I Love the 90s

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:46


Ta-Nehisi blogs an interesting question about the Clintonistas.

Man, this is Carville (courtesy of The Jed Report) blaming the Obama campaign, and how they played the assassination story, for Hillary potentially pushing this race past June 3rd. Incredible. I was in college for most of the 90s doing the sort of illicit, dumb things that people in college do. But I read a newspaper now and again. Were these guys always this dastardly? I know others have claimed that they were, but does it says something about progressives that we backed people like this?
Matt Stoller :: I Love the 90s

Yes, they were always ruthless.  Ruthlessness is a characteristic of people who run for President and come close to that prize or win it.  The difference is that in the mid to late 1990s, the Clintonista ruthlessness was by and large turned on the Republicans, whereas in the early 1990s, it was turned on the left, where they worked with the Business Roundtable to roll over labor for NAFTA.  Against the right, they weren't what one would call aggressive, as Clinton was always better at the counterpunch.  In fact, Mike Lux has noted the uber-conventional wisdom that the Clinton's were always better when "their backs were against the wall," and that is not a posture that lends itself to advancing broad progressive themes, though it does allow for advancing below the radar liberal policy changes.  You can see this now; the Clinton campaign has turned sharply to the right as their political options have narrowed, and while this worked in the 1990s, it doesn't work today.  

This is why I think Clinton is staying on despite repeated pleas to drop out.  In 1998, insiders on both the right and left of the party were begging Clinton to resign, and he refused.  It was a great decision, possibly the best one in his Presidency.  And so today, when insiders are begging her to give up what she thinks is her Presidency, she is saying no and turning to the right.  It's in her DNA.

Also, realize that Obama is similarly ruthless.  Here's what I mean.

His chief fundraiser, Penny Pritzker, reportedly delivered a stronger version of that message to the campaign's national finance committee - its top-dollar money raisers - in early May. And weeks later, an Obama staffer met with East Coast fundraisers and practically ordered them to avoid so-called 527 groups...

A fundraiser who was at the East Coast meeting said the Obama staffer warned them that if they give to 527s, the campaign will cut off contact with them.

Threatening high dollar donors is pretty aggressive.  Dastardly?  Well that depends.  But ruthless?  Yes.  And frankly, we need a President who is ruthless and willing to demand that rich people to get on board.  That means that this person can play, as Richard Nixon and LBJ offered, during 'nutcutting' time.  The hope is that he is as progressive as he is ruthless, and though it worries me how he's culling the progressive infrastructure, I've been pleasantly surprised so far in how he's running his campaign.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I Love the 90s | 50 comments
Clinton not resigning (4.00 / 3)
I agree that Bill Clinton not resigning was good for Bill Clinton.  However, it's hard to think that the country would not have been much better off under the presidency of Al Gore, who would have taken over, and, as the incumbent, would probably have defeated George Bush in 2000 (Forget Florida--getting half the Nader vote in New Hampshire would have put him over the top).
Eh. (4.00 / 1)
Gore would've been pretty embattled and weakened.  The 'pardon' or 'don't pardon' debate alone would have been be damn obnoxious to deal with
[ Parent ]
That's for sure (4.00 / 1)
In fact, it wouldn't have even been a "debate," but rather a non-stop "pardon watch" where every time Gore walked by reporters he would have been asked to deny the latest Drudge-made-up rumors that a pardon was about to happen.  
[ Parent ]
And (4.00 / 4)
Had he resigned, here would be no argument that the entire damn thing was bullshit. Which it was. The president shouldn't have resigned because it was bullshit. The media shouldn't be validated for promoting bullshit. Democrats shouldn't cave to Republican/media bullshit.  

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Resigning would have been a blow to constitutional government (4.00 / 2)
no matter how much you hate him or think he was being selfish...he did the right thing for the country in the face of what was an attempt at a right wing coup.

