Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?

by: David Sirota

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:47


I was on Fox News yesterday to discuss the state of the campaign. You can watch the clip here. It telegraphs what I think could become a right-wing meme in the months after the election, should Barack Obama win, and should Obama make his administration merely an extension of the Clinton administration.

The first half of the interview is about the Obama informercial (which I said was a great idea) and about John McCain's criticism of Obama as a "socialist" (which I said was absurd, considering the Bush years have redistributed wealth up the income ladder). But where it really gets interesting is toward the end in a discussion about Bill Clinton.

Fox showed a clip of Clinton allegedly "complimenting" Obama for having called all of Clinton's economic advisers during the financial crisis. Clinton also "complimented" Obama for supposedly knowing nothing about the financial situation, but having the courage to admit he didn't know much and the courage to tell Clintonites he wanted to know more. This is problematic on a number of levels.
David Sirota :: Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?
First (as I told Fox) why does Bill Clinton always need to make everything about Bill Clinton? We're five days from an election that is a referendum not only on Bush-ism, but on incrementalist Clintonism. And yet, Bill Clinton seems unable to realize that reality - and is desperately trying to make sure the Obama presidency is, in part, about Bill Clinton.

Second, why does Bill Clinton need to reinforce the right-wing narrative that Obama's inexperience means he supposedly doesn't know anything about major issues before the country? True, that's not exactly what Clinton said - but it is what he implied. Not good.

Third - and perhaps most substantively concerning - Clinton's entire narrative is the starting gun of what will be a very intense effort by the larger pool of Clintonites to infiltrate an Obama administration. If we can step back and look honestly at the economic situation, then we have to admit (as I admitted on Fox) that Clinton officials had a hand in the key deregulatory policies that led to the financial meltdown, and the key free-market fundamentalist policies (rigged trade deals, corporate tax loopholes, etc.) that are hollowing out the economy. These same people are now going to try to use an Obama presidency to reassume the posts they had in a Clinton administration. And the fact that, according to Bill Clinton, Obama is already potentially letting them - well, that's really disturbing (if unsurprising).

The hope is with a big enough election mandate, Obama will feel more empowered to sweep out the Clintonites and start fresh - both in terms of personnel, and in terms of ideology. Because if he doesn't, not only could it stunt his policy agenda, it could also create political problems for him. The media - and especially outlets like Fox News - are going to be looking for weak points that allow them to tar and feather an Obama presidency as just "more of the same."

To be sure, I told Fox that having Bill Clinton campaign for Obama is a great thing. Bill Clinton is a great political asset to any campaign (if he's not implying that the guy he's campaigning for is uninformed). And while I don't love criticizing Democrats on Fox News, I thought that under the circumstances, it's important for progressives to start laying down markers about what we should and should not cheer on - what we should and should not expect from an Obama adminstration. In my opinion, it doesn't help Obama win the election, nor will it help his administration, to be painted as a mere second act for the last Democratic administration.

Making the Obama presidency the third term of Bill Clinton's presidency is both substantively inappropriate to the times, and politically dangerous/tone deaf. I hope that's not the path a President Obama takes, should he win the White House.

UPDATE: A word to the haters - we've had our disagreements about whether to go on Fox and make a strong progressive argument, or not. I've heard all the attacks - "you only want to get your mug on tee vee"..."you only think about yourself"..."you are a disloyal hack who secretly wants to help John McCain win..." Let's leave that debate over Fox aside - agree to disagree. However, it's a bit strange to call me somehow disloyal to Obama for saying on Fox News that Clinton implying Obama is uninformed about economic policy is not a good thing. I get that lots of people are blinded by their hatred of Fox - and of me. And speaking for myself, I can take it. But don't let your blindness get you so crazed as to make illogical arguments.  

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term? | 52 comments
The President decides policy, right? (4.00 / 1)
I'm asking a question, not really making an argument.

Intuitively, I have no problem with Obama reaching out to Clintonites, and even appointing some of them.  For I tend to assume that he's merely looking for some experienced hands, and has the self-confidence to declare what the overriding philosophy should be.  

