most attention last week for calling Romney’s Bain Capital career “sterling,” and criticizing the Obama campaign’s efforts to focus on the occasions in Romney’s career when he bought companies, cut costs, threw employees out of work, got the government to bail out pension funds and provide a safety net  – while Bain and Romney pocketed a small fortune, no matter what happened to the firm. Apparently Clinton doesn’t see a problem with that. “I don’t think we ought to get into the position where we say, ‘this is bad work, this is good work. There’s no question that, in terms of getting up, going to the office, and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who’s been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.” No one is suggesting Romney isn’t qualified to be president; that’s what the other team says about Obama.

I’ll get back to that outrage in a second, but I want to talk about the Clinton comment I found far more awful and inexplicable, which got less attention: his warm words for top birther Donald Trump, and his unbelievable weasel words when asked about scurrilous lies that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. It was Harvey Weinstein, subbing for Piers Morgan, who got both the Romney and Trump admissions from Clinton, but the Trump statement was far more disturbing. When Weinstein mentioned Trump’s latest foray into crackpot birtherism and asked, “How do you put that out of the minds of the American public … once and for all?”  Clinton offered his worst answer since saying “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” He told Weinstein:

I don’t know. You know, Donald Trump has been uncommonly nice to Hillary and me. We’re all New Yorkers. And I like him. And I love playing golf with him. But the evidence is pretty clear that President Obama was born in Hawaii and this whole election should not be about any of these side issues. It really ought to be about the decisions that each of them will make on where we are and where we need to go.

“I like him” is a pretty shoddy thing to say about the guy who’s humiliating your ally, the president, in psychological and racial ways. Even worse is Clinton weakly nodding that “the evidence is pretty clear that President Obama was born in Hawaii.” This was a time for that old Clinton, the angry, righteous guy who ripped Chris Wallace a new one, to attack the birther conspiracy as even lower than the right’s efforts to claim he peddled drugs, fathered an illegitimate black child and had a role in the death of his friend Vince Foster. Even assuming he truly likes Trump, which I find hard to believe, he’s even more required to tell his friend to shut his trap and get back to firing folks on “Celebrity Apprentice.” Now is the time for even erstwhile friends of Trump who have a conscience to usher him off the political stage, and to sharply criticize his birther nonsense.

What does Trump have that Clinton needs, anyway? His wife isn’t New York senator anymore. She says she doesn’t want to run for president, though who knows what will happen in four years. Even if she does, is Trump’s support and money really worth defending the narcissistic fat-cat’s racist bullying of our first black president?

It may be that Clinton’s Trump defense is related to his Bain Capital defense, and both have to do with protecting his dubious legacy: making the Democrats competitive with Republicans in raising money from Wall Street and, more broadly, the FIRE sector — Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, the sector that gave lavishly to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008 but ultimately favored Obama. While Clinton has expressed regret for signing bills repealing Glass-Steagall and essentially waving a “Go” sign at the predators of Wall Street, he can’t quite quit them.

It’s the same reason that Cory Booker, Harold Ford Jr., Steven Rattner, Ed Rendell (whose populist instincts I normally respect), Sen. Mark Warner and other opportunistic Dems have been doing their best to show finance capital that they’re the good Democrats, the ones who still love Wall Street, even at the expense of the president.

Trust me, if Obama loses, there will be a huge push to blame it on his seeming hostility to Wall Street – a measure of what spoiled little princes and brats those masters of the universe are. Obama once called them “fat cats” – but he otherwise deferred to them, resisting all efforts to break up the banks, limit their bonuses, force them to write down mortgages in default or otherwise help the victims of their casino high jinks. Still, there will be a long list of Democrats – look for Evan Bayh! – to tell us Obama’s “class warfare” cost him the election, and that the party needs to repair its ties to Wall Street, and the top 1 percent more generally, to win back the White House.

Of course, ever since the 2010 midterm debacle I’ve been pointing out that Americans who blame the economy’s troubles on Wall Street voted for Obama in 2008, but Republicans in 2010, according to CNN exit polls. Wall Street may be offended by Obama’s milquetoast rebukes, but many Americans have seen him as their champion.