It is not to be demeaned or denigrated.  It was heroic.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
interesting, though a different opinion on the 98 decision not to resign (4.00 / 1)
Had he resigned, Gore would have been the incumbent for two years and "restored dignity to the White House" all on his own, denying Dubya that banner to run on in 2000 (being a Californian, I can't help but think of this in the same way as Gray Davis refusing to resign to allow Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to become governor, instead holding out to the bitter end and giving us Arnold).  I think part of the reason for the calls to resign from the Left in 98 was that the Clintons were never, as you point out, good champions for progressives.

So I suppose it's how you define "best decision in his Presidency."  Perhaps best decision for him, though not necessarily for the country or Democrats or progressives.  Perhaps that explains Sen. Clinton even more; it's all about the Clinton legacy in the end, isn't it?  More so than Democratic, liberal, progressive or even DLC/Third Way success.

Not sure it would have worked that way (4.00 / 6)
I think people forget how angry a lot of people were when the story first broke.  There was a lot of support for impeachment and really going after Clinton.  And, as the face of the party, it fed into a lot of really horrible ideas about what Democrats were really like.  

There's a reason the Republicans thought they had a winning strategy with pursuit of impeachment.  They thought it would not only take out Clinton but that it would put them in the role of cleaning house, of removing the corrupt politicians, etc.  I think there's a very real chance that if Clinton had acceded, it would have undone everything that was gained in the aftermath of the 1994 elections and the budget showdown.  He won back a lot of support by fighting, by showing the GOP to be the party of bad ideas and poor governance.  

If he quits, I don't think Gore comes in clean.  I think he's even more closely tied not just to the "moral turpitude" of the Clinton administration, but also to the notion that Democrats will make a mess of anything they get their hands on.  He'd have had virtually zero political capital for those two years, would have got nothing done, and would have likely looked quite weak.

By sticking around, Clinton turned the tables, revealed the Republicans to be power-hungry, intemperate, and scavengers unworthy of a real role in power.  In doing so, he rebuilt not just his personal support, but also helped sustain the Democrats.

If Gore had run a better campaign, if Nader had been less of a jackass, if they would have counted the votes in Florida, or if any other small changes would have happened, I think the progressive wave would've hit earlier.  Gore would have been elected, 02 wouldn't have turned into the Indian summer for the Republicans, and the emerging Democratic majority would have seen the sun earlier.  

It's always hard to do counterfactuals, but that's how I see it, at least.

[ Parent ]
and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle (0.00 / 0)
Gore was running as a corporate democrat.  as a social democrat, i was appalled and not interested in 4 more years of NAFTA, destruction of the safety net, privatizing social security, eliminating important regulations (i.e. banking)etc, etc.  Oh yeah, Clinton was interested in allowing workers to invest some of their social security money in the stock market.  

not saying there was no difference between bush and gore, but i live in new york, so i can vote my conscience.  and i did.

i'm glad clinton did not resign.  he had to call the republican bluff.  it was no different than the tactics over the budget that led to a shut down of government.  he played hard ball and succeeded.

nonetheless, the obstinacy today is counter-productive.  it would be nice to see some grace and class from the clinton's.  

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

[ Parent ]
I don't know who you think you're arguing with (0.00 / 0)
But it isn't me.  I said it was good that Clinton didn't quite in the 90s for exactly the reasons you talked about.

I didn't make any claim about why that same obstinacy would be good now - I think it pretty clearly is not.  

[ Parent ]
It was the bes t decision for the country (0.00 / 0)
the best decision for upholding the Constitution.
This is just revisionist history because of Obama supporters' attitudes toward either clinton.

If Obama gets elected...you will see that the divisiveness is a function of how the Republicans act in opposition and not a function of who is president.  Obama does not have a unique ability to unify anyone anymore.

The Pew poll shows that among white women his unfavorables have gone up since February and they are now higher than his favorables.  The same is the case with the indedependents that he was supposed to be able to reach.  He doesn't reach them now.

