Obama takes on the ’90s
In my personal experience, one of the more common points I hear from friends who support Hillary Clinton is that they want a return to the 1990s. The first Bush made a mess of things, and President Clinton got us back on track. The second Bush made an even bigger mess of things, so maybe another President Clinton can repeat the cycle.
I can think of a lot of compelling and persuasive reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, but this one’s never worked for me. The times are different, the challenges are different, and HRC brings different skills and qualities to the table than BC. I loved the ’90s, but it’s unrealistic to think another Clinton presidency will turn back the clock to a bygone era of peace and prosperity. Would that it could.
But if my conversations are any indication, HRC supporters are moved by the argument far more than I am. My hunch is the Obama campaign is conducting polls and focus groups that are finding the same thing.
As a result, Obama is making a provocative move: his campaign is starting to argue more forcefully that the ’90s could have been a lot better.
In what may be Obama’s most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton’s presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts “the Clintons” for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.
“8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation,” reads the mailer, which goes on to list the post-1992 losses suffered by Dems among governors, Senators and members of the House of Representatives.
There’s nothing factually wrong with the mailing, but it’s a bold move anyway.
Greg has the images of the whole mailing, but the part that stands out reads:
8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation.
Governors (-12 Ds)
30 Dems after the 1992 election
18 Dems after the 2000 electionU.S. Senators (-7 Ds)
57 Dems after the 1992 election
50 Dems after the 2000 electionReps (-46 Ds)
258 Dems after the 1992 election
212 Dems after the 2000 election
I suspect the natural response would focus on criticizing Obama for criticizing the only two-term Democratic president of the last four decades. Bill Clinton is a party icon, the argument goes, so Obama’s party loyalties look shaky with criticism like this.
But notice, the Obama campaign mailing is going after Clinton from the left. After the Reagan and “party of ideas” flaps from a couple of weeks ago, this is a far more partisan message from Obama — if we want to help elect more Dems, the Clintons’ track record doesn’t offer much hope.
In this sense, the mailing seems to thread the needle carefully — criticizing the Dems’ #1 leader, but from an exclusively pro-Dem perspective. We’ll see if this works.
Damn those pesky facts!
I can’t wait to hear the moans of consternation from the Clinton supporters for Obama having the audacity to point out the obvious:
The 90s were politically great for the Clintons, and terrible for the Democratic party.
Ironically, that is pretty much where Bush will leave the 00s.
I don’t think this is a good idea. It’s true Bill could have done some things better, but overall he was one of the best presidents we’ve ever had.
How exactly is he responsible for the elections of governers and senators, anyway?
I’m an Obama fanatic and I find Hillary a mediocre-to-poor politician and a tiresome dead-ender. But if Bill were on the ballot again I’d vote for him over Barack easily.
It’s a great argument, and an important one.
I don’t see much difference in the programs the two would like to enact, but it’s clear that Obama would bring more new voters into the party, and thereby expand victories down-ticket as well. Clinton never did much to build up a Democratic bench, but Obama would definitely do that.
As a die-hard Obama supporter, I think this is a bad idea. I don’t like it when Hillary tries to benefit from her husband’s accomplishments, so I don’t like it when Obama attacks Hillary vicariously through her husband.
That said, if Hillary is willing to share credit for her husbands accomplishments, then she shouldn’t be surprised if she gets nailed for his failures as well.
Can’t wait for someone to label this as “mudslinging” or some such. Obama is consistently honest even if you don’t like what he says. Clinton on the other hand will say anything. Of course, in the rush to categorize this into a soundbyte (sp), I am sure they will be lumped together.
Does anyone really think Hillary will expand Dem presence into red states?
How exactly is he responsible for the elections of governers and senators, anyway?
As the defacto leader of the Democratic Party, a Dem President influences the way the entire Democratic Party is percieved.
Ask any republican , it’s because of Bush 1 that Clinton’s term had such economic success , the mess we’re in now was because of Clinton .
i don’t think this threads the needle in the frickin’ slightest: i think this demonstrates that, unsurprisingly, just as clinton wants to win this thing, so does obama, and neither is above jejune s stunts.
there are two primary reasons for the “facts” that this mailer reports on: the first is the retirement of a major cohort of dem house members (just as is happening right now for the gop), and the second is the completion of the migration of the south into completely republican territory, about which obama could have done precisely jackshit in the 1990s.
bill clinton was a very good president in difficult circumstances, but he’s certainly not above criticism, but this isn’t criticism, it’s crap.
Anyone who actually buys this revisionist history care to tell me what Bill Clinton – much less Hillary – had to do with the book scandal that caused Jim Wright’s resignation in 1989, or the Dan Rostenkowski House Post Office Scandal that resulted in Rosty losing office in 1995? Because the alleged corruption reaching to the most powerful people in the House — cementing an image that the Dems had been in power too long and were now out of touch — had much more to do with Congressional losses than anything Clinton (who left office with a 64% approval rating) did or didn’t do. Here in Iowa, for example, Greg Ganske beat the venerable Neal Smith in 1994 and Clinton’s name never came up. Ganske just drove around the state in a 1958 Buick, noting that the funny looking old car was from the year Smith started serving in Congress. Smith, who hadn’t had an aggressive challenger in a decade, didn’t campaign well. What exactly does that have to do with Clinton?
Between this and his “party of ideas/excesses of the 60s-70s” Obama is going out of his way to validate the Republican victories of the 90s. But those were won through a complete scorched earth approach that has changed the entire nature of our institutions ever since — validation is the last thing those tactics deserve.
Every Democrat should place the blame for the politics of the 90s where it belongs: at the feet of the radicalized Republicans. That would have happened Clinton or not. Taking shots at the brief period of time the Democrats held the presidency is not a good way to advertise for more Democratic Presidents; it is simply bad for the party overall.
As the defacto leader of the Democratic Party, a Dem President influences the way the entire Democratic Party is percieved.
And Clinton’s numbers were quite positive throughout his presidency. So wouldn’t he improve the way Democrats in general are perceived?
It’s another cheap shot that will do nothing to unite the party or the country – it’s just pandering to the Clinton-haters; I fail to see how this attacks from the left at all.
It is also terribly disingenuous coming from a candidate who has plenty of former Bill Clinton insiders on his advisory and campaign staff.
Obama seduces with rhetoric and undermines with actions.
Clinton’s “experience” argument is in big part an appeal to her husband’s presidency, which we are now supposed to see as a joint effort. And Bill has been, shall we say, out front and aggressive in his stumping for Hillary. They present as a team, it is totally fair game to criticize them as a team. Just as much as it is fair game for Clinton to go after Obama for a lack of executive experience. Or for being an outstanding orator. Or, oh, never mind.
Clinton never did much to build up a Democratic bench, but Obama would definitely do that.
Please. He set Gore up with the Presidency on a silver platter. Gore blew it six ways from Sunday, from underperforming in the debates (how was that Clinton’s fault?) to smugly underestimating Bush (likely because Gore knew he was 10 times more qualified).
All Gore had to do was, 24/7, say (a) are you better off now than you were under a Bush Administration? and (b) if you’ve enjoyed 8 years of peace and prosperity, then keep voting Democratic. Instead he tried to reinvent the wheel and run as if he had never been part of the Clinton/Gore administration, thereby throwing away his strongest credentials. (And have I mentioned the role of Donna Brazile and the sweaters and earth tones?)
American voters seem to me to have decided that they don’t like one-party government from either party. Obama’s argument that he is the one to maintain a one-party government isn’t likely to appeal to independent-minded voters.
On the other hand, I would be ecstatic over Democratic one-party government for the next generation or two. But I’m a yellow-dog Democrat. And Democrats are the ones Obama needs to appeal to while seeking the nomination.
Effective? Yes, in my opinion.
A clue: governors, senators and representatives are all superdelegates, IIRC.
coming from a candidate who has plenty of former Bill Clinton insiders on his advisory and campaign staff.
and to follow on Anne’s point, anyone care to tell me all of the wonders Tom Daschle did in outsmarting the Republicans while he was our leader in the Senate? How is it not Daschle’s responsibility increase our Senate numbers – he became the Democratic leader in 1994 after all – maybe Obama should ask his own top advisor about those numbers!
I think Obama needs to decide if he is running against the GOP or running against Democrats; for a man who claims to be visionary, he appears to be in need of an eye exam.
John S. @ #1 gets the prize:
“The 90s were politically great for the Clintons, and terrible for the Democratic party.”
The prize is, of course, my praising your post in these here comments.
There were a few moments from the 90s that were definitely less than stellar, such as NAFTA, “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and brutal so-called “welfare reform”. If Hillary is going to talk about bringing back the 90s, it seems fair for Obama to point out some of the failings of the decade.
This argument is a lot of BS! Congressional Dems have moaned since 1994 that Clinton screwed them, but what never gets talked about is how when Clinton took office in 1993 Congressional Dems, instead of backing their new president turned on him in the opening weeks of his administration. Clinton attempted to fulfill a campaign promise to end the ban on gays in the military and Congressional Dems, led by the likes of Sam Nunn, not only did not support him, they actively sided with the Repubs. The same thing happened on health care reform and numerous other issues. The Congressional Dems were a disaster and then when they lost Congress to a slick huckster like Gingrich they whined about it all being Clinton’s fault.
The mailer I’d like to see has pictures of Gore, Kerry, and Hillary. The caption reads: “Charisma and Likability You can Take to the Bank!”
I’m honestly not sure what the hell to make of this.
Sure, it’s factually accurate, it’s misleading and ignore everything else that was going on at the time.
And what the Obama campaign is saying here is what we’ve seen and heard before: That the Clintons galvanize the right while dividing the left, whereas he can (allegedly) do the opposite.
There’s just something, though, that seems wrong about this, IMHO.
While I’m not quite ready to go to the level of Anne and say “Obama seduces with rhetoric and undermines with actions,” these mailers of questionable motivation and taste sure do make me wonder at times.
I just wish he could get his point across without stretching reality to such a degree.
(Note: This comes from someone who voted for Obama yesterday.)
Garantee this cost him more votes than he wins in states like PA, MD and VI. He’s just tring to be a political hack and he will be hammered for it. Dems didn’t lose to many seats that were in blue states.FL turned wacko and the rest of the south just followed suit. It was and still is called wedge politics. So for all who beleive this will help Obama think again it could cost him the nomination through those super-delegates that he claimes he should get. I the supers were awarded by states Obama would have already lost the nomination. 1 super in AK, 1 in ID, 1 in ND. 86 in CA for Clinton so hows Barack doing. Even today the media is still pumping this guy up and hes still behind. His so called big win included 5 caucases that had a total of about 500,000 democratic voters.
I seem to remember that pretty much everything is Clinton’s fault; could have sworn that was a GOP talking point, but I guess when you’re pandering for votes, you have to speak the language.
I saw the Clinton presidency as a holding pattern against the insanity of a resurgent GOP (Newt the Grinch and 1994, the rise of FOX, and a media establishment which was rabidly right wing). Clinton did some good progressive things (mandating maternity and paternity leave, for example). He also had a habit of nominating competent judges and generals.
He also threw good Democrats under the bus whenever it was expedient to do so.
