"Gay Patriot West" makes an interesting observation about both Bill Clinton and the left in general:

Had he lost the 1992 election, would Democrats have treated him like they treated previous losers such as Michael Dukakis? I once saw the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee at the Getty here in LA. Alone and all but unnoticed, he rode the tram from the parking structure to the museum itself, just like any other passenger. A man who once attracted the attention of the free world as he ran for the White House, could not even attract the attention of his fellow passengers.

This idea — about Democrats’ love for Clinton — comes to mind again as his wife’s political fortunes seem to be fading. He can’t seem to translate the adulation he once enjoyed into sustained success for her at the ballot box.

Contrast Clinton’s appeal with that of Ronald Reagan. The Gipper retained his base of support even after he failed to secure the GOP nomination in 1976. I think it’s because his appeal was based only his part on his charisma and political skills. It was also based on his ideas, notions which resonated with many Republicans — as well as with a vast swath of the American electorate.

I think GPW's right that that's the expected outcome when putting personalities above ideas and issues in an election. It's also why John Kerry could so quickly be discarded after 2004; and why Democrats invariably seem to prefer fresh faces that voters can project anything upon over seasoned vets as their presidential nominees.