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
And whose to blame for that? (0.00 / 0)
Clinton would now lose African-Americans and anyone who decries the use of racism in politics.  Independents, who hate backroom party dealings, wouldn't be flocking to her once the GE begins, especially with the media fully in McCain's camp.  Ignore the polls you see today, they would flip on their head in a heartbeat should Clinton steal this out from under Obama.  Do you really thing our right-leaning media won't forever hold her legitimacy in question throughout the general?

We are past the point of no return, if Clinton takes this she will be anathema to half the party.  Obama may or may not heal the rifts in the party and draw back his support with Independents, but be certain the media will declare a McCain victory as due to the 'Clinton spoiler effect' and the Clinton name will be forever tainted.

[ Parent ]
I'm a bit of a political naif, (0.00 / 0)
but: the Obama campaign is threatening to cut off contact with fundraisers? What kind of threat is that? That's like a chef threatening to cut off contact with the refrigerator.

And what kind of people are those? The fundraisers, I mean. You have to be a very special kind of starfucker to listen to someone threaten to stop letting you raise them money. What're you, afraid that all the cool kids are gonna laugh?

What concerns me here is this: what benefit does 'contact with the campaign' offer high dollar donors, such that they can be controlled with fear of cutting off contact?


Access... (0.00 / 0)
Fundraisers want access. If they don't have contact with the campaign, they don't have access.  

Further Reading
[ Parent ]
I also assume that the donors in question are pretty much already maxed out anyway (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Not just donors, (4.00 / 2)
fundraisers. Friend of mine maxed out to Clinton months ago, and has raised, I believe, tens of thousands since then.

And I get that they want access. But why? Just to feed their egos? If so, that makes me suddenly more sympathetic to lobbyists, who at least want something.

I mean, say I've raised ... how much? $50,000, $100,000 for the Obama campaign. That's a lot of work, and that's a lot of money, and now they're telling me, 'Thanks for the 100 large, but if you donate to VoteVets, we're gonna cut you off.'

And my response to that is to ... accept it? Maybe this is why I'm not a big donor. My ego is clearly either way too big or way too small.

[ Parent ]
Influence (4.00 / 2)
People become fundraisers because they want influence. If they corral huge sums of money they expect to be accommodated in their interest.  It's perceived as a quid pro quo.

Telling fundraisers the conditions under which they're going to continue to have your ear is perfectly reasonable.

We're not talking about random Joe Public who loves Obama so much he convinces a bunch of friends to chip in a few bucks.  We're talking about big money folks who are in the game for influence and power.  They're not just raising money out of the kindness of their hearts, for the most part.

[ Parent ]
Then you're saying the Obama (0.00 / 0)
campaign is selling influence. Not to lobbyists, but to the big money folks. To me, that's far worse than 'ruthless'.

(Well, I did mention I'm a political naif.)

[ Parent ]
What Baldrick said. (4.00 / 2)
People who donate LOTS of money to presidential campaigns don't do it for fun.  (Or for love, or ideology.)  They do it because they need the president.  They need to be on the inside of the political system, with open lines to regulatory agencies and prosecuting authorities and legislative committees.  They have extensive financial interests of some kind, that they need to protect from IRS, DOJ, SEC, EPA, FCC, OSHA, Ways and Means, etc.

Obama does have leverage over these people.  He can say "guess what, I'm controlling the message of my own campaign, and I don't want any 527s going off message with attacks I don't approve."  That's actually a really good thing.  If he starves other parts of progressive infrastructure, I'll be pissed, but starving the attack-527s and centralizing message is perfectly fine.  Most people don't do it only because most people need the soft money that only 527s can use.  Apparently Obama thinks his campaign plus DNC will be enough money for him.

This part of his campaign, I'm still totally on board for.  If he goes beyond this to starve non-advertising parts of the infrastructure -- for instance, if he consolidates all voter registration drives under his authority -- I might get nervous.