Good one “anne”
Reading most of the comments over at Greg’s place, and reading the comment from John S. above, is really depressing to me. “The 90s were politically great for the Clintons, and terrible for the Democratic party” is an amazing statement. The 90s were a staggeringly difficult time for the Clintons, with a radicalized right wing that chose that time to implement a scorched earth approach to politics and a personal destruction approach to dealing with Dems. I remember a Bill Clinton who forced through the tax increases, against the vote of every single reThuglican, that were a key component of the astonishing economic recovery during his tenure, were also one cause of the crushing Dem losses in 1994, and were absolutely the right policy for America.
Any discussion of his presidency that ignores the reality that the opposition and their vast echo chamber had become increasingly insane, deeply dishonest, and omnipresent is fundamentally flawed. President Clinton did well against the forces of darkness arrayed against him, probably better than any less gifted politician could have done (would have been better without the zipper problem).
I’ve shifted towards supporting Obama in the last couple of weeks, but will still enthusiastically support Hillary if she is our nominee.
Okay … my post @ 22 read like I was high.
My point was that the mailer is factually accurate, but it also ignores the other circumstances (pointed out by others) that led to the mess that was the 1990s.
And if Obama thinks he’d be better at keeping the Dem part intact and helping down-ticket and getting new folks into the party, then he needs to just say so.
Stop with the slick, wormy little mailers that do nothing but start in-fighting and state your case.
Sorry to pull a Swan on everyone, but I wanted to clarify.
🙂
I don’t agree with this particular tactic by the Obama team — I don’t think it’s constructive to attack a relatively prosperous, two-term Democratic era, even though there are particular Clinton policies and methods (NAFTA, welfare reform, perpetual triangulation, etc.) that should be scrutinized and/or belittled.
But it sure is fun to watch The Clintonites whine and stomp their feet. “No fair, it’s only OK when our candidate acts likes an asshole!”
Hah.
For a man who ponders the audacity of hope, Obama is out of bounds on this one if he tries to look backward to dish dirt against the Clintons. This mailer shows Obama as just another politician willing to cast aspersions against his opponent for gain. If he insists on going down this road, he risks being seen as a political poser no better than any he has smeared or criticized. This is not a development anyone should welcome. -Kevo
As someone who has been very active over the years in gay rights issues, I think it is far too easy to look back at DADT through today’s lenses. At the time, that was seen by many as a fairly significant departure; Clinton had tried to go even farther but was stopped by backlash from the Southern wing of his own party. One could even argue that the smaller step paved the way for the growing position today that DADT is no longer necessary and is counter-productive. The country has moved quite a ways left on gay rights in the past 15 years; it isn’t fair to judge Clinton’s legacy against a contemporary backdrop.
“Anyone who actually buys this revisionist history care to tell me what Bill Clinton – much less Hillary – had to do with the book scandal that caused Jim Wright’s resignation in 1989, or the Dan Rostenkowski House Post Office Scandal that resulted in Rosty losing office in 1995?…had much more to do with Congressional losses than anything Clinton (who left office with a 64% approval rating) did or didn’t do.”
This is bunk. We lost the Congress in 1994 entirely because Clinton developed and enacted his tax increases by leaving Republicans out of the conversation (much like Hillary did with her health care plan). Clinton learned his lesson after losing the Congress, but it had zero to do with Wright, Rostenkowski,….
“Gore blew [his campaign for president] six ways from Sunday, from underperforming in the debates to…”
This is correct.
Good point about those down-ticket being superdelegates, and don’t for a minute think that isn’t part of the reason Obama’s doing this ad. I am in Texas and all we talk about here is how bad HRC would be for our dems down ticket due mainly to the right-wing, knee-jerk hatred of Hillary and Bill. The 90’s were great, but we won’t ever be back there again. And parts of the 90’s should be laid to rest forever, like the Lee Atwater on steroids style of character assasination in politics. I think Obamacrats are for real, and the only way they can vote for a dem is to have a new, fresh face to vote for. There is no way a Texas repub could ever vote for HRC after all the brainwashing they’ve been through the last 20 years. But Obama, they don’t have a grudge against him.
Speaking of grudges, is it possible a lot of dems are voting for HRC because they think having her in the WH would be the sweetest revenge against the GOP for all the BS dems have suffered through the last 10-15 years? Do they maybe think she will exact a big measure of revenge for them and Obama won’t?
TPM Election (consistently pro-Clinton) is doing some interesting spin here. Clinton and the Dems were victims of divisivness by Gingrich, Delay et. al. But what the pamphlet does is it lists these congressional and gubenatorial losses on one page, and mentions Hillary Clinton’s “deceptive attacks” on the adjoining page. The message is that Clinton is unlikely to solve the problem, because she has adopted the idea that if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. And that seems to be a consistent theme among her supporters.
One thing is for certain. A vote for Obama is not a vote for a liberal Bush.
As, I think, will most solidly liberal folks.
My biggest concern is that the next few weeks will get ugly in both camps, thus hurting the chances of those feelings being shared more widely and through November.
No matter who it is on the Dem side, we really need to keep our eyes on the bigger prize and not destroy ourselves in the process.
**insert Rodney King quote here**
I think Obama’s ad is a bit of a low blow, but it’s infinitely fairer than Bill Clinton accusing Obama of saying that the Republicans were the only ones with good ideas.
Hillary wants us to wax nostalgic for the 90’s, and that seems to be her strong suit. Part of what happened in the 90’s was watching the Democrats lose a lot of ground, and part of that was due to Bill Clinton. Not all of it was, obviously (hence the “low blow” comment).
Laurie, for the record, that is nonsense about clinton’s tax hike in 1993, complete nonsense. there was not then, and there is not now, a single republican member of congress who is prepared to vote in a sane way on taxes, not a single one. there was nothing to discuss with them in 1993.
the health care failure is a more arguable point, but not the tax hike.
Clinton developed and enacted his tax increases by leaving Republicans out of the conversation
Does anyone think it is possible to have a conversation with Republicans about tax increases?
That tax bill was a profile in courage. If that is really what Obama is running against now, he is no better than Bush and his infinite tax cuts for the rich burdening our grandkids and their grandkids.
I have always said I could back either Clinton or Obama enthusiastically, even though I back Clinton. I’ve tried not to hold some of his supporters against him. But if he keeps heading this direction, it will be hard to have much energy for him.
Now THAT’S the most interesting thought I’ve read in a while.
While I’m not sure anyone has expressed it openly — or given it conscious thought — it’s certainly one of those things that could be a factor, even if some don’t realize it is.
Hmmmm …
I’ve expressed it openly 🙂
Laurie – I’m not sure you would know what bunk is if you got some on your shoe, so I feel it only fair to tell you that, based on your conclusion about why we lost Congress, you stepped in some.
and is it fair for HRC to argue that Obama isn’t tough enough or experienced enough to take on the GOP hit machine in the Fall and to criticize him for playing a little hardball about the 90’s? he isn’t saying 911 was Clinton’s fault or somesuch rightwing nonsense, he’s just reminding everybody that camelot it weren’t.
I don’t think Hillary supporters want to return to the 90s. At least not me. I could be sold on turning the page. The best way not to convince me to do that is to propogate the same 90’s attacks that worked much better in their original Gingrichese. Attacking from the left? No, this is just more feecding of the old line that the Clintons somehow “brought on” Newt Gingrich by not playing nice enough with him. That’s not how we lost the Congress. I hated the Dems in the 90s as much as anyone, but for different reason — they lacked Clinton’s spine, and failed to recognize the Republican juggernaut and stand up to it. Obama is demonstrating he’s equally clueless.
It is remarkable to me how completely out of touch Obama really is with blogosphere folks like me. He seems to lack any understanding of what, exactly, it is I’ve been fighting for since the 90’s — BECAUSE of the 90’s. I fought against the partisan hate and smear of Gingrich, the “open-minded” Dems who thought splitting the difference made you sensible, and thought not buying every scandal that appeared in the NYTs meant you were a blind partisan because there couldn’t possibly be this much smoke from the paper of record if there was nothing to the scandal, could there? Our greatest enemy has been ourselves — always willing to buy into every narrative they pin on us, and forward their narratives, and fight on their terms. Smearing Krugman was very difficult to get past… does this guy understand us at all?
It seems like Obama could undo all of that. Hillary is fighting on their terms in the argument over the war. Obama is fighting on their terms with regard to character issues and Sunday talk show conventional wisdom.
Would we have won in 2000 if we made the campaign about tarnishing Bush’s father’s legacy? To win a Republican primary againt Nancy Reagan, do you claim Clinton was more transformative?
There are lots of criticisms of the Clintons you could make, that actually rise up from Democrats, rather than the ones that echo out of the Republican bullhorn. Rwanda? Okay. Trade? Okay. Too centrist? Okay. Because the Republicans scream so loudly? Not so much.
It’s kind of like when I read Richard Cohen’s piece in the Washington Post declaring his vote to be against HIllary. The first thought I had was, “Oh, so that means a vote for Hillary is a vote against Richard Cohen.” Always willing to stick one in the eye of the establishment.
This criticism might please the punditry ane Sunday morning talk shows, but it’s neither a real concern, or one that Democrats have about Hillary.
I’m an Obama supporter, and I see what he’s trying to accomplish here. He’s been arguing that he’s the one who can build a progressive majority, and these numbers are meant to underscore the implication that this argument rests on (i.e. neither Bill nor Hillary have increased the Democratic base–or will).
However, I think this implication works better when it remains exactly that. Although entirely true, the mailer is a little too in-your-face for my taste, and therefore, inconsistent with the overall tone of the Obama campaign. This is the kind of stuff that keeps people at home on primary or caucus day.
Clinton’s policy of triangulation choked off any possible growth of up-and-coming Dems in Congress — he stole their thunder on some issues, and positioned himself (and public opinion) against them on others.
#1 nailed it — he thrived and the party atrophied.
Obama needs to put up or shut up.
What’s his plan?
Remember: Obama’s not trying to speak to the Clinton faithful. He’s aiming a lot of his messages at the folks who left the party from Reagan’s sugarwater talk which was non-nutritious.
As I lived in the South for half of the Nineties, I heard their concerns about the Clintons and yeah, a lot of it was bogus and stupid, but it was real. Finding a way to draw that group back won’t be pretty but looking longterm, it puts the GOP in a terrible way because they can’t find a messager like Reagan very often.
What’s ironic is that Reagan utilized a racial dogwhistle in the process and they’re being led back by a Black man. I share the concern that it’s hardly fair o the Clintons and historically unsupported, yet I maintain some admiration at the effectiveness of it.
It’s not progressive, but the question remains, is there a progressive officeholder act that follows the pragmatic campaigner? I don’t know.
One thing is clear: he moves people to hope. And, considering his book title, he moves me to pay more attention to his audacity.
And in the right hands, audacity can be a very progressive thing.
Note to Lama Obama. “Don’t crap on the nineties.” The Republicans will do plenty of that.
I’ve been thinking that Hillary will be a good test of Obama, but if Obama starts spouting Republican-friendly facts about Bill, he’s going to test Hillary for the general too.
We really need Obama to win our party’s nomination.
Clintons have too much of a negative stigma for the General Election.
I think this is a great move, and I imagine it has been a long time in the planning.
Hillary is touting her experience, dating back to her years in the white house, as a big reason to vote for her.
She opens the door to this type of attack.
Obama has a tendency to use RW frames to make his points. I am as one with Paul Krugman on this in finding it to be inherently destructive for Dems to reinforce reThug talking points.