I think Bill Clinton is trying to telegraph to his old Wall Street friends — and to friends of his Clinton Global Initiative, an admirable philanthropic juggernaut that mainly relies on flattering rich people to get them to do what people of conscience should do anyway — that the young president has taken a wrong turn, and other Democrats don’t agree with his criticizing the financial sector. Let’s hope American voters fed up with Wall Street don’t hear the former president’s imprecations.

I’ve been a huge defender of Bill Clinton over the years but I’ve got to say, his Bain comments were disloyal and his Trump comments were offensive. He better raise a lot of money for the president Monday night to balance out that betrayal — of Obama, and of the party that’s struggling to find its moral and political moorings after its damaging dalliance with the men who wrecked the economy.

Huh? Of course Obama cut taxes for the middle class in the 2009 Recovery Act, which Republicans consistently lie about, and Clinton controversially raised taxes on high earners (Romney would lower them) to cut the deficit in 1993. Meanwhile, Obama has left President Clinton’s welfare reform alone, despite rising rates of poverty and unemployment in the recession.

On Tuesday Romney took his attack up a notch, suggesting that “a personal beef” between the two men accounts for Obama allegedly rejecting Clinton’s centrism.

According to Romney, Clinton understood that “Democrats should no longer try to govern by proposing a new program for every problem. President Obama tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship. It’s enough to make you wonder if maybe it was a personal beef with the Clintons … but really it runs much deeper.”

There he is again, mean ol’ Mitt, trying to hype reports of personal tension between the last two Democratic presidents. It’s silly. Nobody denies there was trouble on the 2008 campaign trail during the Democratic primary, when the former president smarted at Obama camp charges that his overenthusiastic support for his wife’s candidacy, and diminishing of Obama’s, smacked of racism. And today, nobody suggests that the two guys are sneaking off to basketball games together or planning their next joint family trips. But whatever personal strain may persist, they put their problems behind them a long time ago.

Clinton stumped enthusiastically for Obama in 2008, and on behalf of the president and beleaguered Democrats in the 2010 midterms. Who can forget the current president calling on the past president to help him sell the idea of a compromise on the Bush tax cuts (to liberals, by the way) in December 2010 – and then walking away and leaving Clinton by himself at the lectern happily holding forth with the White House press corps (as Obama reportedly went off and did some Christmas shopping)? Currently Clinton is, of course, working hard to help Obama beat Romney. He recently attacked the presumptive Republican nominee for backing failed Bush policies “on steroids.”

As to the notion that Clinton was a centrist and Obama is a liberal: I think they’re both politicians with liberal hearts and centrist political instincts, working to make life better for the non-wealthy in an age when Republicans have become strident, extremist servants of the super-rich. President Clinton raised taxes on the rich. He signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, belatedly letting parents take time off after the birth of a child or when needed by a sick family member.  He let Newt Gingrich’s GOP shut down the government rather than agree to Medicare cuts; on that point, he might be more traditionally liberal than Obama, who entertained the idea of Medicare cuts while trying to get a “grand bargain” on the deficit last summer. (Since then, though, Clinton himself has come out in support of Simpson-Bowles, which would trim Medicare.)

Clinton vastly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is one main reason why low-income people don’t pay any federal withholding taxes – a scandal (according to all the GOP presidential contenders) that Romney’s tax plan would remedy by imposing taxes on low-wage earners. The EITC is the absolute best proof that it’s Romney who’s moved away from the appealing mainstream ideas of his party’s past, not Obama. The low-wage tax credit Clinton and Obama expanded was originally a Republican notion (inspired by Milton Friedman) to make poorly paying jobs an alternative to welfare. Signed into law by President Gerald R. Ford, it was expanded by George H.W. Bush, and also supported by George W. Bush.

It’s true that Clinton tried to pioneer a “Third Way” attempt at Democratic centrism, balancing the budget and ending “welfare as we know it.” He thought if he met increasingly radical Republicans halfway, the country might make progress. He thought wrong. Instead Romney’s party attacked the man Romney now purports to admire; attacked him viciously, from Day One, culminating in a nihilistic effort at impeachment for sexual indiscretions that are common in Washington, D.C.