[ Parent ]
I"m especially on board with this (4.00 / 1)
If he uses it as a campaign cudgel against McCain once the effort to swift-boat Obama begins.  "I quieted my attack dogs, why don't you quiet yours, John?"
[ Parent ]
Worse than starving parts of (0.00 / 0)
the progressive infrastructure is your claim that the Obama campaign is auctioning off influence on the IRS, DOJ, SEC, EPA, FCC, OSHA, Ways and Means. I don't doubt you're right. I'm just a starry-eyed idealist, I guess.
[ Parent ]
Yeah. That's politics dude. (0.00 / 0)
Why do you think these people are forking over so much money?  Look where the big money comes from: the top-level leadership of industries that have massive amounts of exposure to government.  Defense contractors, Pharmaceuticals, Wall Street banks, insurance cos, oil cos, real estate guys... that's not to mention the black market drugs-and-arms players, who always have a line in to the local prosecutors at least.  (Did you see Fred Thompson's cocaine guy go down last fall?)

That's how politics is done.  The only way to afford an ad budget and a competitive campaign is to get money from these guys.  That's why Edwards went nowhere this time (last time, he did fine).

There are a few players who play above and beyond the normal level, for ideological reasons.  Soros on our side, and Scaife on their side, pay the ordinary safe-money, and then a whole lot more because they have strong ideological convictions.  A lot of rich liberals and rich conservatives over-invest, because they actually care about the substance.  (Although campaign-finance caps make this marginally more difficult.)  And almost anyone donating less than $1000 is just donating for love.  

But the bread-and-butter of campaigns, the bundled $2300 contributions, are gathered and donated by people who need or want a line in to government, to protect their financial interests.

... ask your buddy!  If he's raised 30,000+ for Clinton, I bet he has a pretty clear idea of why he did it.  It'd be interesting to hear what he says.

[ Parent ]
This is why all the bullshit about not accepting PAC money pisses me off (0.00 / 0)
people are just shuffling the PAC money to bundled cash.  It's extremely obvious (and also easy to check), but no one seems to care.  I have trouble even explaining this to people in the real world.
[ Parent ]
Aha. Here is where my knowledge of the mechanics ends. (0.00 / 0)
How are PACs funded?  Do they come from checks from the business itself, or checks from the upper-level leadership of the business, as individuals?

If the second, then you're right, this really is the most transparent shuffle of cash ever.  The guy who used to be the PAC chairman collecting and distributing the checks is now just the "bundler."

But I thought PACs were funded the first way.

Can anyone help?  Don't make me go look up the answer myself!

[ Parent ]
PACs are funded both ways (0.00 / 0)
the line isn't as sharp as it would otherwise appear.  Often, higher level executives act as bundlers by heavily leaning on subordinates to donate, im plying that promotions and whatnot are on the line.
[ Parent ]
My buddy is a she, (4.00 / 1)
and she loves Clinton more than I like any politician. So I think, in her case, one part adoration, two parts patriotism (she's absolutely sure Clinton's the best person for this country), and one part, I suspect, professional networking and feeling important and being a little fish in one of the biggest ponds anywhere.

And it's not the people doing the fundraising that bother me. It's the campaigns accepting it, if you're right on the reasons, and on the fact everyone knows it--and, I suppose, even more that we on a blog like this talk about the ruthlessness of cutting off 527s but not the immorality of, if you're right, auctioning off the White House.  

[ Parent ]
Tilting at windmills (4.00 / 1)
You're asking for politics to no longer have a correlation between money and power.

It's not just impossible, it completely defies any reasonable explanation of the way human beings function.

All we can hope for is that the politicians will deftly exercise their judgment to most effectively implement policies and agendas that will help real people.  And the way Obama has raised money - coming in huge portions from ordinary people donating ordinary amounts of money through 21st century channels - is a really great sign that he may feel less constrained by the normal monied interests.  

But I think "less constrained" is the absolute pinnacle of what we could hope for.

[ Parent ]
Screw you! (4.00 / 1)
I'm taking my unicorns and going home!

I agree that huge portions from regular people is a great sign--and what are the proportions, do you know? From bundlers vs. under $1000 donors? Seems to me that those windmills aren't so far off, if most of the money's coming from the latter. In fact, at some point, even with big money donors remaining, it's politically less-wise to engage in quid-pro-quo with them because of the optics, if overall they represent a negligible percentage. That is, you don't help Big Donor A who raised you $250,000 if there's a chance that doing so will depress the passion of the 250,000 people who each donated $200.

[ Parent ]
The answer is publicly financed campaigns (4.00 / 1)
It has changed the tenor of politics in the states that have instituted it.
[ Parent ]
The bulk is still from over $1000 donations. (4.00 / 1)
I think Obama's campaign is about 1/3rd small donors, and 2/3rds big donors.  Which is a hell of a lot better proportion than anyone else's; for a while, Clinton was at 1/10th small donors.

As the campaign has wore on, and big donors have become maxed out and harder to find, the proportions for both candidates have shifted towards small donors.  The numbers I cite were from before Iowa... like October, I want to say.

While what you describe isn't true yet, it could be.  Chris Bowers has talked about the ice-cream model for politics: that is, Americans spend billions on ice-cream, way more than anyone spends on political campaigns, and if you actually got large numbers of Americans used to a default culture of donating $100 or $200 a year to politics (far less than they spend on ice cream), you could totally retake the country from big donors.  The numbers just add up right; at that level, (and with current caps and restrictions), there would just be more of our money than theirs.

Of course, the weakness of that plan is in the parentheses.  Any campaign finance regime that actually cuts out big money will be in danger of being swiftly replaced.  It's just the basic tension between the distribution of wealth and the distribution of votes: how do the wealthy prevent the non-wealthy from just voting all the wealthy's assets to themselves?  If the wealthy were not well-organized politically, the non-wealthy would just pass estate taxes and capgains taxes and high-bracket income taxes to take all their money, and make education and healthcare free.  This tiny minority has to maintain control of government to defend their interests (and, if we make it too easy, advance their own interests, corruptly).

And finally, there is a difference between what they're able to buy from Bush, and what they're able to buy from Obama.  Bush is in coalition with only them, on economic issues; when they donate to Bush, they get to have a mining CEO made the chief of the mining regulatory agency.  When they donate to Obama, they know they're getting a candidate who also has allegiances to labor and Big Environment, so, their donation buys them one third of the table, rather than the whole thing.  If you've heard Obama's rhetoric on health care -- "these companies deserve to have a seat at the table... they just can't buy up all the seats" -- that's what he's talking about.  What they're getting for money given to a Democrat is not quite the same as what they're getting for money given to a Republican, so do not give up all hope just yet.

[ Parent ]
Hopefully .. (4.00 / 1)
Obama will be as ruthless with the right once he is in office .. if he does that .. it will be an awesome time indeed
not holding my breath (0.00 / 0)
only way obama is ruthless with the right is if we pressure him to be.  there is not indication that he will be on his own.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November
[ Parent ]
I would like to know more about this guy: Paul Tewes (0.00 / 0)
It might give us an idea how we might be able to pressure him?

http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...

[ Parent ]
What Do You Mean "WE" Kimosabe??? (4.00 / 4)
I was never a Clintonista.  Not within a million miles.  I was fighting against NAFTA well before he won his first primary, and no amount of sweet talk was going to convince me that black was white.  Welfare reform? School uniforms? Dumping Lani Guinies and Joycelyn Elders?  The list goes on and on and on.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
you need to be ruthless about the right things (4.00 / 1)
LBJ was ruthless about getting civil rights legislation through Congress.

I don't see any sign that Obama is going to be ruthless about getting progressive bills through Congress. The whole rationale for his new politics revolves around consensus and getting beyond partisan differences. That worries me--I can see him giving half the game away before the tough negotiating with Congress even begins.

Or if he is ruthless, maybe he will be ruthless about getting the Progressive Caucus to sign off on his bogus compromises.

Obama's consistent advocacy of "clean coal" (an oxymoron) also concerns me, because pursuing clean coal is a bullshit alternative to the "change we need" in energy policy.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Yeah, (4.00 / 1)
the only real hope is that he offers a bunch of nice carrots publicly, and is prepared to hit them with the Johnson treatment privately if they act in bad faith.  That sounds plausable, at least.
[ Parent ]
Urgh (4.00 / 3)
I'm totally fine with people who don't agree with Obama's strategy, but it's really frustrating to keep hearing it so badly mischaracterized by smart people who often say smart things on a smart website.