And very unhelpful in crafting the message that will win in November, and win Democratic legislative victories later on.
I agree with Zeitgeist: “. . . if he keeps heading this direction, it will be hard to have much energy for him.”
Mark D,
Sorry to pull a Swan on everyone, but I wanted to clarify.
LOL!
As you long as you do it as infrequently as you have to date, you have nothing to worry about.
Oh please. Political strategists in both camps need to understand that the scorecards in their tit-for-tat battles along the campaign trail count for naught. We don’t care who can get in the cleverest shots or the most stinging blows, we care that Republicans get routed in the next big election. If your mailers, ads and tactics won’t meet the prime directive of drowning the Republican party don’t put it out there. We Dems don’t want think that our side has Karl Roves in our midst. And this nation won’t survive another four years of Republican rule.
Don’t tell my wife, but I love Anne for this: “Laurie – I’m not sure you would know what bunk is if you got some on your shoe, so I feel it only fair to tell you that, based on your conclusion about why we lost Congress, you stepped in some.”
Most of that change occurred during the “Republican Revolution” in 1994. BEFORE Clintons rightwing-created scandals.
Anne wrote, “I’m not sure you would know what bunk is if you got some on your shoe, so I feel it only fair to tell you that, based on your conclusion about why we lost Congress, you stepped in some.”
Anne, if you have an argument to make, then make it. This kind of crap does not persuade.
Ziegiest, responding to my post, you asked, “Does anyone think it is possible to have a conversation with Republicans about tax increases?” Please re-read my post. It’s clear that I wasn’t talking about 2008. I was talking about 1993.
Reagan raised taxes several times. George H.W. Bush raised taxes. And yes, in 1993, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole would have agreed to tax increases too if he had been given an opportunity to be part of the discussion. These increases were demonized precisely because Clinton disrespected the Republicans by leaving them out of the conversation. Doing so, cost us the Congress.
I’ll vote enthusiastically for whichever one gets the nomination, but I think it’s clear based on the crossover votes from independents and the new voters he’s pulled into the campaign that Obama will widen the Democratic base while Clinton will largely rally the existing one. Obama has the ability to get more and better Democrats elected all the way down the ticket, to broaden our party’s reach, to get more people to listen to our message (when they might reflexively tune out Hillary for irrational reasons), etc.
He represents the best chance we have to build up a new generation of both politicians and voters behind them. And sorry, but Bill Clinton never did that and I don’t get the feeling Hillary — for problems of her own making, but mostly for the media and GOP hatred for her — has the ability to do that.
The prize is, of course, my praising your post in these here comments.
I accept!
petorado nails it.
Yes: the Clintons *did* damage the Democratic Party in the 90s.
NAFTA undermined labor. DOMA alienated gays and people who support them. Welfare reform (which I supported) alienated lower-income people and *their* advocates. The Clipper Chip upset libertarian Dems. The Clintons’ never-ending triangulation peeled off the Democrats’ constituencies one by one and didn’t replace them with anyone.
The only thing that really made Dems close ranks around Clinton was the GOP scorched earth investigate-and-impeach nonsense. Before that, many of us were angry, disgusted and/or disappointed with Bill’s Administration.
You know that phrase “the politics of disappointment”? That describes the Clintons.
You say that’s unfair? You say it’s all the conservative Dems’ fault, the GOP’s fault, the MSM’s fault? Because of envy or hatred or some wierd psychological trip? You might be right. that might be so.
But that’s NOT GOING TO CHANGE NOW. Whoever hated them then, hates them still. Whoever took pleasure in bringing the business of the country to a grinding halt to pursue a war against the Clintons WILL DO IT AGAIN.
Look, people: this election isn’t for the benefit of the Clintons. It’s not our duty to nominate her in order to get back at their enemies, nor to nominate her as a consolation prize for all the crap she’s had to put up with.
The Presidency is about US: OUR country, OUR lives, OUR well-being.
Re-enlivening the Clinton Wars doesn’t do us a goddamn bit of good.
Vote for Clinton if you really think she’ll make a better President than Obama – but not, for pete’s sake, because you think we “owe” it to her, or she “deserves” it as a pat on the back or something.
me, I’ll vote for her if I have to. But I sure don’t want to have to. I’m supporting Obama.
Laurie, George HW Bush lost the White House because of his responsible tax increases. No new taxes was the mantra, and taxes were radioactive to reThugs. Your evidence that “Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole would have agreed to tax increases too” is . . . ?
“I loved the ’90s”
Just what did you “love” about them? NAFTA? WTO? Telecom Act? Welfare Reform Act? No-Fly Zone?
All brought to you by the one and only Billie C.! And those were just a few of his crappy legislation and so forths.
Obama seduces with rhetoric and undermines with actions.
Hmmm…
I suppose a litany of historical facts have been known to undermine some minds…
But oh my, just listen to the whining of the Clinton infatuation wurlitzer up thread.
Gang don’t worry it. The Clintons have been fully vetted. Surely Bill&Co can handle a flyer full of historical facts? If Billary can’t handle facts how is she going to take on the slime machine?
This is seriously well-played stratagem.
Some of us have been arguing these very points here for weeks. But Barack’s team out-smarted us and floated it at the perfect moment. They will be following it closely to see if it gets traction.
If it does, I hope (knowing fully well that they won’t) team Barack remindseveryone in another “thread the needle way” that Clinton’s immorality cost Gore an non-adjudicated victory in 2000.
That should give the wurlitzer something serious to whine about.
Your evidence that “Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole would have agreed to tax increases too” is . . . ?
The fact that he was the one who convinced Reagan to reverse course and raise taxes in 1982 — even though Gingrich thereafter mocked him as “tax collector for the welfare state” — would seem to be good evidence that he might have done it again under similar circumstances.
CaseyL: “But that’s NOT GOING TO CHANGE NOW. Whoever hated them then, hates them still. Whoever took pleasure in bringing the business of the country to a grinding halt to pursue a war against the Clintons WILL DO IT AGAIN.”
And why, exactly, won’t they do it against whoever is the next Dem president? What aspect of their current behavior makes you think they have changed even a little bit?
I’ll wait for your reply, but I expect to hear . . . crickets.
The way I remember it is that Clinton and the Democratic pretty much coasted along based upon his personality. There was no Center for American Progress, there was no Media Matters. In other words, there were no institutions built for long-lasting Democratic dominance. The Republicans, however, had built all sorts of think tanks, etc. to put forth their agenda. There was nothing like these Republican institutions being established on the left.
The Democrats got too complacent and now we are playing catch-up. I think that was one of the failures of the Clinton administration. It was all about Bill and his personal appeal. Nothing was established to carry forth the Democratic principles.
I see how it works. Criticize a Clinton, and Anne, Zeitgiest, wvng converge like piranhas.
Anne: You have bunk on your shoe.
wvng: Anne — Don’t tell my wife, but I love you.
Zeitgiest: Does anyone think it is possible to have a conversation with Republicans?
Good stuff.
The 90s are over. My vote had nothing to do with those years and everything to do with exorcising this country of the demons in the White House. Competence is what I want. And I’m not alone.
Many of the new Independents, like my aunt, are Republicans who are embarrassed by the incompetence of their former party. If a Democrat is elected and fails to get the economy back on track or our troops out of Iraq quickly, the Independents will quickly swing back to the Republicans.
Just what did you “love” about them [the 90s]?
The additions of Ginsburg and Breyer to the Supreme Court to name two things.
Zeitgeist said:
I’ve expressed it openly 🙂
it would be so sweet to hear Republicans have to say, “Madame President.”
Although I do think there should be a rule that a former President be banned from being “First Lady”.
“George HW Bush lost the White House because of his responsible tax increases.”
No he didn’t. He lost, in part, because he lied about his tax increases (read my lips,…). Big difference!
By the way, you may recall that the Democratic Congress that negotiated those increases was re-elected in 1992 (and in prior years when they negotiated with Reagan to raise taxes).
You asked why won’t they do it against whoever is the next Dem president? They’ll try. But the electorate has changed and they won’t get away with it. We have a multi-trillion dollar war (two wars) a $9 trillion debt, a baby-boom generation coming of age… Tax cuts aren’t the priority any more. In addition, if a new Democratic president includes Repubs in the discussion, they’re less likely to demonize the plan.
For the record, your arrogant, smart-ass jokes aren’t funny.
I’m not a poli-sci guy, but I lived through the Clinton years. In my recollection, he came in and tried some very progressive initiatives. Got nowhere. The right smelled blood and went in for the kill. Pilloring him, his wife, his daughter, his friends. It was an extremely ugly time. Right wing radio was feeling its oats and defining the MSM narrative. The fact that he had the acumen and savvy to rise out of that, to give Dems a second term, is amazing.
I think Obama is treading on very iffy ground here. He’s very inspiring, but I don’t know if he has the political savvy. I think if people see him descending into negative politicing, it’s going to hurt him. And this, I feel is really negative.
“…it would be so sweet to hear Republicans have to say, ‘Madame President.’
It would be sweeter still if she were elected on her own merits rather than having to rely on her husband and her husband’s name to get her there.
Not to mention draconian criminal justice and immigration policies and removing the safety net for the poorest of us (something that’s catching up to us now that the economy is in the crapper).
Heh. Some of the comments above are funny. Now facts have a “conservative” bias!
Good stuff.
Facts are biased as soon as you don’t agree with them…
Anne (#74) – that’s the first time I’ve agreed with you 100% – well said.
Yeah, there was lots of success in the 90s….
How many million jobs in the auto industry have been shipped to Mexico by NAFTA?
How many illegal immigrants have been pushed to come to the United States after being driven off their land by their failure to be able to compete with subsidixed American corporate aggriculture, through NAFTA?
How much did Bill’s refusal to force the WTO to put environmental issues into the body of the agreement rather than as unenforceable side isses contribute to global warming by ?
How many working people around the world have been denied the right to create unions and better their conditions, due to Bill’s refusal to put worker rights into the body of the WTO agreement and leave them as unenforceable side issues?
How many million Americans have been denied health care due to the fact that the “co-President” screwed up her assignment to create a national healthcare system?
How many poor people denied any help through welfare have now fallen through the safety net Bill slashed to ribbons with his welfare “reform”???
How many patriotic gay soldiers have been forced out of the military when they are needed, due to Bill’s failed “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy???
Not only that, but the con artist from Hot Springs is a tenth-rate saxophonist.
jzamdag said: that’s the first time I’ve agreed with you 100% – well said.
Jesus yeah.
Must be a fake Anne.
NO MORE CLINTONS IN WASHINGTON!!!
TIME FOR A CHANGE!!!
YES WE CAN!!!
KEEP THE CRIMINALS IN THE CLINTON CHAPPAQUA, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
I’ve heard a lot about this wanting to return to the 90’s, nostalgia and all that, but I think there’s a better way to describe my feelings: unfinished business. There’s nothing healing about this attack, it doesn’t move us beyond, it reopens old wounds. Actually, they never got sutured.
They IMPEACHED our guy, after years of fruitless investigations, then acted like any form of dissent was beyond the pale when we had a President who put my country in charge of former Soviet Gulags and Hussein’s torture chambers, lied us into WAR (not out of BJs) and did everything in his power to dismantle our constitution and our government. Then, just when I think this country is set to return to some sense of proportion, over at TPM, the Obama supporters are talking about Clinton’s penis.
