More Blair: Jeff Jarvis sees an odd inverse relationship between the U.S. and Britain and our respective leaders:

Right now in the U.S., we are singing a chorus of Tony Blair's praises. Meanwhile, in Britain, sharks in his own party are circling, hoping to kill him. Of course, with Bill Clinton, it was just the opposite. Just as people here were trying to run him out of office, over there, they admired him. Either we're ignorant of the real Blair and they were ignorant of the real Clinton or it's something else: Distance let's statesman be statesman. Distance lets them rise above the petty sniping of politics. Distance -- like time -- puts them in a truer perspective. Britain is wrong about Blair. We're right.

I agree with his conclusion, but not how he gets there. Clinton was admired by liberals in Britain in a very theoretical sense -- he was the godfather of the "third way" that eventually Blair was able to sell to his people. A little less distance might have brought the reality into sharper relief. Note, for example, that Blair is winning praises here for taking a stand on principle, against the wishes of his party, and at some considerable risk to his career.

When was that sentence ever true about Clinton?