"I don't see any sign that Obama is going to be ruthless about getting progressive bills through Congress. The whole rationale for his new politics revolves around consensus and getting beyond partisan differences."

The whole of his approach is a ruthless commitment to getting smart progressive policies enacted.  It's post-partisan in the sense that he is happy to splinter the notion that "progressive" or "liberal" are synonyms of "Democrat."  His goal (and like I said, reasonable people can argue about whether it's reasonable) is to make it politically feasible for people to cross the aisle to sign onto ideas they agree with.

When he says there aren't red states and blue states, what he's trying to communicate is that, fundamentally, this is a very progressive country.  And if people just cared a little bit less about partisan allegiances they would probably notice that there are a lot of commonsense things we can get done.

Like I said, we can disagree about whether that will work.  But at its core, it's an extremely ruthless strategy.  

[ Parent ]
The problem is that (4.00 / 1)
it is extremely obvious that Republicans won't cross the aisle in any significant way.  Even if the Club for Growth hadn't exiled most moderate Republicans, Ben Nelson, the most conservative Democrat, still votes with the Democrats 15% more than Arlen Specter, the most progressive Republican on non-procedural votes  (If you want to look at just this term, then the gap reduces to a 11% gap between Nelson and Susan Collins).  The gap in the house is even more extreme, and more glaring considering that there are four times as many house members.
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure he means voters "crossing the aisle" (4.00 / 1)
Which means he chose the wrong figurative language.  But anyway, a common problem is conflating republican-leaning voters, many of whom are swayable, with republican office holders, who ideologically are not, and can only be swayed on certain votes by using a lot of political force (ie, stem cells, SCHIP).

Many Republican voters are reachable, and I agree that Obama is trying to de-partisanize the rhetoric because he intends to poach a hell of a lot of voters from the lean-R column (not just at election day, but in opinion polls throughout his term).

[ Parent ]
that about sums it up. (0.00 / 0)
i don't think it is a maybe about whether he will be ruthless with the progressive caucus or not.  he will.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November
[ Parent ]
If you're right, the question becomes: (0.00 / 0)
what do we do now?
[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton and Carville's Small Mind (4.00 / 1)
the last time Bill Clinton was vaguely progressive was his first term as Governor. After that, not a chance. He compromised away almost everything. I suspect that some of his worst compromises, such as welfare form, had to do with literal political blackmail as some knew of his affairs and used them. Most of what people remember as progressive cam in January 2000, when he attempted to do by executive order what he was unwilling to do earlier, and most of them were reversed rather quickly.

Carville is surely a nasty, but generally small minded person. Neither as nasty or as big a thinker as Karl Rove. Same with his friend Paul Begala who is much funnier.

The world would have been a better place if Bill Clinton had resigned. He should have resigned for his lying to the American people about the nature of sex - surely not for a little tawdry affair. Al Gore was hardly a great or brave champion in 1998, but would have been far better. And Lieberman would never have achieved the prominence if Clinton had resigned.

Matt's post is right on the target and someday we will all look back with relief that Hillary's late campaign tactics did not work.  

I love the '90's. (0.00 / 0)
I am sorry but the American people were (are) never as conservative as everybody says they are.  They wanted radical reform, and when Clinton failed to deliver it they dropped out-that was the real cause behind the 1994 debacle.  Clinton was never progressive on the great economic and fiscal issues, only on rights issues.  
Hello, democracy? (4.00 / 2)

No popularly elected President (conservative, moderate, progressive or striped) should have resigned over a sex scandal manufactured by a corrupt elite.  

 I don't know what Clinton's motivations were for not resigning, but if he had resigned he would have allowed the results of an election to be overturned by Sally Quinn, Matt Drudge and the rest of the Village.