Lord have mercy. It always comes down to the Clenis. Thre entire universe revolves around that.
You know, there are a lot of people who will only see the bad,…in the other party…and in their party. Only bad. They hate politics and politicians. But they’re always here, giving their opinions. Heh!
They IMPEACHED our guy…
Sorry that’s a dumb meme.
Remember the old saw: It isn’t the crime it’s the coverup.
He lied for months, and he had his people lying for him for months.
nuf said.
Sheeesh.
Most of that change occurred during the “Republican Revolution” in 1994. BEFORE Clintons rightwing-created scandals.
I saw my first “impeach Clinton” bumper sticker in 1993, around when Whitewater broke. One of the things I’m most bitter about is that the MSM, GOP and Dem Congress, unlike previous Presidents, denied him his honeymoon.
The 1994 was a result of the GOP fabrications. It began berfore Clinton even put his hand on the Bible.
They IMPEACHED our guy…
Sorry that’s a dumb meme.
Remember the old saw: It isn’t the crime it’s the coverup.
He lied for months, and he had his people lying for him for months.
nuf said.
Sheeesh.
I wish you would have included the next part of my post: “Lord have mercy. It always comes down to the Clenis. Thre entire universe revolves around that.”
This is exactly the kind of lack of proportion we nearly undid before Obama came along to set us back. Now we’re supporting impeachment, are we?
Blaming the Clintons for the Republican ascendency of the last two decades misstates the facts, putting all the blame on the Clintons and robbing the GOP of any credit.
.Neither Bill nor Hillary can be blamed for things beyond their control.
The Clintons were not responsible for picking the Democratic candidates, nor were they responsible for the scandals in Congress.
For much of the 90’s, Democrats in Congress ran away from or even against the Clintons. How are the Clintons to blame for what happened to them after that?
And like it or not, the GOP in the 90’s had an efficient and effective political operation, including fundraising, candidate recruitment, organization and propaganda.
As for state elections, consider this:
I live in California, where Pete Wilson was elected Governor in 1990 and relected in 1994, but Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. Then Gray Davis was elected Governor in 1998 and Gore won in 2000, but then Davis was recalled in 2003 and replaced by Schwatzenegger.
Then Kerry won in 2004, and Arnold was reelected in 2006, when the Democrats were sweeping Congress. Since 1992 we have had Dianne Feinstein and Barbara boxer as our Senators.
How would apportion blame or credit to the Clintons for that?
One of Obama’s appeals is his idea that he can inspire people by bringing them together. How does this mailer bring people together? He talks about change in the way people approach things in Washington by inspiring people to work together and hope. How does this mailer inspire anyone other than Republicans? The problem with this mailer is not that it’s factually incorrect, the problem is that Obama is a hypocrite. It’s pathetic the way he gets a pass on everything. This is a highly negative mailer. How do I know? Because there are plenty of positive things that could be said about the Clinton years and instead Obama is bashing the only positive Democratic period in my lifetime. How does this help Democrats? By bringing Republicans together and inspiring them with hope.
“They impeached our guy” is not a dumb meme.
I have Clinton-hatred, but I define it as the hatred I have for the hypocritical Republicans who put our country through the impeachment fiasco. Impeachment? For that? As I watched day by day the impeachment show with its asinine Republicans forcing that carnival I knew that they had no agenda except to destroy. And the Republicans who have come along since them are even worse. They do want to destroy the country. And that’s why I don’t truck with any pandering toward them now. I want someone who will kick their treasonist asses.
And now when impeachment would be healing rather than destroying there is no one to do it.
I am an independant voter. I used to be a Democrat. After the shame that was the Clinton administration of the 90’s, I left the party and vowed never to vote for a Clinton again.
I would love to come back to the party and vote for Obama.
Why do some members of the Democratic Party want to keep people like me from supporting their candidate? The views between Obama and Clinton are substantially similar, but the character of the two candidates are light years apart. Obama is a win/win (the Alienated Anti-Clinton Democrats get to return to the party, and the Clinton fans still get a similar candidate).
Does any Clinton supporter have an answer for me?
Laurie and others above suggest Dole would have been willing in the 90s to discuss tax increases; when asked what evidence they have they cite statements from the 80s. Let me give the evidence that there is no way Dole talks tax increases in the 90s: Jack Kemp for VP. By that selection, Dole confirmed that the lesson he learned from GHW’s single term was that tax increases were a third rail in the New Republican Party (a party which seemed to take Dole by surprise as much as it did the Democrats)
g8grl, this mailer unites people (as in red states and blue states) because so many people despise the Clintons. This mailer lets the nation know that it is okay to be Democrat even if you feel sick every time you see a Clinton on TV.
The democratic party is already united. It is not like the Republican Party where they don’t know if religion, the economy or the war is important. The Democrats have candidates who have similar beliefs.
However, the Democrats also have a candidate who is part of one of the most despised presidencies since Nixon. Clinton will just cause more divide in our nation. Barack recognizes this, and he is willing to accept the Anti-Clinton americans who feel we deserve better than another Clinton polluting our nation.
the Democrats also have a candidate who is part of one of the most despised presidencies since Nixon.
what planet of trolls are you from?
Clinton had one of the highest “last day” approval ratings in history.
To this day, Clinton has the highest approval rating in 40 years.
How does that add up to a “despised presidency”?
You’ve either wholly bought the Limbaugh Lies or are the textbook definition of a concern troll.
Utterly pathetic that Obama feels the need to try and tear down a Democratic president to serve his own goals. Clinton was attacked viciously for daring to criticize Obama but Obama gets a pass on the same stuff? Just another example of the complete hypocracy of so many Obama supporters. And some of you need to go back and read your history. The Dems lost seats in the house and senate because they bravely voted for the Clinton budget, which even Dole guaranteed would cause a depression, and they voted for the Brady Bill outlawing assault weapons. The Republicans campaigned on those issues and the public stupidly bought it. This mailer is intellectually dishonest at best.
How did Al Gore not win the presidency if Clinton’s administration was so popular? Clinton dragged Al Gore down with him. Guilt by association.
If you don’t thin there is a serious contingent of Clinton Haters out there (but people who would gladly vote for Barack), then you are from a different planet or something.
Hey Jammer, you do realize that Obama is running against Billary Clinton right now.
He’s not just picking some random president and tearing him down. He’s going after the husband of his opponent, a man who is spending his time tearing down Obama himself.
Clinton trash is going to be taken out this summer, and Barockstar is going to lead us into a new era (that doesn’t include pardon selling nor impeachment).
Bush is America’s top representative, so attacking Bush is attacking America.
Similarly, Clinton is the Democratic Party’s top representative, so attacking Clinton is attacking the Democratic Party.
Our leaders are untouchable, unless you want to destroy the thing they lead. And unless Obama is in love with Republicans, he needs to start praising the Clintons immediately. That’s just how it goes. It’s ok for Obama to oppose Hillary for the nomination and he’s certainly allowed to talk about her. But it’s just wrong for him to say anything that makes her look bad, no matter how true it is.
And yes, I’m being facetious.
If Obama’s campaign is about enshrining the alternative universe created by the ascendance of talk radio in the 90s, if that’s all this is about, then he has to be stopped at all costs, period.
If Obama is nothing more than buying into the manufactured hate of the DC elite, then we don’t need it. If the “new” people he brings into the party are attracted to him because he’s a catalyst for those not ready to shirk themselves of their Limbaugh tendencies, we don’t need them.
Barockstar? Barockstar? *snicker*
dajafi, doubtful – you wanna claim this one?
you see what Anne and I have been talking about?
CB, do you have the proper COPA disclaimers on the site – it appears someone under 13 is entering things in the input fields.
Given your evident age, I’ll assume you weren’t old enough to pay attention when Gore foolishly ran away from his own administration, thereby not taking credit for the economy. Oh, and there was something about fundraising and Buddhist monks, but I’m sure Clinton made him do that at gunpoint. And wearing orange makeup in the second debate.
But if you’re a Republican, everything can be blamed on Clinton. Ergo, you must be. . .
Doc,
You can criticize Clinton. You can’t enshrine Gingrich’s version of history as fact, when it is obvious to anyone, after two terms of Bush, that conventional wisdom on Clinton was as wrong as it is on Bush.
Republicans are always right in real time, we’re alway right in retrospect. Unless Obama gets to fudge things.
But if you’re a Republican, everything can be blamed on Clinton. Ergo, you must be. . .
Wow.
This thread is composed entirely of black and white. There is absolutely no gray.
If you think Clinton was to blame for anything that happened on his dime, you are a Clinton-hater, a child, a troll, a GOP plant, a Republican, etc. ad nauseum.
The opposing position seems to be that Clinton was infallible and could do no wrong, because that would be buying into the GOP version of history.
I can’t wait for this shit to be over, and hopefully without Clinton. This nonsense needs to stop, and as long as there is a Clinton around – it won’t. Fuck dynastic politics and the horses it rides in on.
Well put, John S. I couldn’t agree more.
Defend them or attack them, it’s always about the Clintons. They’re self-obsessed, and the whole world seems to enable that.
At least some of us (I’d like to think most of us) who support Obama, do so because he seems to believe it’s actually about us. Which is how democracy is supposed to work.
zeitgeist, since you invoked me (hmm…) and I made a similar suggestion before, I’ll commend to you in particular this article about the differing approaches of the two Democratic candidates on governance in general and economic policy in particular:
Manager or Visionary
This nonsense needs to stop, and as long as there is a Clinton around – it won’t.
This is the misconception Obama has brought back. Clinton is not what is polarizing. It’s the fact that people like you buy into smears. You’re the reason swiftboating works because people like you bought into the echochamber.
Defend them or attack them, it’s always about the Clintons. They’re self-obsessed, and the whole world seems to enable that.
Please, please use the term narcissist. I know you’re dying to. I just heard Chris Matthews use it last night.
How about an actual argument there, meme?
And I’ve called Bill the First Narcissist for awhile, if that gets your rocks off.
Obama used Republican talking points to attack Hillary’s health care plan. He has been given a pass by the media to say what he wants, while she has to tread a fine line. This is the last straw for me. I came into this party because of Bill Clinton and his move to the center. If Obama is going to attack Bill, I will not vote for him. He can no longer claim that he gets her candidates if he wins but she might not get his. He will not get my vote.
i see little evidence that the Clintons are self obsessed and tons of evidence that others are obsessed with the Clintons. big difference.
dajafi, thanks for the link. i think Ezra has written a number of very nice pieces this cycle. i suspect backers of either candidate find things to like in Ezra’s piece. as you likely would guess from my prior posts, i find his analysis corresponds to my reasons for preferring Clinton in two ways. One, he views her as the more detailed policy wonk, and the one more focused on the specifics of handling “the bills” coming due for the past 7 years. Two, while he never actually says one has to take Obama on faith, he notes that Clinton wants to change the policies while Obama wants to change the politics. To find that analysis favors Obama, you have to believe that he in fact can change the politics. I remain skeptical on that core premise.
For those two reasons I think she is better suited for the immediate tasks of undoing the Bush Reign of Error. But I understand where the Obama supporters are coming from (well, ok, supporters like you and doubtful and Doctor Biobrain. not so much the ones who keep bringing up assassinations or Barockstars).
I don’t know John S. Seems to me that Zeit and Anne etc are making good points.
