I never thought I'd have to write about Bill Clinton again. But the pardon scandal has reawakened a debate that never died in the first place. The enigma wrapped in a riddle covered in mystery shrouded in Arkansas sleaze that is Bill Clinton has once again grabbed America's attention (or at least Larry King's). The renewed debate about the Clinton legacy demonstrates one of the fundamental principles of politics. Politicians care much more about winning than partisan ideals.

Bill Clinton left office with very high approval ratings. His numbers were in the high 50s in the waning days of his presidency. According to some Democrats, this is evidence of his greatness. People liked him, so he must have done something right. The problem is that a president leaving office after eight years should not be popular.

A president is supposed to be popular at the beginning of his term. When a president is first elected, he's supposed to have this illusive thing called a popular mandate. Since polls allow journalists to make wildly irresponsible generalizations about how society "feels" based on some scrap of empirical data, most news organizations are utter whores for polls. Following this, a new president's "mandate" is judged by favorable ratings. The newly elected president has a honeymoon. Everything he does is wildly popular. Then reality sets in. All of these great dreams the president has for America have to make it through Congress. The fight begins anew. Witness the upcoming Senate battle over the tax cut for a real world example of this phenomenon.

After eight years of this process, the president has probably pissed off enough people to have his approval ratings drop below 50 percent. This is called spending political capital. The president uses his popularity to get new laws passed. In doing this, he loses some of his popularity.

Or that's the theory, at least. I don't know if it holds up under rigorous statistical tests, and I don't really care. And for God's sake, no e-mails from irate political science professors who know way too much about silly things like presidential approval ratings.

When we think back on the Clinton presidency, we won't think about the sense of hope Clinton brought to America when he won in '92. We won't think about the macroeconomists' dream of low unemployment coupled with low inflation rates. We'll think about Monica's head bobbing under the desk in the Oval office or in the hall or in the bathroom. Then, we'll see the DNA stained blue Gap dress.

Instead of performing his constitutional duties, Clinton was always busy fighting off the latest scandal. Whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Gennifer, Paula, Monica, Linda, Kathleen, illegal foreign campaign donations, or the theft of nuclear secrets by communist spies, Clinton was perpetually battling the next scandal. Clinton's poll numbers were high at the end of his term because he hadn't done anything besides defend himself against big bad Ken Starr. Plus, the economy was good.

If you're like me and think it's good when the government does nothing, then some deep thought should bring you to an unusual conclusion. The Clinton administration furthered conservatism much more than we think, and the scandals stopped the bloated federal government from spending more money with new programs.

The Clinton scandals contributed heavily to Washington gridlock. Clinton was always busy spinning every new piece of information about the latest scandal. Republicans on the Hill were busy subpoenaing Clinton aides and fuming about his latest outrage. Politicians were arguing about the independent counsel and talking about multiple functions of cigars, instead of crushing the booming economy with lots of new government spending. This was especially true of Clinton's second term.

Even though Clinton is a disgusting liar with the morals of trained ape, he didn't (or couldn't) use the federal government as a club to smash society with his wide-eyed, outdated 1960s ideology.

Although the political opinions of actors are mostly the useless products of too many lines of cocaine sniffed from hookers' gleaming thighs, Tim Robbins actually once said something coherent that wasn't read from a script. Explaining why he would cast his vote for Nader in 2000, Robbins said, "Clinton was the first Republican I voted for." Truth sometimes comes from odd places.

If you're a liberal like Robbins, you should really be very frustrated with the entire Clinton administration. Nonetheless, Democrats have been all over the endless parade of talking-head cable news programs telling us how Clinton's high approval ratings prove Clinton's greatness.

Clinton entered office with great promise for big government liberals. He introduced a massive plan for socialized medicine, called universal healthcare, which would cover all citizens. Government dollars would be wasted with unparalleled magnitude and velocity. Liberals were drooling. But the plan was such a miserable failure that it was never made into law. Then seven years passed. In the end, the most important legislation Clinton signed into law effectively ended the most heralded of all liberal panacea for society's ills: welfare.

Now these same liberals are telling us that Clinton's high approval ratings equal a successful presidency. Really? Shouldn't the success of the country through the implementation of liberal policies be the Democratic test for the greatness of a president? Clinton wasn't a liberal in his actions. He pursued laissez-faire economic policies, and he ended welfare as we knew it. His administration is conspicuous for the absence of new massive government programs. As Clinton said himself, "the era of big government is over."

For those on the left to call Clinton great, they have to compromise all of the assumptions that underlie their politics. They have to trust the free market. They have to believe that individuals, rather than government, are best at solving problems. In other words, they have to become conservatives. And the last time I checked, Jesse Jackson has not become a card-carrying member of the Republican Party.

We need to re-evaluate our ideas about Clinton. Conservatives should get out of the habit of spitting after they say the name "Clinton" and liberals should realize that the Clinton administration was successful because it co-opted decades-old Republican ideas. Clinton wasn't a great president because of his poll numbers. His poll numbers were great because he didn't do much besides cover his own ass.