What Romney is really trying to do now, of course, is cause trouble with the segment of the electorate that admired Hillary Clinton but took a while to warm up to Barack Obama in 2008, particularly the white working class, as well as white female Democrats and independents. I don’t see it working. I’m on record saying repeatedly that dismissing Clinton’s support with working-class whites as merely racism was mistaken and divisive when Democrats did it four years ago. Working-class voters had valid reasons to doubt the charismatic newcomer whose economic platform was marginally less progressive than Clinton’s, and who talked riskily – and naively, as it turned out – of a post-partisan rapprochement with Republicans.

But that doesn’t make those voters easy targets for Romney. His record as Bain Capital job destroyer combined with his enduring prep-school entitlement should make him less simpatico than Obama to those voters. Romney lacks Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” empathy for working-class folks; he comes across as the guy who’s more likely to cause them pain.

Oh, and Romney, by the way, wasn’t always such a Clinton admirer. In his book “Turnaround,” he tells the story of visiting the White House in 1999, while Clinton was president (h/t Andrew Kaczynski):

When we got through the Secret Service checkpoint for clearance at the West Wing, the agent handed each of us a badge to wear around our necks. Mine had a big, red A. I turned to Cindy and, in front of the agents, said, “Why do I have to wear this?” Thinking I was confused, she tried to explain that all visitors to the White House had to wear a badge. “I know that,” I responded, “I’m asking why I have to wear the red A around my neck. I’m not the one that cheated on my wife. He should be wearing the scarlet A- not me.” I grumbled all the way up the drive and into the West Wing lobby. The look on Cindy’s face was priceless.

What a jokester! What a hypocrite.

But the predictable Washington mixture of prurient interest and moral posturing has turned this incident into grist for the scandals-and-investigations mill. And now we have the attempts at somehow making this a winning partisan issue for Republicans. Chuck Grassley, the senator from Iowa who triumphed over adversity and became the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee despite being functionally illiterate, would like to know whether any White House staff also slept with escorts that evening. No one has made the claim, but Grassley’s asking just in case. (For a live peek at a future paranoid right-wing myth in its embryonic stage, read the comments on that Washington Times story: “I can just hear those paper shredders going a mile a minute in the white house, and the document forgers are being called in, you know the same ones that did the birth certificate.”) Grassley was on Fox last night to make sure viewers repeatedly heard baseless speculation as to the involvement of White House staff.

Rep. Pete King, Long Island Republican and stalwart publicity monger, has sent Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan a list of 50 questions about the scandal in order to make it appear that he is very seriously investigating this very serious incident.

For those outside Congress, for whom insinuating escort patronage by unnamed White House staff seems a bit of a reach, the game is to attempt to use the scandal to prove some point the fecklessness of Obama as a leader and his shameful failure to make everyone in Washington stop being so awful and wasteful all the time.

NRO’s Mark Steyn, after praising the fiscal discipline of the agent who attempted to bilk his escort (ugh), suggests that the moral of the story is that we pay too much for presidential security, and that all those agents and fancy bullet-proof Suburbans are wastes of taxpayer funds and evidence of broke post-Imperial America’s profligacy. Sarah Palin, who had every right to be personally aggrieved for once, after it was reported that the agent at the center of the scandal wrote gross sexist things about her on Facebook, was among the first to declare that the problem was with the “culture” Obama has created at the White House. (Karl Rove, smarter than most of these people, suggested that politicizing a Secret Service scandal was dumb and counterproductive. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, coincidentally, was elevated to his position under George W. Bush.)

The makeup of the Secret Service, obviously, has very little connection to the political party of the person occupying the White House. Like most American law enforcement agencies, it’s primarily white and overwhelmingly male, and, historically, the culture of the agency has had more than a whiff of machismo. These are not exactly the sort of public sector employees right-wingers get off on demonizing.