Yes, lots of people don’t like the Clintons. But yesterday’s exit polls say that 70%of OBAMA’s voters are happy to vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall.
So for everybody who says Hillary can’t get the votes in the Fall, wake up.
This flyer is Clintonian. Which means it’s factual, and wrong.
At least it’s not Rovian, which means it would be a lying paraphrase.
I’m sorry Senator Barak Obama, but you won’t be getting my vote next Tuesday. In the fall, yes, but for the primary…
… screw you and the bitch you rode in on.
You can’t enshrine Gingrich’s version of history as fact, when it is obvious to anyone, after two terms of Bush, that conventional wisdom on Clinton was as wrong as it is on Bush.
memekiller – What are you talking about? How did Obama reinforce Gingrich’s version of history? He just pointed out the fact that while Bill Clinton stayed fairly popular throughout his presidency, this somehow didn’t help other Democrats or do much to help the party. And I’ve always thought that. Did Obama call Clinton a tax & spend liberal or suggest that Clinton was “irrelevant” as president? No, he pointed out facts. And for that, he’s now a Republican? How does that work?
I’m sorry, but I’ve been arguing this stuff on the internets going back into Clinton’s first term, and while I was defending Clinton at the time, I’ve never really been into hero-worship. Perhaps you guys see some great advantage to making Bill look like the second-coming of Jesus, but I’m not going for it. He was a decent president. Things could have been worse (as proven by our current president). But he really wasn’t particularly successful at anything other than remaining popular. Perhaps I’m wrong. Can anyone point out some big liberal agenda items Bill used his popularity to pass in his second term? We all know things FDR, JFK, and LBJ did to help liberal causes. How about Clinton?
This is exactly the kind of lack of proportion we nearly undid before Obama came along to set us back. Now we’re supporting impeachment, are we?
Obama didn’t set us back. And no one’s supporting the impeachment. But like it or not, this is the baggage the Clintons have. When she makes appeals to the 90s, it brings back the bad along with the good. You can’t have her just imploring us to remember all the good things and waving our hands to pretend a lot of ugliness never happened. The baggage is there. Sen. Clinton says she’s fully vetted, but that’s only because there’s a whole lot of ammo out there on her and her husband.
The Democrats suffered heavy electoral losses in those eight years. Now, not all of that was the fault of the Clintons, but some of it was, and a central theme of Obama’s campaign has been that he can build a new majority for the Democratic Party. There isn’t anything out of bounds with pointing out that the Clintons did not do that from 1992 to 2000.
Obama used Republican talking points to attack Hillary’s health care plan.
And she used right wing talking points to attack him on taxes. Politicians position and frame.
Wow, dude. You read fast.
I credit your analysis, as usual, and I have to admit that reading Klein’s piece made me appreciate them both (as typically happens when I think about Sen. Clinton on policy grounds–she’s more orthodox-liberal than I’d ideally prefer, and Klein details why nicely, but it’s a small gap). I do prefer Obama’s approach because it makes intuitive sense to me–and because I think he can re-validate government itself as a positive force in the lives of everyday Americans, whereas I believe the Clintons are too scarred and scared even to make the effort. (The irony, I freely grant, is that her policies might well do more to *make* government a positive force in the lives of Americans–a typically Clintonian tactic of winning a battle but not making progress in the war.) That accomplishment would indeed “undo” Reaganism–co-opting its methods while reversing its results.
And as discussed before, my big doubt is whether one can change the policies in a meaningful way without changing the politics. I don’t see how Hillary Clinton gets any Republican agreement on the sky being blue, much less how to reshape the economy. The gridlock could be salutary, as it mostly was in the late ’90s… but I think we need more than useful stasis and further political trench warfare.
Not to “Swan”… but my post at 111 was response to zeitgeist at 107.
(I kinda miss Swan, btw. Clintonite, Obamist, whatever–we all agreed that guy was a pompous, possibly delusional a-hole. Ah, blessed unity.)
Doc,
Perhaps it would be better stated as ignoring the role Gingrich character assassination and a talk radio emulating media had, and pinning it on the Clinton’s being “polarizing”. Being a target of the right wing doesn’t mean you’re polarizing, it means you scare them.
Being a target of the right wing doesn’t mean you’re polarizing, it means you scare them.
I agree, but how can you seriously suggest that everyone would have had the same problems the Clintons did? More importantly, how can you credit Clinton with all the things he did right, while insisting that he can’t be blamed for all the problems? I’m sorry, but Clinton made mistakes. The intern thing comes to mind as a serious blunder. I don’t fault him for the personal aspects of it, but only that it went far to hurting the presidency. It shouldn’t have been like that and it wasn’t his fault that it became the story it was, but all the same, it was a mistake that hurt him and the party. I seriously doubt he doesn’t think the exact same thing.
And more importantly, just because the right wing attacks doesn’t mean that all attacks are equal. I’m sorry, but the Clintons were just “Love Em or Hate Em” kind of people. Some people will defend them to the ends of the earth, while others will chase them there with torches. It’s not necessarily that they did anything wrong, but polarizing doesn’t just mean you did anything wrong. Some people are hated more than others, and there’s nothing rational about it. That’s not casting blame. That’s just saying that perhaps it would be smarter to pick a candidate who the media doesn’t hate.
And so, doesn’t it seem a bit harsh to compare this flyer to Gingrich? I’m sorry, but that’s some harsh language. Accusing someone of being Republican just for being truthful about Bill is nothing but hero-worship. Let’s leave that for the authoritarians. We should be able to take the good with the bad.
Doctor Biobrain said: “I agree, but how can you seriously suggest that everyone would have had the same problems the Clintons did?”
You do remember Swiftboaters for Truth, yes?
I think g8grl nailed it: “One of Obama’s appeals is his idea that he can inspire people by bringing them together. How does this mailer bring people together?”
If this remarkably vituperative thread (for Steve’s place) is any indication, this was a remarkably divisive political decision by Obama. It reminds me of the scene in “Fellowship of the Ring” when all the good guys fought over who would take charge of the Ring. Where is Frodo when we need him?
Oh, and Laurie, I apologize for any intemperate comments.
“She used right wing talking points to attack him on taxes.” Will Republicans use her words when it comes to taxes. Won’t make a difference. Will they use his ad to stop universal health care? Might make a big difference. Mandates, mandates, mandates.
You do remember Swiftboaters for Truth, yes?
Were you alive in the 90’s? You really think that dumb attack that Kerry failed to block is somehow comparable to the anti-Clinton hatred? My father is a relatively intelligent, rational man who firmly believes that Clinton was a Soviet-plant from back in his youth from when he visited Moscow. I had a real estate agent insist that the Clintons murdered over thirty people. A well-read book written by a former government employee insisted that the Clintons hung crackpipes on their Christmas tree in the Whitehouse. And you tell me about Swiftboaters? Are you joking? My teenage daughter faces worse smears than that on MySpace every day.
I’m telling you, some hatred is deeper than others. I refuse to believe that Gore, Kerry, Dean, or Obama could ever be as hated as the Clintons were. Maybe you’re right and Obama will get it just as bad; but that’s entirely an unproven theory.
Doctor Biobrain –
Yes, the intern thing was a huge mistake. But since the Kennedy endorsements, Teddy and JFK have both gotten loads of positive press here, and both were every bit as adulterous, and in their own ways as scandalous in their adultry, as Bill Clinton. No one here seems to think that makes them bad Democrats or bad leaders — they had the benefit of a complicit press, which Clinton didn’t have.
I disagree that the Republicans wouldn’t have found some way to demonize anyone who kept them out of power in 92. Any reading on the coalescing of the Weyrich/Dobson/Gingrich/Norquist/Federalist Society folks makes it pretty clear: with 7 of 9 Justices appointed by Republicans and Roe and Lemon still on the books it was all about the Court, and there was no length they wouldn’t go to in ensuring it moved to the right. Clinton was in some ways an easy target because he was a “draft dodger,” a “pot smoker” – a genuine product of the 60s. But I don’t really fault him for that, either, as that generational shift had to happen sometime and would be controversial whenever it happened. Bill just was the one up front getting shot at so it became less controversial to be from the Vietnam, rather than the WW2, generation. Unlike the intern thing, however, these were not really anything he did as President — in essense, the right hated America for electing a draft-dodging, dope-smoking 60s hippie, and they were going to discipline not just Clinton but America, drag it kicking and screaming to see the Right (hence impeaching a President even while he had 60% approval rating and when 75% disapproved of impeachment).
Had Kerry gone first and Bill second, I am beyond certain the impact would have been identical (and in fact, they did try to claim he had an affair – it just didn’t stick.)
This is the misconception Obama has brought back. Clinton is not what is polarizing.
What utter gibberish.
Please, save your canned responses for someone else. I never said anything about polarization – I said to hell with dynastic politics.
I don’t need Obama to tell me that I’ve been stuck voting for the same two lousy families for my entire voting life. That’s two too many.
I refuse to believe that Gore, Kerry, Dean, or Obama could ever be as hated as the Clintons were.
That is only because the Clintons (a) were first up on the generational shift and first up in opposing the “New Right”; (b) won, whereas the others did not – its easy to let up on someone you’ve already beaten. And still, they hated Dean passionately. Heck, they got warmed up for the 90s by almost hating Dukakis. I mean c’mon – how can you have strong feelings about Mike Dukakis?
Reality: these people are criminally insane, like a bunch of bad Batman villians escaped from Arkham. It doesn’t behoove Democrats to blame our own for these sociopaths on the right.
I get the general sense from these 117 posts (wow) that those who simply want to piss on the GOP for the next 4 years and probably get little doene are Clinton lovers (sans Tommy-Boy Cleaver) while thosee who actually want to see things get done the next 4 years are Obama fans. Interesting…
JRS jr says: “I get the general sense from these 117 posts (wow) that those who simply want to piss on the GOP for the next 4 years and probably get little doene are Clinton lovers (sans Tommy-Boy Cleaver) while thosee who actually want to see things get done the next 4 years are Obama fans.”
Yeah, that must be it.
Sigh.
Zeit – I’ll repeat again, some people are hated than others. I’m sure you know that. I understand that every Dem will be attacked, but these attacks are just not equal. And as you are fully aware, the media hates the Clintons and they don’t hate Obama. Does that not count for anything? After all, if the rightwing attacks and the media doesn’t repeat it, it didn’t really happen.
As if the GOP is going to want to get anything done anyway. They’re obstructionists. That’s all they got.
All I know, based on the ongoing hostility among the Dems and as McCain makes nice with the far right in coming days, he’s gonna have some fun watching this battle on his left (while throwing in some grenades himself).
If things don’t calm down, this election is boud to turn into Mutual Assured Destruction for the Dems… Just look at what happened to the GOP in ’76 — a peanut farmer walked away the election while the two GOP candidates slugged it out!
With Hillary’s sudden onset of serious $$ problems, and Obama able to post a quick $4 million is less than 24 hours, this may end more quickly than any of us expect right now. The msm is pouncing quickly, and the narrative would write itself even if they didn’t already hate her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Face it. Bill and Hillary have always been shitty salesmen for core liberal values. Whether they want
liberalism is irrelevant. They’ve never been able to get anyone else to want it, and have
adopted their style of governance accordingly.
And that’s the truth underlying the Obama mailing. The Clintons haven’t done anything to create brand value.
dajafi said:
(I kinda miss Swan, btw. Clintonite, Obamist, whatever–we all agreed that guy was a pompous, possibly delusional a-hole. Ah, blessed unity.)