But I suppose the counter-argument is that Obama invariably will have to rely on the judgment of those he appoints for many significant decisions, and that it's unrealistic to expect him to control the agenda everywhere.

I have a huge problem with it. (4.00 / 1)
If I wanted Clinton, I would have backed Hillary.  I'm looking for FDR, and Obama better be it.  The people in this country are unemployed, broke, in foreclosure, and debt beyond repair.  Chrysler is getting ready to lay-off another 25,000 white collar, high tech people, and GM could be bankrupt in a year.  Michigan's unemployment fund is broke, for the third time, and without any more, we are almost at 9% unemployment.  Clinton can take his NAFTA, welfare reform for babies and not his corporate pals, and put them both where the sun doesn't shine.  Clinton is an idiot, and I don't want him or Rubin or any of his pals anywhere near the WH.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Exactly right (4.00 / 1)
If Obama turns out to be Clinton 2.0, it will be a tragedy, not a net positive of any kind, but a tragedy.

It's an ongoing concern that Obama's priority as a leader will be to demonstrate what a reasonable, non-ideological, bipartisan, consensus-building pragmatist he is, rather than actually effecting the radical changes in foreign and domestic policy that need to be swept in. You couldn't be more right that we need FDR 2.0, and I harbor grave concerns that Obama isn't it.

Nearly everything he has said in this area, especially with regard to his solicitation of advice from the likes of Rubin and Summers, not to mention his vision of a cabinet filled with the likes of Hagel, Lugar and Powell seem to suggest that this is a very legitmate fear.

[ Parent ]
Who advised FDR before and when he took office? (0.00 / 0)
This isn't a snippy retort - it's a serious question. Did FDR talk with any previous Democratic leaders? Did he seek a variety of opinions on how to address the financial crisis the United States was facing?

I tried to do a little research on this, and I'm not sure of the answer. Hoever, I did find a good quote from FDR's first inauguration speech:

Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.

We do need a call to arms - we need to come together as Americans, drop the divisive partisan potshots (like the "anti-American" and "socialist" labels, not to mention the underlying racial and religious tension exploited by partisans) to address this very real crisis. The only way out of this abyss is to ensure that unemployment goes DOWN, that people can afford the basics - food, shelter, and healthcare. We need to take care of each other, for the health of our nation. We can't cut services when people desperately need help to keep themselves from homelessness.

It seems to me that Obama understands that the budget cutting during the Clinton era was possible simply because things were far more prosperous than they are today. He's already indicated that some of his planned proposals will need to be delayed because of the financial and economic crisis.

The notion that "Obama means a third term for Clinton" seems very preposterous, the more I think of it. I doubt it'll be a fifth term for FDR, either. Handwringing over what kind of president Obama will be seems just a little premature on October 30th.

Let's focus on getting the man elected to his first term, and see how he leads. He's demonstrated in the past that he likes to get advice and perspective from many voices... but he walks his own steps. I'd like to see some actions before speculating that he'll be a Clinton clone.

[ Parent ]
He already has acted (4.00 / 1)
He voted in favor of the bailout. He voted with the Bush administration on the FISA bill. He's seeking advice from those directly responsible for the deregulation of our economy. He said himself that if we want to know what kind of president he'll be, we'd know by observing his campaign.

Look, I badly want him to be elected and it seems almost certain that he will be, but this is not "handwringing". Any intelligent analysis of the evidence would suggest that Obama will govern as a Clinton-esque centrist, with incremental rather than radical change (no single-payer healthcare, no complete withdrawal of troops, pernicious oxymorons like "clean coal" and "safe nuclear") and with frequent hat-tipping to any Republican that allows him to look open-minded and pragmatic.

And by the way, I would love to be wrong about this.

[ Parent ]
Last popular president... (4.00 / 4)
Clinton was a popular president who was also a Democrat, and Obama is exploiting that.  Just as every Republican since the 80s has tried to associate themselves with Reagan.