In fact, the right has had for years a sort of Clint Eastwood-inspired fantasy of the Secret Service agent as folk hero. Decent, hard-working men putting their lives on the line to protect a bunch of elitist ingrates. That ingratiating phony Bill Clinton and his frigid, hectoring monster of a wife weren’t deserving of such stolid, unflinching loyalty and service.

The fullest expression of this fantasy is in this classic chain email that made its way to every inbox in the nation during the second president Bush’s first term. According to this email, attributed to the unnamed author’s former neighbor, the president’s security detail was constantly disrespected by those awful Clintons and their terrible staff. Hillary Clinton was “arrogant and orally abusive.” “She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with” agents. “Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was to centrist. He despised all republicans.” Agents prayed for Bush to win the election, and their reward was the joy they all felt in the presence of President Bush and his amazing, wonderful wife.

This nonsense has its roots in fake anti-Hillary attacks, attributed to imaginary Secret Service members, that Republican operatives spread to sympathetic media voices starting more or less the day Bill took office. Former Secret Service agents do plenty of gossiping and bitching, most frequently to Ronald Kessler, but their complaints don’t tend to track quite so directly to right-wing fantasy narratives.

But a popular trope is of the upstanding agents blanching at being asked to look the other way as libidinous Democratic presidents — Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton — womanized. (Clinton was said to have threatened to fire agents who stymied his attempts to have trysts with Monica Lewinsky, though the agent who made the claim admitted to having invented it.) The pat moralism of the conservative Secret Service fantasy makes the agency’s lurid misadventure a bit funnier. It also explains why various people have to somehow convince themselves that the Obama administration somehow degraded the agency, through a lack of “management skills” or the widespread embrace of sexual deviance that is the logical end result of repealing the military’s ban on out gays and lesbians.

“[Obama's] out there running against himself now,” Clinton said. “Soon as he gets an opponent, it will be about the next four years — who do you think is going to take us in the right direction.”

Clinton also weighed in a few of the Republican candidates, saying of one-time nemesis Newt Gingrich that he respected the man’s ability to “think and do.” The former president was, however, momentarily lost for words when O’Reilly followed up by asking if he respected Gingrich “as a man.” Clinton tip-toed around the answer, then spent the next few moments criticizng the former speaker’s “scorched-earth” political approach.

When questioned about Mitt Romney, Clinton damned the former Massachusetts governor with praise for his Massachusetts health reform legislation. He stopped short, however, of issuing any endorsements for the Republican primary, saying only that he would vote for Barack Obama regardless in the general election. In fact, the closest he would get to voicing support for any of the candidates was when he mentioned that he liked Jon Huntsman — though he then quickly poked fun at the Utahan’s meager support in the polls.

You can find the full, 40-minute interview here.

First, let’s take in the list of Obama’s accomplishments as Chait describes them. They’re considerable:

His single largest policy accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, combines two sweeping goals—providing coverage to the uninsured and taming runaway medical-cost inflation—that Democrats have tried and failed to achieve for decades. Likewise, the Recovery Act contained both short-term stimulative measures and increased public investment in infrastructure, green energy, and the like. The Dodd-Frank financial reform, while failing to end the financial industry as we know it, is certainly far from toothless, as measured by the almost fanatical determination of Wall Street and Republicans in Congress to roll it back.

Beneath these headline measures is a second tier of accomplishments carrying considerable historic weight. A bailout and deep restructuring of the auto industry that is rapidly being repaid, leaving behind a reinvigorated sector in the place of a devastated Midwest. Race to the Top, which leveraged a small amount of federal seed money into a sweeping national wave of education experiments, arguably the most significant reform of public schooling in the history of the United States. A reform of college loans, saving hundreds of billions of dollars by cutting out private middlemen and redirecting some of the savings toward expanded Pell Grants. Historically large new investments in green energy and the beginning of regulation of greenhouse gases. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women. Elimination of several wasteful defense programs, equality for gays in the military, and consumer-friendly regulation of food safety, tobacco, and credit cards.