Fair dinkum? Otay…
You asked for it.
I’ve been following his plight over at Drum’s place.
Just because… well… his crap was deservedly drawing icy fire.
They may have pulled the drain on him.
And this may be the thread were he bought the sewer.
Note: [Square brackets are the moderator’s comments]
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013064.php#1222578
Enjoy…
By the way: None of the post on that thread are mine.
wvng said:
With Hillary’s sudden onset of serious $$ problems, and Obama able to post a quick $4 million is less than 24 hours, this may end more quickly than any of us expect right now. The msm is pouncing quickly, and the narrative would write itself even if they didn’t already hate her.
I just got a mailer from the Barack people claiming there are reports the Clinton’s infusion could go as high as 20 million.
Makes one wonder how much that family is worth…
FYI – someone with a strange sense of humor is the person who posted at 74 as “Anne.”
Cute.
I agree with those who support Clinton doing well in the 90s and have some facts to share:
1) 1992 Election had Clinton (43.0%) and Perot (18.9%) getting 61.9% of total vote. Bush I got only 37.4% of the vote. States were 32/18 and electoral college 370/168 for Clinton/Bush I.
2) In 1980, Reagan was elected and the total national debt was about $1 Trillion. That included debt from the Depression, WWII, Korea, Nam, the Cold War and all the Great Society programs.
3) The 12 years of Reagan/Reagan/Bush I added over $4 Trillion and the Repubs controlled the Senate for Reagans first 6 years, 1981-1986. That certainly was not Clinton’s fault.
4) The Repubs used the 1994 election and their Contract for America to gain control of both the House and Senate with strong promises of fiscal restraint but still promising to continue the Reagan push for smaller government and less regulation. I will post the key elements of the Contract shortly.
5) Bill Clinton did a good job of resisting the Repub/Reagan tide and a great job in reversing the Federal deficit. Again, look at the Repub Contract and most of the negatives of the 90s belong to the Repubs and conservative Dems.
6) A strong argument is that the voters spoke strongly in 92 and 94 and Clinton and the Dems listened and the Repubs took advantage. Look how fast the Repubs turned back to Reaganomics in 2001. Look how they claimed that 50 +1 should give them any votes they wanted but ignored the 2006 election and have set a record for filabusters in less than 1/2 of a congressional session.
The 7 years of Bush II have added over another $4 Trillion and pushed the total national debt to $9.7 Trillion.
I see that we will need a fighter to push back against the Repubs continuancy of the Reagan legacy of more tax cuts and less regulation. I supported Edwards and now support Hillary.
I will discuss my issues with Obama in another post but my preference would be Hillary for 8 years and then Obama for the next 8. Can any Obama supporters provide a good argument against that prospect?
JimK
The Repub 1994 Contract for/on America
The Fiscal Responsibility Act – An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and provide the president with a line-item veto
The Taking Back Our Streets Act – An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, death penalty provisions, funding prison construction and additional law enforcement.
The Personal Responsibility Act – An act to cut spending for welfare programs by means of discouraging illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. The Family Self-Sufficiency Act, included provisions giving food vouchers to unwed mothers under 18 in lieu of cash AFDC benefits, denying cash AFDC benefits for additional children to people on AFDC, requiring recipients to participate in work programs after 2 years on AFDC, complete termination of AFDC payments after five years, and suspending driver and professional licenses of people who fail to pay child support.
The American Dream Restoration Act – An act to create a $500-per-child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle-class tax relief.
The National Security Restoration Act – An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.
The “Common Sense” Legal Reform Act – An act to institute “Loser pays” laws, limits on punitive damages and reform of product-liability laws to prevent what the bill considered frivolous litigation (vetoed by President Clinton. Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by Clinton.
The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act – A package of measures to act as small-business incentives; capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. Although this was listed as a single bill in the Contract, its provisions ultimately made it to the House Floor as four bills:
H.R.5, requiring federal funding for state spending mandated by Congressional action, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $50m per year did pass.
H.R.450 required a moratorium on the implementation of Federal regulations until June 30, 1995 but never emerged from conference.
H.R.925 required Federal compensation to be paid to property owners when Federal Government actions reduced the value of the property by 20% or more, and was passed.
H.R.926, passed, required Federal agencies to provide a cost-benefit analysis on any regulation costing $50m or more annually, to be signed off on by the Office of Management and Budget, and permitted small businesses to sue that agency if they believed the aforementioned analysis was performed inadequately or incorrectly.
The Citizen Legislature Act – An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators) was rejected.
Other sections of the Contract – Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).
Unlike the intern thing, however, these were not really anything he did as President — in essense, the right hated America for electing a draft-dodging, dope-smoking 60s hippie, and they were going to discipline not just Clinton but America, drag it kicking and screaming to see the Right (hence impeaching a President even while he had 60% approval rating and when 75% disapproved of impeachment).
This strikes me as substantially correct–though (and I know we don’t agree on this one) Bill brought a lot of what ensued on himself. If that’s a “right-wing talking point,” so be it; I’m fairly sure I’m not a “right-winger” by any honest definition, and I voted for the guy twice. But he was self-indulgent and self-destructive. You can argue it was his bad fortune to get caught where FDR, JFK et al were waved through or covered up for, but even there, it’s not like he could have expected the press to give him the benefit of most doubts.
Had Kerry gone first and Bill second, I am beyond certain the impact would have been identical (and in fact, they did try to claim he had an affair – it just didn’t stick.)
Okay, but Clinton *did* have affairs, where Kerry, AFAIK, did not. Bill had admitted as much with Gen Flowers (and others). And he ultimately did with Lewinsky.
He fooled around with her during the ’95 government shutdown. Even if you don’t have a problem with the morality of that, it can’t be described as anything but colossally risky and stupid.
I see that we will need a fighter to push back against the Repubs continuancy of the Reagan legacy of more tax cuts and less regulation.
JimK – I see this as the exact problem. I don’t want a president who just holds the line against a line of ideological zealots. I want a president who has an active vision for what he wants. Clinton might have had that at the beginning, though even that’s debatable; but he surely had it beat out of him.
If anything, you’re just confirming my view of Clinton. His “success” was that he stopped Republicans from gaining even more than they did; but he didn’t actually play offense much. And even still, I feel he helped move the country more conservative. BTW, it’s my understanding that Clinton wasn’t actually pushing a reduced deficit plan until Ross Perot started catching steam. And that’s about standard for Bill and Hillary. They can sell anything they think helps them, but they don’t really care what it is.
And you can ask Gore about how great it is to run for election after eight years of a Clinton presidency. Clinton’s coattails were always very short, which is sort of the point of Barack’s mailer. He might be successful, but it doesn’t really extend to anyone else. Barack, on the other hand, is offering a complete vision of where he wants to see the country. This isn’t about triangulating to find the safe position; he’s in this for the long haul. That’s why we need him now.
He fooled around with her during the ‘95 government shutdown. Even if you don’t have a problem with the morality of that, it can’t be described as anything but colossally risky and stupid.
In fact, that was exactly his defense in the deposition. “It would have been colossally risky and stupid to diddle the intern, so of course I didn’t do it.”
–http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintondep031398.htm
On the history of Clinton Hating,
As others have pointed out, it started as soon as Bill was sworn in and note that Linda Tripp did not inform Ken Starr about Monica giving a bogus affidavit until January of 1998, six years into his presidency.
Whitewater was a land deal involving a failed S&L. There were litterally thousands of S&Ls that failed and all but that involving Whitewater were white washed. There was a rush to use the FDIC to minimize damage to individuals and a rush to minimize the scope of mismanagement to avoid wide spread loss of confidence in the entire banking system. The S&L failure was a perfect example of the push by Reaganomics to reduce regulatory oversight and regulations. S&Ls were suddenly free to make risky investments with little or no equity, just like the present Sub-prime mess. There was a push by the Repubs to low key the problems as it would have undermined the effort to cannonize Reagan and some important Repubs were in charge of those S&L, including a Bush son.
The first special prescutor found no Clinton wrong doing and was going to close the investigation. The Repubs appointed a partisian Repub, Ken Starr, who went on to spend over $50 million and 5 years investigating and had nothing until the Monica issue in 1998.
Remember that the Monica affidavit came out of the civil suit by Paula Jones that got thrown out of court because her testimony was proven false when she claimed to be with Bill at times that he was appearing at public events on the other side of the state. But no charges of purjury were ever brought against her. There is a strong record of her receiving financial support by Repub big wigs.
Another early issue was the Arkansas state troopers reports of Clinton wrong doing. The reports turned out to be false but there is a strong record of actual monetary bribes to the troopers but no charges against them either.
There were literally hundreds of Repub congressional hearings into the Clinton presidency and thousands of hours of hearings but found nothing. Should the blame fall on the Clintons or on the Repubs. I think some people see all the dust kicked up by the Repubs and mistake it for smoke and thus concluded that there must have been a fire some where, some how.
To answer those who say there is some special hatred for Bill Clinton, how about looking at the Repub views on Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Any respect for the Nobel prizes they have won? Any respect for Gore winning an Academy Award for An Inconvenient Truth? Any respect for the charity work they have done or do the Repubs hate the contrast to Bush I and the Carlye Group and their Arab clients? How about the Repubs showing up wearing those purple ribbons in response to Kerry and being so concerned about flip-flopping in 2004 but allow McCain and Romney to be top tier candidates for 2008?
There are some studies out there that show RightWing radio spends 70% of their time attacking the Dems. Look at how they attacked McCain in SC in 2000 and claimed he was mentally unbalanced by his time as a POW and his adopted child was actually illegitimate from an affair and now is being savaged for not being conservative enough on tax cuts and immigration and abortion.
Any Dem is going to be trashed in the general election this fall. Hillary will get it some what worse than Obama. But she can counter that Starr and $50 million found nothing. She can point to the two major books that came out about a year ago that produced no new negatives.
Obama is pretty much a blank slate and will be on the defense against the charges of having too close a relation to Muslims and having an un-American name and no experience as Commander-in-Chief, especially against McCain. He is getting better treatment from the MSM but that will pale this fall versus the love fest that exists for McCain.
Obama promises to change the current bitter politics of today. I saw MLK and many of his great speeches. They did move the nation but segregation remained a major fact of American life right up to today. Look at Reagan and the Repub southern stategy. Look at Trent Lott praising Strom Thurmond and his run for president in 1948 against Truman and Dewey. Just like Wallace ran as a 3rd party candidate in 1968 which helped Nixon beat Humphrey. That effort also broke the Dem allegence in the South and allowed Nixon and Reagan to employ the Southern stategy.
I was thrilled by JFK and his speeches but he barely beat Nixon in 1960. His re-election effort was in doubt in the fall of 63. He had inspired much of the country but his support of MLK and Civil Rights, even though it came late, was costing him big time in the southern states. That is why he went to Dallas and why reports of supportive crowds was noted as unexpected by the press.
I do love the Obama positive view but I do not see his plan to implement or to handle those who are radical in their belief in Pro-Life, in the Bible as absolute fact over science, in Family values, in pro-gun rights and who are so anti-gay and anti-hispanic.
@135:
And even still, I feel he helped move the country more conservative.