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
In 92 I voted Republican. I voted for Clinton. (0.00 / 0)
That was my line then and I'm sticking with it. That was my support of Clinton.

Jeff Wegerson
Democrats don't get it (4.00 / 1)
Ronald Reagan is a god in the conservative movement.  The Republicans have been on a crusade to name every military base, post office, and park in the country after him.

Conservatives still will defend Nixon.  As soon as Bush gets out of office, think tanks will work tirelessly to create a storyline that excuses his faults.  

They do it for a reason.  They are creating a brand, a public perception and a sense of history (mostly false) regarding the values of their party.

Democrats adopt the prejudices of the Republican party to falsely demonize their few Presidential successes.  They don't defend Carter.  They didn't defend Gore when he ran.  During this election cycle, they have created the record that will deny Bill Clinton a legacy.  The deny their successes ever mattered or were good enough; Republicans deny their failures.

Everyday it's a new revelation about my party: yes, they are really that stupid.  Repeatedly.  

But they don't defend Eisenhower, and they rarely mention daddy Bush (4.00 / 1)
They don't exalt Ike, but they ADORE Reagan and Nixon.  Why the discrepancy?  Because they defend and exalt the Presidents that glorified the conservative movement.  Clinton and Carter failed to do this, and LBJ, at best, was a mixed bag.  

So that leaves us with Kennedy, and SURPRISE, leftists do try to exalt Kennedy.  

[ Parent ]
Not so sure (4.00 / 1)
Nixon wasn't a conservative, by post-Reagan standards.

Carter doesn't seem to be rejected by Democrats because he was too conservative.  They seem to sign onto the idea that he was a nice guy, but "weak."  That's the Republican's frame for all Democrats.

Kennedy may or may not have been a liberal hero, but a certain amount of his reputation is his tragic death.  

Although no one on the conservative side exalts Bush I, I've not heard a lot of bashing.  

I may be wrong, but I don't think that Republicans would ever attack a GOP two-term presidency like the left attacks Clinton.  

Two things (0.00 / 0)
(1) I think most progressive feel the best is yet to come, so you have to point out the shortcomings of our previous representatives if you ever want to move forward.  That is why a lot of progressives are frustrated by those who vote for Hillary based on name recognition and the fact that things were better in the 90s than today.  We can't return to the past and even if we could why would we want to return to the 90s?
(2) With another Clinton running for office, we have had to reassess the Clinton years since Hillary has made it part of her resume.  Progressives can only look back on the Clinton years as a failure both politically and in terms of bare policy, especially when using it as a guide to what the future may hold.  Clinton himself doomed us politically with his affair.  Then he doomed us again by ceding policy position to corporations and the Republicans.

If Hillary didn't run this year, I think Bill's place in the canon of popular Democratic presidents would have been solidified, but her candidacy made us take a real hard look at the 90s and it wasn't as pretty as the past 8 years had made it seem. Conservatives are always going to look to the past for their heroes.  The fact that they are willing to try to rehabilitate Nixon or McCarthy just goes to show that such hagiography is better left to the rightwingers.

[ Parent ]
I appreciate your point of view (0.00 / 0)
1.  I understand that Democrats may be more forward thinking, and less deferential to the past.  However, hoping to do better is one thing; destroying a legacy is another.  Obama, of course, isn't promising a more liberal vision than Clinton gave us in the 1990s.  By necessity, most of his job would be fixing the messes Bush started.  Clinton had a more liberal healthcare plan (it failed, of course).  Obama might deliver something far less ambitious.  This leads to my second comment:

2.  If people were seriously critically examining the Clinton legacy in light of the political strategies that appear to succeed in today's environment (that is, Obama's), I don't see a great many grounds for criticism.

[ Parent ]
Damn it (0.00 / 0)
Its NOT progressive infrastructure if its not funded through grassroots small donors. Reliance on the benevolence of wealthy benefactors is the shortest path to failure. Obama can't cull real progressive infrastructure, only The People can.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
I Love the 90s | 50 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox