As far back as 1992, Bush (41) famously placed any and all of Clinton's character deficiencies beyond the scope of his campaign. For this we can say, thanks a lot, George. Maybe, just maybe, lashing into the "bimbo eruptions," the shady deals, the draft evasion, etc., could have made a difference on Election Day. Probably not, though. Bush pere was no Second-term Coming. But Bush's discretion proves a point; namely, that he believed in the tradition of the Marquis of Queensbury more than in the ghost of Lee Atwater. By the time Bush fils came along, the line on the innumerable Clinton-Gore scandals was a promise to "restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office." This would ultimately include a new paint job on Inauguration Day 2001. Bush (43) had a fresh start -- although no thanks to his predecessor, Clinton (42), who has openly questioned Bush's legitimacy as the 2000 election winner.
Shouldn't bygones be bygones? Frankly, if these clashes were purely private, maybe so.
Certainly, they wouldn't be cause for discussion. But these were affairs of state (absolutely no pun intended) and they involved urgent matters of principle. "Patching things up," as unelected citizens might or might not choose to do, isn't really an option for public servants in this case -- unless, of course, they now consider the clashes to have been purely personal, and, worse, the principles unimportant.
One more thing: It may be a flash in the PR pan, but reports about a new biography of Hillary Clinton by Edward Klein promise revelations that could be damaging to the senator from New York's presidential aspirations. In such a case, hubby's newfound friendship with those mind-your-manners, blue-blazer-born Bushes would only help fend off any future sleaze. All for one and one for all? Frankly, discretion really is the better part of valor. And that's precisely what protocol tells us.