Absolutely. It’s the curse of Clintonism — I honestly believe that both Clintons do believe in progressive ideals, at least in the abstract. Unfortunately, they believe in attaining and maintaining power much more. To some degree that’s the curse of any politician who wants to get something done. After Hillary’s hubris in pushing healthcare reform, I think they really, consciously chose the route of least resistance.
Many of Bill’s accomplishments really focused on taking conservative ideas, slapping on a new coat of paint, and reselling them to the public. I continue to point toward welfare reform and NAFTA in particular — disgraceful, really, for any moderately progressive person to claim either of these as “victories.” The damage from each has been lasting.
Read JimK’s posts, folks.
Do you really want four to eight more years of that?
I’m not saying it’s fair–though I maintain that Bill’s wounds were substantially self-inflicted. But I am saying it’s real, and I think the stakes for the country are too high to continue pouring thought and energy into this blood feud.
The hell of this is that I’d bet the Obama supporters are “over” the Clinton sexcapades and various other ethical misadventures–the real ones (fundraising) and the bullshit ones (Whitewater, “Travelgate,” et al ad nauseum) both. I don’t care who was right and who was wrong. I want to turn the page.
You might notice, if you’re not too invested in the Clinton Defender mode, that this is actually the opposite of those right-wing smears we’re all supposedly echoing.
A lot of whining about NAFTA and how car manufacturing jobs went to Mexico.
I’m sorry, but part of that problem had nothing to do with NAFTA… The problems car companies had/have is the high cost of benefits paid to their employees/union members in pensions and health care. Those thankless ‘laborers’ deserved to lose their jobs. I’m sorry, but I don’t see why the average wage for a GM worker needs to be in the 85K range. Not to mention the retirement benefits and such.
NAFTA was the ‘undeserved’ hand to the car companies to lessen their load. I’m not saying that was the right thing to do; but I certainly do not support the ridiculous demands from all those unions either.
GM-Ford-Chrysler deserve what is coming to them. If they can’t compete against Toyota Nissan Honda etc, they don’t needs to be around.
The average cost in benefits for a car built by GM:
– in America: $1500
– in Canada: $500
– in China: $50
Now there are some numbers that could use some adjusting. Those are the issues that need to be addressed. NOT about shipping jobs off to a different country.
Clinton may have brought up NAFTA, but if it wasn’t for that, people that are now coming to the age of getting their first driver’s license, might not be able to buy a NEW Ford, GM, or Chrysler product. There would only be used ones left.
NAFTA may be bad, but not for the reasons you think.
I like and repect The Left Coaster. His examination of Hillary’s record is that of a strong liberal/progressive, right along side of Obama and Edwards.
I still argue that Bill did a good job of blunting the Repub push to the right and trying to get as progressive an agenda as was possible in the 90s. His actions since leaving office show a decidely liberal/progressive pattern.
He started talking about economic issues in his Covenant speeches in the fall of 1991. Actually, Pat Buchanan was attacking Bush I on breaking the No New Tax pledge and being an Economic Elite out-of-touch as his main plank for the 1992 NH primary. Perot did not announce his run until Feb 1992. So once again, a Clinton critic sees Clinton as only following Ross Perot when the truth is the opposite.
I’d say that this is not only fair game. I believe its pretty smart on two fronts. One month ago, the memory of Bill Clinton was swirling in a fog of feel good 90s memories. He was the dreamy wonder president of yore.
But he stepped out of the warm after glow of 7 years of silence on Iraq, GWB and every other issue he’s been silent on, to become an Obama attack dog. It brought back into stark relief the 50+1 winning strategy the Clintons used for themselves, but which cost the democratic party dearly. The “rat fucking” democrats received during the 90s. The South Carolina, Jessie Jackson comment, revealing in all its glory, the Clinton’s personal dedication to themselves over party and party unity.
The real genius of this: Though I believe ALL of that is true, I’m pretty sure most Dem Voters will not remember things this way. They prefer their dreamy image of Bill. But I don’t think Obama is talking to democratic voters when he telegraphs this. He’s talking to Super Delegates. He’s talking to the Democratic Insiders. The senators. The Mayors. The Office Holders. The Speakers of houses. He’s reminding the Democratic Party insiders what the Clintons did the last time around. And making them think twice about believing the mythologized Bill Clinton.
All of you Super Delegate officer holders!!! The 90s were the good old days for the Clintons, but the bad old days for the entire Democratic Party.
Remember!!! Remember!!! The Votes in NOVEMBER.
That is what this race is all about from here to Pennsylvania. Delegates.
This thread is Obama’s take on the 90s. Look at the following for a flavor of what was and still is coming from the Repubs and the right. Seems to me that the 2008 Repubs are still pushing the Buchanan package.
In 1990, Buchanan published a newsletter called Patrick J. Buchanan: From the Right; it sent subscribers a bumper sticker that read, “Read Our Lips! No new taxes.” In 1992, Buchanan began the first of his three presidential campaigns, running on a platform of economic nationalism, immigration reduction, and social conservatism, including opposition to multiculturalism, abortion, and gay rights.
He unsuccessfully challenged the incumbent, President George H. W. Bush, for the Republican Party presidential nomination, garnering some 3 million votes in state primary elections. Buchanan won 38 percent of the seminal New Hampshire primary, seriously challenging Bush, whose popularity was waning.
Buchanan explained his reason for running thus: “If the country wants to go in a liberal direction, if the country wants to go in the direction of [Democrats] George Mitchell and Tom Foley, it doesn’t bother me as long as I’ve made the best case I can. What I can’t stand are the back-room deals. They’re all in on it, the insider game, the establishment game — this is what we’re running against.”
Buchanan later threw his support behind Bush, and delivered a keynote address at the 1992 Republican National Convention, which became known as the culture war speech, in which he described
“a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America.”
In the speech, he strongly attacked Bill and Hillary Clinton, saying:
The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America–abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units–that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America needs. It is not the kind of change America wants. And it is not the kind of change we can abide in a nation we still call God’s country.
Buchanan’s speech stirred controversy and alienated some moderates.
In 2008, such comments are the norm for the leading Repub candidates but Obama claims he has some special way that will transcend such sentiments by the other side.
It seems that it is that same tune of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
I do want vision but grounded in reality and experience.
Again, I want a Dem/Liberal/progressive presidency for the next 16 plus years so I argue for Hillary in 2008 and Obama in 2016.
I see Bush II as Reagonomics on steriods and needing a Clinton to clean-up the economic disaster and get America back on sound footing.
I see Hillary as being very progressive with a Dem congress.
Also, Obama and his comments on Reagan bother me greatly. I agree that both Clintons were wrong to add in the word GOOD before IDEAS. But re-reading the complete Obama quote does indicate that he put Reagan and the Repubs in a fairly positive light and his negative assessment came at the end where he said:
And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.
That appears to me to be a very mild assessment of tax cuts that have benefited the Haves and lead to an additional $4 Trillion increase in the national debt. I do not see Obama getting any mandate to undo the Bush II tax cuts or to fix the deficit with that approach.
JimK,
Thanks for putting in the entire quote. Rather than the Clinton Sound bite. I think what Obama is saying is correct and clear. The media narrative for the last 15 years has been the Conservatives are the party of ideas. This is something the Clintons advanced as well, with their “3rd Way”. They reformed welfare. They took up many conservative causes. And Obama is right to say that those ideas have played themselves out.
But maybe we all parse this paragraph in different ways.
Again, looking at Obama and his comments on Reagan and his view of the 90s, I think Obama is just wrong historically. The key quotes in order are:
1) “I think that we’re shifting the political paradigm here. And if I’m the nominee, I think I can bring a lot of folks along on my coattails.
2 )I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.
3) They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the ’60s and the ’70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing, all right?
4) I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction.
5) I didn’t come of age in the battles of the ’60s. I’m not as invested in them.
“And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values.
On #1, I think Obama can bring along people on his coattails but this sets up all the rest as saying that today looks like time for a major political change.
On #2, Reagan consolidated what Nixon had started with his Southern Stategy. As a reaction to MLK and the civil rights movement anf LBJ, lots of elected southern leaders switch from Dem to Repub in the 60s and 70s. The Vietnam war and Watergate only delayed the full results until Reagan in 1980 which also saw the Repubs winning the Senate for the first time in 40 years. There was a big shift but it was not just Reagan bring it to pass. Obama gives Reagan too much credit and Nixon too little.
Also on #2, Obama gives Clinton too little credit as 1992 was a major shift as the voters strongly rejected Bush I and 12 years of Reaganomics. The Repubs gained control of Congress in 1994 with a platform heavy on fiscal responsibility. When the Repubs tried to force Clinton to accept their policies, Clinton shut down the government and got strong public backing. The Reagan/Repub effort to cut back on government regulation and oversight did stay intact.
On #3, Obama misses a key part of the Repub message of the past 40 years. For Repubs, the excesses of the 60s and 70s include the Civil Rights movement, it includes integration, it includes feminism and it includes increased government regulation such as OSHA and EPA. It also includes rulings by Liberal judges legislating form the bench on Roe-v-Wade and Miranda warnings. It includes marches and protests such as for civil rights and anti-war. It includes the Great Society and programs to help the have-nots.
On #3, Obama is correct that America wanted optimism by 1980. The 1975 pictures of evacuting people off the roof of the embassy in Siagon and the North Vietnamese winning was painful to the view of America as a supper power. Cambodia was not much better. Nixon and Watergate and much of his senior staff going to jail was depressing through 1974. 1973 saw the Yom Kippur war and the resulting oil embargo by OPEC that depressed the American econmy until prices started falling in 1980. 1976 brought in Jimmy Carter who struggled with a sluggish economy that went even worse in 1979 with the fall of the Shah of Iran, the embassy hostage crisis, another oil price jump and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
On #4, Obama is very wrong that JFK moved the country in a fundementally different direction. I was a young teenager when JFK was elected and consider him to be one of the best and most inspirational presidents. But he just barely beat Nixon in 1960 and his re-election chances were considered unsure in the summer of 1963 because of loss of southern Dem support. He offended the Repubs by not giving full support for the Bay-of-Pigs and using it as an excuse to invade Cuba and depose Fiedel. He also offended liberal Dems by not stopping it to begin with. He offended the Repubs and conservatives by the Cuban Missile Crisis and choosing a blockade instead of invasion. On this, he did gain great respect from most of the country. On civil rights, he held back and delayed providing support. He even tried to talk MLK out of the DC march. JFK had seen the southern back lash to Ike sending federal troops into Little Rock. JFK finally did provide US marshalls to protect marchers but only after news footage showed police using dogs and fire hoses against the marches and the police ignoring attacks and burning buses by vigilantees. He went to Dallas on 11-22-63 as part of his re-election effort. It is unfortunate but true that his assassination, along with the violence against the civil rights movement, are what move the country. That lead to the LBJ landslide over Goldwater in1964 and the following legislation.
On #5, Obama notes the generational gap that allowed him to miss the battles of the 60s. It probably does allow him to talk to and correct with todays youth. But it also reveals a lack of appreciation for how those battles have hardened and set the themes that Dems are battling today. As noted in the first response to #3, the excesses of the 60s and 70s and rolling them back are key parts of todays Repub party and have been so for the last 40 years.
