A few weeks ago, Bill Clinton invited a group of left-wing bloggers to his offices in Harlem.

Over chicken and cornbread, he spent a couple of hours listening to their concerns and giving them his views on today’s politics.

The bloggers were impressed, to say the least. Well, maybe star-struck would be a better word. Or ga-ga. 

“He’s got beautiful blue eyes (this isn’t something I normally notice, but in his case I did, and he does, and I suspect he uses it to good effect),” wrote John Aravosis of Americablog.

“The blue [in Clinton’s shirt] was the exact color of his eyes,” wrote Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake.

“That is me in the back standing next to President Clinton,” wrote Chris Bowers of MyDD.  “That is pretty darn cool in itself.”

Jane Hamsher, the obviously smitten founder of Firedoglake, took to calling the former president “Big Dog.”

She posted a picture of herself with Smith and Clinton, captioned, “Big Dog and the Gals.”

As you might expect, Clinton told the group that blogs have become a very, very important part of the national political conversation.

In particular, he thanked them for their work trying to knock down ABC’s docu-drama, “The Path to 9/11.”

The bloggers were more than happy to help. In fact, they thought the experience might be a model for future campaigns.

“The ABC/Disney movie work was a great example of the synergy that can be created when the blogs and the party and various individual interests all get on the same page and push something important to all of us,” wrote Smith. “Imagine where that could take us for the elections in November.”

Now, a few weeks later, the synergy is back, thanks to Clinton’s performance in the soon-to-be-legendary Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace.

Watching it, the bloggers were impressed, star-struck and ga-ga all over again.

“Go, Big Dog!” wrote Hamsher.

But they weren’t happy just because they idolize Clinton. It’s more serious than that. “I actually think this [the Fox showdown] could be quite an important moment for Democrats to re-frame the national-security debate,” Hamsher said.

“Wallace pushed Clinton into saying what Democrats should be saying — Bush was asleep on the job, did not take Osama bin Laden seriously, and his actions have not made us safer.”

Now, those are just the views of one blogger. But someone with a little more authority was also ecstatic.

“President Clinton did exactly what Democrats need to do in this election,” said DNC chairman Howard Dean. “Democrats need to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine and tell the truth.”

That’s the ticket! Democrats across the country should stop focusing so much on their opponents and instead turn their guns on … Fox!

And while they’re at it, they should make the campaign about what Bill Clinton did and did not do years ago!

Now, it should be said that that’s a perfectly legitimate subject for reporting and debate. After all, what was done, and not done, in the Clinton years is important to our understanding of Sept. 11.

And Wallace’s question was entirely reasonable. Just think: If you were organizing, say, an academic conference on Clinton’s legacy — and there have already been such gatherings — wouldn’t that be a question for serious consideration?

But as a political strategy for Democrats, it’s a little weak.

I mean, isn’t it Clinton himself who is fond of repeating the maxim that elections are “always about the future”?

By “always,” he probably means “always.”

But these days a significant part of the Democratic base is too obsessed with President Bush, and too obsessed with Fox News, to see much of anything else.

When Clinton went after both, they nearly fainted with pleasure. Go, Big Dog!

But what would happen if Democrats were to follow Hamsher’s, and Dean’s, suggestion to “re-frame” the national-security debate, focusing on responsibility for 9-11 and the “right-wing propaganda machine?”

They would look like they had lost their minds.

The public has pretty much apportioned blame for 9-11, and they’ve come to a balanced conclusion.

In a Gallup Poll released Wednesday, people were asked, “How much do you blame [either Clinton or Bush] for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed — a great deal, a fair amount, not much, or not at all?”

Fifty-three percent say they blame Bush a great deal or a fair amount.

Forty-two percent say they blame Clinton a great deal or a fair amount.

That seems reasonable. And surely, those numbers include lots of people who blame both presidents.

But no matter. The base wants what it wants. 

So all you Democratic candidates out there: It’s time to change strategies.

Hit Bush hard on 9-11.

Hit Fox hard.

And don’t ever, ever forget: Fight the right-wing propaganda machine!

Imagine where that could take you for the elections in November.

York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it