That's about it.  I think you worry too much. ;)

pandering to the establishment (0.00 / 0)
The Clintonites who are worrisome are the center right types like Bob Rubin. Including people like Rubin among his advisors could mean two things:

a.) He is making an empty gesture meant to reassure the establishment

or

b.) it is a real indication of how he will govern.

I don't think we really know which of these two it is. It would be nice if progressives can figure out some way to apply pressure for more progressives to be appointed in top positions in an Obama administration.

I would like to see Wes Clark in some role. Attorney General John Edwards sounds nice.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I'll bet anyone here... (4.00 / 1)
...that Clark does not get his calls returned by an Obama WH.

Look at the way he was treated at the DNC.

I really think Obama doesn't want superstars around him, deflecting some of his glory.  Safer with ciphers like Biden and Daschle.

[ Parent ]
Clinton Is NOT popular. (0.00 / 0)
Watch MI and Ohio tar and feather him.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Rashomon (4.00 / 2)
The Clinton clip meant something entirely different to me; I thought Clinton was referring to George Bush and his lack of curiosity and how Obama reaches out for the best advise he can get before making a decision, not from the gut, ala GW Bush.  I'm sure Fox and their viewers loved your answer and anti-Clinton theme, though.
Obama presidency the third term of Clinton (0.00 / 0)
Morphs into Bush's third term with McCain.

Obama needs to fight off and steer clear of that insinuation.  

It's such a strong theme, I can see FauxNews trying to make it stick.

The key early issue (4.00 / 1)
will be balanced budgets. The Clintonite Hamilton Group advisors whom Obama is embracing--Rubin, Summers, Furhman--are notorious budget hawks. There's never a good time for budget hawkishness, least of all when you're in a recession.

After he wins, Obama needs to make clear that he's not going to fixate on deficits in the short-term; that will give him budgetary and political space to pursue a progressive agenda and stimulate the economy. But if he sticks with the self-destructive balanced budget fetishness and tries to balance his spending with budget cuts (and fails to defy the smart set pundits who will be slamming his "move to the left") then we will know that his embrace of the Rubinites is genuine and harmful.  

there is a good time for budget hawkishness: (4.00 / 4)
when you're in peacetime and things are prosperous. That's how you can save up the money to afford economic stimulation when times are tough. At least, that's what Keynes argued.

The reason we're in such a mess is because Bush spent the entirety of the surplus that Clinton painstakingly put together and ran us even further into debt, through cutting taxes and starting a ruinous war in Afghanistan.

The problem now is that we are in one of those times where do need government stimulation of the economy and invest in infrastructural and technological development to create new jobs, but we don't have the money. And the bailout has only compounded the problem, devaluing the dollar and making it even harder for us to borrow from foreign creditors.

It's a lose-lose situation we are now in.

Obama did encouragingly say he would not stick to pay-go in the coming crisis, so he is at least saying some of the right things. It remains to be seen how that will actually play out once he's elected.

[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 1)
I do not want to get into a debate about what Keynes actually thought.  I want to argue that Keynesians would not endorse the following claim:

when you're in peacetime and things are prosperous. That's how you can save up the money to afford economic stimulation when times are tough.

So I think what any good Keynesian would argue is that when the economy is growing, the rate of the growth of the debt should be kept below the rate of economic growth (but this isn't that hard to do what with tax revenues going up during growth periods, and the rate of economic growth going up.  you might not even have to make budget cuts to do this).  But saving the money you would have spent (which I take it means putting the money in really safe investments, like bonds, or buying back debt), seems like the wrong move from a Keynesian perspective.  In times of plenty the government should still be making long term investments which increase the productive capacity of the economy.  So in times of recession the government spends more on unemployment insurance, on directly employing people itself, and on keeping credit markets open, and in times of growth it seems like it should still spend that money, but on infrastructural improvements, or on education, or something like that.  

[ Parent ]
That was exactly Hoover's mistake (0.00 / 0)
I can't believe we'd be stupid enough to repeat Hoover's mistake.

OTOH letting Lehman fail was also repeating one of Hoover's mistakes....