We could, and I do, quibble about details in each of Chait’s examples, but his overall point is important: Even if every measure he lists has its flaws, the list itself is impressive. That President Obama took office in the middle of the worst crisis since the Great Depression, and with a nominal Democratic majority in both houses, helps explain why some people still expected more, but we should still stop more often and acknowledge what’s been accomplished in the last three years.

Having conceded that, I think Chait’s piece suffers from big definitional problems. First, how do we define liberals? Polls show self-described liberal Democrats are happy with Obama – in Gallup’s weekly tracking polls upward of 75 percent approve of the job he’s doing (and the same was true for Clinton), and that’s been true since he took office. There’s no crisis of liberal support for the president.

Also, Chait’s roster of unreasonable “liberals” includes MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. That’s silly: Schultz, cited along with New York Times centrist Thomas Friedman, rails against politicians who refuse to cut the deficit by trimming so-called entitlements and raising taxes. But that’s exactly what Obama tried to do with his proposed debt-ceiling “grand bargain”; Republicans wouldn’t cooperate. Those guys aren’t liberals; Friedman is a formerly liberal, formerly smart writer who got rich and stopped paying attention. (You’d think he could at least pay someone to pay attention for him, so he’d stop asking Obama to do what Obama has already done.)

What about actual liberals, people to the left of Schultz and Friedman – people like Rachel Maddow and, OK, sure, me. Yes, some of us have demanded more from Obama – on the economy, on Wall Street regulation, on gay rights, on civil liberties. But you know what? That’s our job. And when Chait goes down the list of the ways liberals have been disappointed with Democratic presidents going all the way back to FDR, I found myself thinking, Good job, liberals! Because we were usually right, and the country’s a better place for our pushing.

While liberals lionize JFK today, Chait notes, during his presidency (cut short 48 years ago Tuesday) they criticized him for not moving faster on civil rights. Yes, they did. Kennedy was trying to find a way to hold his party together and postpone the departure of the Dixiecrats, and he needed pushing. Should Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have said, “OK, Mr. President, we’ll skip the March on Washington, we know you’re doing what you can.” Liberals were right to push Kennedy. (I am not trying to say that Obama is compromising on anything equivalent to the basic human rights of African Americans, just that on the social justice issues of their day, presidents need pushing.)

Similarly, while FDR gets more historic veneration from liberals (mainly because there’s almost no one here with us who actually lived through his presidency as an adult), his New Deal only came about because of left-wing agitation (and corporate desperation) in the first place. And liberals were right to criticize some of Roosevelt’s compromises: leaving most African-Americans out of the Social Security program (again to mollify Dixiecrats) and easing up on government spending in 1937 (to mollify conservatives and business leaders), which reversed some of the progress he’d made getting us beyond the Great Depression. Japanese internment was a shame that more liberals should have criticized.

In my adulthood, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got elected with liberal support but wound up disappointing the left, particularly on the economy. Sadly, both men accepted the Republican premise that the economic problems and social disorder of the late ’60s and early ’70s required that Democrats trim back on government and make nice with business. Chait himself admits that while we all love the outspoken human rights defending, “Habitat for Humanity” supporting ex-president we know today, we didn’t love Carter during his term, and for good reason:

The truth is that Carter’s domestic agenda carried only small bits of liberalism, and those small bits (a consumer-protection agency, tax reform) met with total failure in the Democratic Congress. Carter’s policy accomplishments tilted right of center—he deregulated the airline and trucking industries and cut the capital-gains tax. Most infuriatingly to liberals, Carter refused to push for comprehensive health-care reform. A Carter adviser later recalled that the president “did not see health care as every citizen’s right, nor did he think the government has an obligation to provide it.”

When it comes to Clinton, I think many liberals are frustrated with Obama not because of some supposed great contrast with his supposedly liberal predecessor, but because of similarities between the two. Both of these liberal presidents spent considerable political capital trying to compromise with Republicans, and they failed. That’s been a particular problem for Obama because he didn’t have the strong economy that made Clinton’s inability to wrest concessions from the GOP less painful.

It was precisely because Clinton failed to neutralize the critique of Democrats as the “big government” party that I objected to Obama’s effort to do the same thing in a time of economic crisis. Before it all fell apart, the president defended the idea of his deficit-cutting grand bargain to progressives. “Get this problem off the table,” he argued, “and then with some firm footing, with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future.” But Clinton already tried that, balancing the budget and endorsing a welfare reform plan largely crafted by Republicans. He believed that getting the issue of bloated government “off the table” would set the table for a progressive agenda. Of course, it didn’t work.

Before writing his New York magazine piece, Chait got a lot of attention for a scathing retort to Drew Westen’s left-wing critique of Obama that ran in the New York Times in August. Chait made a lot of good points; some of the things the left blames on Obama either didn’t happen, or couldn’t have happened otherwise given the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress. But he made one point I wanted to answer at the time, and didn’t. He accused Westen and other lefty Obama critics of romanticizing the power of the bully pulpit and the presidential speech:

Westen’s op-ed rests upon a model of American politics in which the president in the not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen’s telling, every known impediment to legislative progress — special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion — are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama’s failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.

I think that’s a caricature of liberals’ criticism. I have an actual model of what I wish the president had done, and it doesn’t come from Bill Clinton or JFK or FDR, it comes from Barack Obama. Look at the way he tried to sell the deficit-cutting grand bargain, to settle the 2011 debt-ceiling stalemate, even though in the end, the GOP didn’t bite — and probably, predictably, never was going to. That let the president tell voters he was the one who really wanted to cut the deficit, but Republicans wouldn’t let him. He railed, he ranted, he ordered both parties’ leaders to work night and day on a deal. He told the American public to call their congressional leaders and demand compromise — and sure enough, they tied up the phone lines in Congress for a while. In the process, he accepted the Republican premise that deficit-reduction was more important than job creation, a hallmark of the Clintonian “third way” politics he’d supposedly rejected, but even critics had to admit it was a bold political move, and he worked hard and risked a lot for it.

Now, imagine the new president had told a comparably bold story about the recession in early 2009: that he was the one who knew how to use government to fix the economy — but Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats wouldn’t let him do all that was needed, so he was probably going to have to compromise to do what was possible. Obama failed to give voters a vision of the kind of government role that would be required to fix the economy — his advisors were telling him it would take at least $1.2 trillion in stimulus — even if he had to compromise and settle for less. And let’s be clear: He did have to settle for less. Since the Senate barely passed the $787 billion stimulus bill, even though 40 percent of it went to tax cuts, it’s hard to imagine the president getting more than that.

But what if the president laid out bigger, bolder plans for the Recovery Act? What if he’d gone on television every few days, as he did during the debt-ceiling crisis, and demanded the American people lobby Congress? Then, when the compromise stimulus worked as well as it did — and it did work, keeping the country out of a Depression and reversing the steep trend of job losses that began under Bush — but its effects trailed off, he’d have been in a much stronger position to push Congress to do more. But Obama never made that case. That was a missed opportunity that wound up hurting the president politically, and hurting the country.

One last thing about the debt-ceiling debacle: Obama’s approval numbers fell as he pushed for compromise with the GOP, and they have climbed since he’s begun pushing for a jobs bill he knows has no chance of getting Republican support. I think Obama’s liberal critics weren’t just right morally, they were right politically. But I’ll also give the president credit for what now looks like shrewd bargaining: He got the debt ceiling raised without cutting Social Security or Medicare, reckoning he could offer whatever he felt like knowing the GOP would never agree to raise taxes.

I think Chait’s right that liberals are less inclined than conservatives to close ranks around their president, right or wrong. Conservatives tend to defer to authority, by definition; our side, not so much. I think he’s right to remind liberals how much Obama has done. I’m grateful to Obama for a lot of those things, but mostly, I’m grateful to be a member of a party that fights openly about what’s right. When the president got heckled by some Occupy Wall Street protesters Tuesday in New Hampshire, he modeled that tolerance, listening to them; he didn’t have them pepper-sprayed. I guess I’m grateful for that too — but I wish I didn’t have to be.

Here’s our “Hardball” debate. Have a great Thanksgiving.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy