Statements by Bill and Hillary Clinton angered even some former supporters. The Clintons at an Iowa restaurant in 2007.

By JOHN M. BRODER and ROBIN TONER

WASHINGTON - Bill and Hillary Clinton have stirred virulent passions in their nearly two decades in the American spotlight.
They have been known as many things, good and bad - brilliant policy analysts, manipulators of facts and friends, tireless campaigners, skillful political tacticians, monumentally self-absorbed baby boomers. But most of all they were known as winners.
Until now.
While the Clintons will almost certainly play a continuing role in national politics, a major chapter in their vertiginous public biography was closed when Mrs. Clinton conceded the Democratic presidential nomination to Senator Barack Obama. The Clintons’ complicated legacy is all the more complicated now.
Mrs. Clinton entered the 2008 presidential primary season as the favorite because of money, connections and celebrity. But through a series of blunders and the appearance of a once-in-alifetime opponent, Mrs. Clinton saw the prize slip through her grasp.
The Clintons often seemed out of touch with the political times. Exquisitely attuned to the political winds in 1992, they watched Mr. Obama almost effortlessly master the changed environment of 2008.
Mr. Clinton was seen by many at the beginning of his wife’s ampaign as a political genius, a statesman and a racial healer who had done much through his charitable work to erase the stigma of his impeachment for lying about an affair with a young White House intern and other personal sins. But his conduct during his wife’s campaign raised new questions about his judgment and blotted his legacy.
Allies of the Clintons and neutral observers alike said Mrs. Clinton had much to be proud of in this campaign. She outlasted all but one of a distinguished field of primary opponents, won about 17 million votes and a dozen critical states, and earned grudging admiration for her fortitude even from those who despised her. She shattered the gender barrier at the presidential level for all who come after her. She emerged as the chosen tribune for a major part of the Democratic electorate.
But she also made comments that divided voters along racial lines, stretched the facts and last month raised the specter of assassination as a justification for remaining in the race to the bitter end despite a mathematical near-certainty that she had lost weeks earlier.
“The Clintons are and probably always will be a paradox, said Leon Panetta, who served as chief of staff in the Clinton White House and who supported Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. “They were very good at being able to gain power and then try to use that power to try to help ordinary Americans. The paradox is that in order to gain power, they sometimes did whatever it takes to win.
There were moments in this campaign, Mr. Panetta added, that made some people “question where their heart really was. Mr. Panetta said this was especially sad given Mr. Clinton’s strong presidential record on affirmative action and other racial issues.
“Look, both of them are viewed as tough fighters, both are viewed as people who will continue to confront the most difficult odds and sometimes still win, Mr. Panetta said. “People will always admire that in them. But he added that this campaign, because it seemed to take a divisive turn, “has in many ways hurt their legacy.
The race question will be one of the most difficult for the Clintons to deal with. Black politicians and voters had been among Mr. Clinton’s staunchest defenders during impeachment and supported Mrs. Clinton in large numbers at the beginning of this contest. But comments from Mr. Clinton and several prominent black supporters of Mrs. Clinton earlier this year helped turn the black electorate decisively against her.
“It has definitely damaged not just hers but also Bill’s legacy on race, said David Bositis, senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
Sean Wilentz, professor of American history at Princeton University in New Jersey, said that the Clintons had been unfairly accused of exploiting racial divisions, but that the perception had taken hold and would take time to erase. He also said the harm to Mr. Clinton’s image and stature in the party would turn around more quickly than the public view of Mrs. Clinton.
“Bill has the attributes of an old-fashioned, tactile, warm, outgoing politician, Mr. Wilentz said. “We have not seen his like since Lyndon Johnson at his best.
He continued: “He has ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is. Reagan had it, Franklin Roosevelt had it, Bill Clinton has it. People may be angry with him, disappointed in him, but they won’t stay angry.
Mrs. Clinton is different, Mr. Wilentz said. “She’s anomalous. She makes people nervous. She’s in a role people are unfamiliar with, he said. “She doesn’t project the kind of warmth in large public venues that he seems to, although she has gotten better at it.
Other historians said the real impact of the race on the Clinton legacy would not be clear until November.
“If McCain wins a race that Democrats expect to win, a lot of people will say, ‘If she had won the nomination, we would have won,’ said Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
Many of Mr. Obama’s loyalists, however, would attribute his defeat to her relentless campaign against him.
If Mr. Obama wins, however, the era of Clinton dominance of the Democratic Party will be over. “They will no longer be leaders of the party, and their role, especially his, will be much diminished, said Alan Brinkley, historian and provost at Columbia University in New York. “Bill Clinton has been head of the party for 16 years, literally and informally. Now there will be someone else.