[ Parent ]
Can Someone Please Explain Why Being Fiscally Responsible (0.00 / 0)
is not in line with being a progressive?  I have never gotten it.  I am a firm believer that the only way to have successful progressive policies is to pay for them through tax revenues.  Some of the most successful progressive programs are ones with dedicated tax revenues.  I believe in an expanded role of govt but I also believe the reckless borrowing of both Reagan and GW Bush to finance priorities is completely wrong and irresponsible.  I am extremely comfortable with Pay As You Go rules.  Now might be a time to ignore them temporarily but you can't borrow forever.

I think the whole federal budgeting process needs to be revamped.  We need an expense budget and a capital budget.  It is considered okay to use bonds to pay for capital items (those with tangible value) such as roads, equipment, buildings, etc.  This is what most states and localities do since these have lifespans over which you can write off the cost.  It also frees up tax dollars to pay for expense items.

[ Parent ]
I didn' say there was anything (0.00 / 0)
wrong with fiscal responsibility. I said there was something wrong with fiscal hawkishness, which isn't the same thing. An s excessive focus on short term balanced budgets precludes the kind of social spending that the country needs and that can stimulate the economy, thereby increasing revenues in the long term.

Obama needs to break out of the box he's built for himself. He's promising a big middle class tax cut, a stimulus package, universal health care, action on energy, an increase in defense spending, and suggesting this all can be paid for with spending cuts, a rollback of some of Bush's tax cuts. and streamlining. It can't be, not even close. To make matters worse, he's said he might not roll back Bush's taxes if we're in recession.

Either he forgoes essential spending or his apparent newliberal commitment to budget hawkishness.  

[ Parent ]
Remember Al Smith! (4.00 / 2)
Smith was the Democrat's 1928 nominee.  He lost, badly.  Him being a Catholic eroded the Dems Southern base to the lowest point it reached in that era.  He and Roosevelt--who succeded Smith as Governor of NY--were sharp political rivals, and Roosevelt dashed Smith's hopes of repeating at the 1932 Dem nominee.

FDR's first term was one of the high points of American history--due partly to Roosevelt's abilities as a leader, and partly to the on-the-ground organizing that made the Second New Deal significantly more progressive than the First New Deal.  It resulted in Roosevelt gaining 4% more popular votes in 1936, and there were a lot of significant party-switchers, as many progressive Republicans became Democrats.  One such was a young San Francisco attorney named Edmund ("Pat") Brown, who went on to become the first two-term Democratic Governor of California, and literally laid the groundwork for the state in its modern form, with unprecedented advances in education, transportation, water infrastructure, and civil rights.

Some politician bucked this tide, however, and the most prominent of them was Al Smith.  So, the tensions we're seeing here are hardly unprecedented.  It's up to us to make sure that the balances of forces is more like that of the 1930s, in favor of siginificant and necessary change, and then let Clinton decide if he wants history to remember him as a second Al Smith.

"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

I call Obama "Bill Clinton version 2.0" (4.00 / 1)
smoother, scandal-free, and updated for the Internet generation.

What Washington insiders like Tom Daschle (an early supporter of Obama's campaign) saw in Obama is precisely the chance to continue the DLC policies, in an even more corrupt form, by using a young, biracial, eloquent "Washington outsider" as their new front man.

If anything, Obama may ultimately prove more accommodating to big business that even Clinton could have been. He did, after all, vote to retroactively legalize Bush's crimes against the Fourth Amendment and for the bailout.

Official Washington despised Bill Clinton and sought to tear him down. Obama is much smoother, and has figured out how to fit in to their culture.

The question is whether anything will penetrate the bubble once he's in the White House. When the real disasters, like mass unemployment, start happening, he might take some steps to address the problem, which is better than nothing.

But the mere fact that Obama might rely some of Clinton's former advisors is to be expected. There are only so many people one can reasonably appoint to these types of positions, after all. The question is whether Obama will merely go along with the conventional wisdom or whether he'll demand fresh ideas from his people.