Dems are weak on defense even though they won WWII, re-built Europe with the Marshall Plan and battled communism in Korea and Vietnam. It was a Dem congress and voters and the American taxpayer that stood firm against Russia and their Iron Curtain and the Cold War from 1945 on. But in 1987, Reagan called for the Berlin wall to be torn down and it was in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and it was all Reagan’s doing.
Dems are cut-n-runners and cost the loss of Vietnam even though the voters never elected a president who promised victory. JFk and Nixon were equally hawkish in 1960 but it was not considered a major issue. In 64, JBL promised never to send American boys to do the Vietnamese job and he beat the hawkish Goldwater. In 68, Nixon had a secrete plan to end the war against Humphrey with wanted to stay the course and George Wallace whose running mate was famous for declaring that we needed to bomb-them-back-to-the-Stone-Age. Let us not look too closely at Reagan leaving Beruit after the Marine barracks were bombed nor at the Repubs wanting to cut-n-run from Somalia and trying to block involvement in Kossov and avoiding military intervention in Darfur.
Dems are soft on crime because Nixon was Mr.-Law-n-Order and was tough on anti-war protestors and riots in LA and Reagan was tough on Welfare Queens and cheats. Dems appointed judges who insisted on Miranda rights and probable cause and coddled criminals. Dems are accepting of gays and minorities and want gun control.
I want to see the MLK dream come true. My son recently graduated from college and is not invested in past battles. But the stories he has told me show that the Repub and Reagan framing of issues and themes is alive and well. There are many battles that need to be fought to get this country back on a sane track that follows the foundations laid out by our founding fathers..
to thorin at 145,
Clinton, in the 1992 campaign, pushed the 3rd WAY as an alternate to having only the Repub or only the Dem option suceed at the expense of the other. The intent was to get out of the old boxed in ways and find common ground for the good of the country. In 1992, Clinton was long on HOPE and OPTIMISM.
I have seen a number of articles that note the 1992 Clinton themes and speeches were very similar to the themes and speeches of Obama today. I do like Obama and think he is one of the most inspiring speakers of the last 50 years.
But I think Hillary is better prepared to beat McCain this fall and handle the problems of the next few years. In 8 years, Obama will not have any issue with experience and the younger generation, not stuck in the past, will be in an even stronger position to make America great.
I guess I do believe it will take another Clinton to clean up after another Bush. I had enough after the first Bush but I do not see penalizing Hillary because of the mistake of electing Bush II twice.
I’m not penalizing her. I just thing she is a step backwards and into much much more of the same that has been tearing this country apart for the last 15 years.
Its time for a fresh start.
JimK Wrote:
In 8 years, Obama will not have any issue with experience and the younger generation, not stuck in the past, will be in an even stronger position to make America great.
~
Actually, i think this idea is reprehensible. Obama does not have to wait his turn. We don’t owe the Clintons anything. We gave them more than they deserve. We donated our cash, we canvassed for them, we rocked the vote, we stood by them through thick and thin. Through white water and an impeachment trial. Through DNA evidence of a stained dress. When they left office, with the democratic party was in tatters, we made Bill our elder statesmen.
Did bill help Dems after he left office? I remember him campaigning for Lieberman, but that’s about it. Did he help dems during the lead up to war? Did he stick his neck out ever for the Democratic Party once in these long 7 years? No he did not.
Did his wife spend the last 7 years grooming herself for presidency? Yes she did. Did she vote carefully, and not rock the boat in the senate? Yes she did. Did she hedge her bet on Iraq, knowing that she must look muscular during a general election? Yes she did. Did Bill and Hillary play it save these last 7 years so they could get themselves back into the white house? Yes they did.
Is that leadership? No its not.
We are not going to sit back and wait our turn Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.
If fact, if she wins the primary by some miracle… I’m leaving the party. It’s not my democratic party. Its an inside the beltway, back door politics, election fixing rove light, race baiting party that I want nothing to do with.
I will vote McCain and run Obama again in 4.
If she becomes president, its time tune out politics for another 8 years of gold old lobbiest controlled United States of America.
thorin-
Excellent post, and I agree with you entirely. Except for one thing.
There is no way in hell I will vote for McCain. I do not want to be responsible for more war (which is guaranteed under his presidency) and two more Alitos on the Supreme Court. If Clinton gets the nod, I will vote for her without any hesitation. Because if McCain beats her, I don’t want to have anything to do with it.
Doctor Biobrain said: “Were you alive in the 90’s? You really think that dumb attack that Kerry failed to block is somehow comparable to the anti-Clinton hatred? My father is a relatively intelligent, rational man who firmly believes that Clinton was a Soviet-plant from back in his youth from when he visited Moscow. I had a real estate agent insist that the Clintons murdered over thirty people. A well-read book written by a former government employee insisted that the Clintons hung crackpipes on their Christmas tree in the Whitehouse. And you tell me about Swiftboaters? Are you joking? My teenage daughter faces worse smears than that on MySpace every day.”
So you are seriously asking me to vote for a lesser candidate because your Real Estate agent and your Father are idiots?
Hell, more than half my brothers are wingnuts and that’s not stopping me from voting Democratic.
Sometimes, when you want to get something done, it helps to have STUPID people hate you. Then when you are elected and they complain about your policies, you get to point out to them they are not only STUPID but they don’t support you.
Bill Clinton’s approval ratings now are higher than Boy George II’s. His approval ratings when he left office are higher than BGII’s. His approval ratings when he was impeached were higher than BGII’s.
Hillary’s approval ratings are higher than BGII’s.
Conversely, Senator Obama is running on ‘inspiration’ and ‘authenticity’ and claiming that Republicans will vote for him.
And if they do, what exactly will he be able to do?
And yes, I was an adult throughout the 1990’s, and very much alive and attendent.
Lance, surely you can’t be suggesting that Republican votes somehow count differently from Democratic votes, can you? Because in your post above, it seems as though you’re saying if Obama appeals to Republicans at all, he’ll be bound to enact Republican policies. And that’s the most pernicious kind of nonsense.
Fargus said: “Lance, surely you can’t be suggesting that Republican votes somehow count differently from Democratic votes, can you? Because in your post above, it seems as though you’re saying if Obama appeals to Republicans at all, he’ll be bound to enact Republican policies. And that’s the most pernicious kind of nonsense.”
There’s quite enough pernicious going on around here as it is.
I’m saying that NOT having Stupid people, like BioBrain’s dad, vote for you relieves you of any obligation to respect their delusions (like putting Creationism in public schools?).
Good of you to note that Obama may get Republican votes, but will owe them nothing but ‘authenticity’. So when he signs a Slavery Reparations bill they can’t complain 😉
Right?
If he doesn’t run on a platform that explicitly endorses those positions, he’s under no obligation to honor them. I thought that was clear. It’s beyond disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
Fargus said: “If he doesn’t run on a platform that explicitly endorses those positions, he’s under no obligation to honor them. I thought that was clear. It’s beyond disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.”
Is anyone actually paying attention to his platform?
Besides, it’s far more a question of what he DOESN’T do for a liberal platform than what he might implement as a conservative one.
Is he going to let BGII’s tax cuts expire, or wimp out and make them permanent?
Remember that during the years in question Clinton himself was practically a pariah within his own party. It was hard to understand Democrats’ aversion to their own rock-star success story then — it’s even harder to fathom now, looking back on the swath of self-inflicted damage. Remember how many Democrats called on him to resign? Remember how many of them asked him to stay away during their re-election campaigns — and then lost, while his popularity rose even higher during his impeachment than it had been during his own re-election?
Yes, the Clintons were a problem for Democrats during Bill’s 8 years in office, but it was the party’s problem, not his. (Or Hillary’s.) Obama is barking up the wrong tree here and the sooner he realizes it the better for him.
What Obama claims is factually untrue. The GOP turned the House Banking furor into a scandal, the Brady gun law into an attack on hunters, and Jim Wright’s book deal into corruption, and thus took back the House. Had nothing to do with Clinton. Moreover, Whitewater was a made up scandal in which the Clintons lost $30,000 and were eventually cleared. (Unlike the Obama real estate venture with Rezko in which he got a house he not have afforded or the Exelon campaign contributions after which he caved on his bill requiring nuclear power companies, Exelon, to notify when there are leaks). So, once again, it is not the Clinton’s fault the press corps bought the GOP lies. By the time Lewinsky came along the Congress was lost. Obama has a history of lying to get his way. In other words, he is a politician just like the others, but slightly more liberal than the GOP.
See the 3 Feb NYTimes about the Excelon story and Salon about Rezko.
Obama is attempting to carefully walk a tightrope — so far successfully. Obama claims he is “different”, “positive” and morally superior to the mere mortal politicians that came before him. Yet, in the clutch he’s resorting to slimy, misleading attack politics. His “HIllary-care’ mailer in California was pure Karl Rove, and now he’s attacking President Clinton, on (of all things) others losing elections after Clinton left office with a 62% approval rating. God knows there are enough things that Pres. Clinton can be criticized for but that ain’t one of them. Resonates of another “I’m a uniter, not a divider”. It will be interesting if this comes down to the convention and Obama tries to deny representation to the 900,000+ Democrats that voted for Sen. Clinton in Florida. Can Obama maintain that aura of moral superiority while taking money from Exelon, running misleading attack ads, and trying to disenfranchise Floridians (where have I heard all this before?)
Nice post. I agree it is a bold move; the machine is definitely in HC’s corner.
The fact that the party establishment is SO pulling for HC is indicative of its desire to, rather than lead a nation and create a better system, simply hold on to power. The funniest thing about this is that a Clinton II presidency will actually hurt the Democratic party. It opens up all the old wounds, the divisiveness, the ad hominem onslaught. As such, it leaves the party open to only the already-partisan.
An Obama presidency brings new people into the Democratic fold. Not only people like me–a progressive who has adamantly remained officially Independent for 20 years, but will be registering Dem. for my states primaries (and remaining that way should Obama get the office)–but also a whole generation of young people who can help build a long term majority party again.
The Party fails to recognize that power doesn’t sit with one person, it rests with the people. I you’ve got the people, you’ve got the power. The Democratic party would do well to remember this. It’s in the party’s interests to have an Obama administration. Now–not later!
Some tight roap. Integrity vs. craven politics. Well I’m with you. I hope he doesn’t fall…
Right into Hillary’s lap.
And not to mention how some of his foreign policy initiatives, most notably NAFTA , actually served to hollow out the agricultural infrastructure in South and Central America – thus making a major contribution to our current “Immigration Problem” …. which some might choose to call a “Social Justice” problem. Oh, and also basically destroyed manufacturing in the United States.
The 90’s were an illusion of prosperity and affluence, layering dreams of stock market wealth on top of crumbling fundamentals. The DotCom Bubble was the poster child for this, but the analogy goes much deeper. The 90’s broke the link between increased prosperity as measured by Wall Street, and as experienced by the working class on Main Street. The 90’s saw the power of Unions dramatically reduced, and it’s Unions that brought us the Middle Class in the first place. The 90’s sent us down the path of shipping manufacturing overseas, and now we no longer make much of anything that the rest of the world particularly wants to buy. So instead we print money, incur ever increasing levels of debt, and force our financial models and “expertise” on the rest of the world at the point of a gun. And finally, lest we forget, it was the 90’s that began the creation of the “Housing Bubble” that led to our current “Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis.”
So I don’t know about you, but I’m not particularly thrilled with the idea of another 8 years of the Clintons, unless and until they can prove to me that they learned anything from their mistakes ….