The Mainstream Party (4.00 / 5)
I'd love to see an advocacy group run with the 'Mainstream' label--defining 'mainstream' using polling--as a counterbalance to the upcoming attempt to tilt the Obama administration (should we win) rightward.

And as a reality check for the media. Imagine a 'Mainstream Party' with a platform of 'fair trade not free trade', of universal healthcare, increased minimum wage, pro-union policies, safe and legal abortion, etc., etc.--and everything in the platform is based on rigorous polling, not ideology. Nothing leftie about it; just the facts.

Well, I can dream. But it'd be a lovely thing, opening up space to the left of the mainstream, and revealing how extreme the right in this country has become.

Are we really worrying about giving Fox News material???? (4.00 / 6)
While I agree with the sentiment of the post - an Obama presidency should NOT be a Clinton third term - the "worry" that this will give Fox News something to attack Obama on is a bit absurd.  Fox News will spend the next four (probably eight) years relentlessly attacking Obama, mostly on imaginary points, regardless of what Democrats (or anybody) says or doesn't say.  They probably already have their themes written for the next six months.  Most of it is probably made up.  I wouldn't be surprised if one of their themes is "Clinton's third term", but if this is one of their themes, its not because of seeds sown by Democrats.  Its because they have a long list of negative points ready to run with, and this happens to be one of them.  Fox News and Drudge will essentially be a continuation of McCain's campaign.  They will wildly sling shit with the hopes that something sticks.  Since Clinton is relatively popular, my guess is the "Clinton's third term" theme won't prove destructive enough and will quickly be retired.  

To reiterate, we should not waste our time worrying about giving Fox News material.  They will attack Obama 24/7/365 regardless of what we do/say.  

no matter which Democrat was elected President in 08... (4.00 / 2)
the Republicans will try to tie him/her to being a third Clinton term.

It's all they really have to try and fire up their demoralized base.

I agree wholeheartedly with ThomasPaine and leshrac55 above. President Obama will be his own person. We'll see some things that can be reminiscent of the Clinton era simply because both men are going to lead the Democratic party agenda. But, while Clinton inherited a declining American economy, Obama will take the reins in a devastatingly poor economy - in the midst of a global recession, when we have ridiculous deficits and a complete imbalance in where we are spending and how we are gathering the money to spend. Obama has signaled already that he will be focusing on correcting this imbalance in a rather intelligent way.

So, I have no problem with Obama reaching out for advice from people who have experience in managing during an economic crisis. I'd be much more concerned if Obama shut out all of the Clinton advisers, thinking he could just do things his own way. We've had enough cocky cowboys running things - we need a President who is willing to take input from many points of view to chart his unique course for leading America to a better place.

[ Parent ]
ps I'm not counting chickens yet... (0.00 / 0)
I am heading out now to volunteer in my neighborhood for GOTV efforts for all of our Democrats. So, don't assume by my post that I think Obama's election is a lock. We need to step up GOTV efforts significantly so Obama is elected, and other great Democrats are elected in local and state-wide elections. I'm lucky to have several fantastic Democrats running in my area.

I encourage every person who wants to see IF Obama is going to "run a third Clinton term" or be his own President to join in local GOTV efforts.

[ Parent ]
I'm optimistic that Obama was a little critical of Clinton (0.00 / 0)
at least during the primary. (Although that's a reason why I liked Edwards in the primary.)

He's made re-negotiating NAFTA an issue, although it's hard to know what that means.

And I'm optimistic that he'll find a way to get some of the lobbyist money out of the system. How much? I don't know. But you can tell he's a pragmatist, rather than a purist on this issue.

and honestly, Bill Clinton is just a little bitter. If he has to get on stage and congratulate himself to help bring unity to the party, that's okay.

They just pulled the video while I watched it (0.00 / 0)
Seemed to be an interesting interview.
I didn't like the way Clinton elaborated on the "advice" (0.00 / 0)
and I sensed that Obama thought Clinton was  bloviating.  However I don't think it's a bad thing for the media to compare the 8 years of clinton to the 8 years of bush at this time..  The economy argument is number 1 and there is no way anybody looks at the economy between the two admins and doesn't see clinton's as something they would trade for.  
Going forward, everything about Obama's campaign points to him including some Clinton admin folks on his team and republicans as well.  I don't have any problem with that either.. I want the best of all avaliable to try to clean this mess up.  I don't want an admin run by idealogues.  We will already have both houses.  It would be too easy to overcorrect for the last 8 years.
Yes... But... (4.00 / 3)
These same people are now going to try to use an Obama presidency to reassume the posts they had in a Clinton administration. And the fact that, according to Bill Clinton, Obama is already potentially letting them - well, that's really disturbing (if unsurprising).

Leaving aside Clintons nostalgio-affective-narcissism, the issue here is to get competent people in positions of influence.  The pool of people we can draw from is ridiculously small.  We can have the well-connected (Paulson) or the really smart (Krugman) or we can have the really smart AND really well-connected (Rubin).

But John Maynard Keynes ain't walking through that door...

There's also a lot to be said for putting tested grownups back in charge, if only to send the strongest possible message to the rest of the world.  Whatever you may think of Robert Rubin... the rest of the world respects him and will stop holding their breath if they think he's coming back.  There's a whole heap of market stability to be gained by this...

And... Clinton era 'incrementalism' had less to do with Clinton and more to do with those Republican thugs throwing tantrums everywhichway every other day.  Clintons economic package (you know, the one that led to a pretty long... ahem... surge... of prosperity) passed by one vote, none of which were Republican votes. I'd like to think, as well, that the past few years have tempered them in even better directions...

Sirota you say you don't (4.00 / 4)
like bashing Dems on Fox Noise, but you went ahead and did it anyway. WHY, is your EGO so large that the only thing that matters  is that you get to appear on tee vee? Isn't getting a Democrat elected to the Presidency more important then getting your face on the tee vee?

Guess not! You just showed us that all you really care about is.......YOURSELF!

Exactly (4.00 / 3)
First he blames Clinton for supposedly making things about himself, and then he goes on to feed right in to the McCain talking point that Obama isn't ready. Which Clinton wasn't saying, but Sirota eagerly chose to explain it that way.
[ Parent ]
Ah, now I get the logic (1.33 / 3)
I see your logic...it makes a lot of sense. Bill Clinton goes before every major television network and implies that Barack Obama is uninformed, and he's the shiz-nit, according to you. But I go on Fox News, and criticize Clinton for doing that because it hurts Obama, and "all I really care about is myself."

Yes, that's logical. That makes a lot of sense.

[ Parent ]
last chance (0.00 / 0)
These days before the election are important for making sure that Obama remains responsive to the progressive wing of the party.  As a first term president he's going to begin campaigning for reelection on day one, which means he will be tempted to cater to the center.  We need to make sure he realizes that true progressive democrats are not automatic votes for his reelection as they were this time around.
[ Parent ]
That's your interpretation (4.00 / 2)
You're the one who thinks Bill implied Obama was "uninformed" I think he was making the case that Obama would seek out experienced advice before making decisions, unlike Bush.
Notice everyone how Sirota doesn't respond to the fact that while on Fox Noise he just handed the G.O.P. a gift wrapped talking point. Once again he shows us what his motivies really are. Sirota First!
[ Parent ]
uprated to avoid hiding (0.00 / 0)
nothing trollish about it.  
[ Parent ]
I would love to say - no - to anyone in the Clinton Cabinet (0.00 / 0)
But that's not realistic. SecTreas is especially one place to tread cautiously. I'd love to get a Robert Reich in there - but I suspect he'd spook the markets (besides being a Clinton Cabinet vet).

But there are a lot of excellent Ds outside the Clinton administration. I could see Deval Patrick at HHS, fresh from the lessons of the Mass health plan. Ted Kulongoski might be an excellent option at AG (besides being OR Gov, he's served as OR AG and Insurance Commissioner). I think Gary Hart's work over the past 20 years would make him perfect for Homeland Security or Defense. Marcy Kaptur would be great at Labor. etc. etc.  

spooking markets? (0.00 / 0)
So not spooking markets is more important to you than implementing policies of economic justice?  Just asking...
[ Parent ]
We already voted no to a third Clinton term (4.00 / 2)
That was what the primary/caucus season was for.
I hope not... (0.00 / 0)
It would be awful if Obama's presidency were Clinton's third term.  America can't afford another budget surplus or a better image abroad.  America certainly can't afford four more years of economic growth or the appointment of judges who will actually do what is right.  We are in a crisis -- this is no time to experiment with four more years of the same policies that worked so well before Bush came into office!  We must reelect Bu-- uh, we must elect John McCain.

To be fair, I would in fact hope that Obama doesn't repeat the mistakes of Bill Clinton.  With Bush around, they don't look so bad, but I really hope that Obama will see the rest of the world with more respect than Clinton did as president.

Similarities with the clinton's (0.00 / 0)
During the primaries it became obvious there were many similarities between Hillary's and Obama's policies, but I don't believe Obama is going to bringing many of the Clinton policies and staff on board. I feel that Obama has a unique approach and plan for his presidency, melding the best attributes from several policy resources, both liberal and conservative, with his own plans and ideas. I think he rejected Hillary as veep to avoid a Clinton infiltration of his administration. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong on this. I personally don't want to see this be a third term Clinton administration

savings in the crunch!!!

Why the hell post this now...? (4.00 / 1)
We are still engaged in a hotly contested election and haven't won anything yet.  Nonetheless, Populist-in-Chief Sirota offers up a bit of self-promotion and some academic analysis on a completely meaningless issue for purposes that are unknown to me.  

This post is asinine.

Clinton wasn't an incrementalist (0.00 / 0)
He did after all push for a healthcare reform so liberal that it failed.  That puts him more on Dennis Kucinich level in terms of promoting big liberal ideals .


The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
Obama seems to want to follow Clinton ... (0.00 / 0)
...Obama's speech just now... TPM

The average working family is $2,000 dollars poorer now than when George Bush took office. When Bill Clinton was president, the average wages and incomes went up $7,500 dollars. So I've got an economic plan that is similar to Bill Clinton's and Senator McCain's got an economic plan similar to George Bush's. Look and see what works and what doesn't.

No... (0.00 / 0)
That's a ridiculous bit of logic.  He's comparing the last two Presidents... one successful and one shitty.   Simple as that.
[ Parent ]
Who is it really about? (4.00 / 1)
Bill Clinton is targeting a very specific demographic: the PUMA or near-PUMA faction, those white, working class voters that Bill Clinton won that Obama has not entirely captured.  And many of those voters probably express concern about "experience" - because, of course, that was Hillary Clinton's central campaign theme.  There are some that are upset that Obama didn't choose Hillary as his running mate.  

If that is the case - and I can't think of a better use for Bill Clinton in the campaign - then Clinton's comments are absolutely unexceptional, even smart.

Is isn't about Clinton.  It's about you, David.

What is it about the only Democrat in the last generation to hold on to the White House for two terms that sparks such irrational hatred?  I can't figure this out.

I was as passionate a Hillary supporter as you could find.  I was going to vote Green, because I think it is probably better to lose and let McCain take the fall for the aftermath of the Bush disaster.  But, in the end, I voted Obama.  As much as I don't like the result of the primary, I won't create war in the party.  

Why would a Democrat go on FOX NEWS and say that Bill Clinton is annoying and bash his economic advisors?  What possible purpose are you furthering?  I've never seen a Republican voluntarily bash Bush on national television the way you do Clinton.

Your obsession with the Clintons is your problem (Fox happens to share your obsession - you actually have a lot in common with Fox, the more I think about it).  Please stop diluting the legitimacy of the Democratic brand and encouraging another round of personality based attacks on Obama by promoting the ridiculous Fox media storylines about Clinton.

You will do nothing by such irrationality and unstrategic thinking except create a Sarah Palin wing of the Democratic party.  

Clinton (0.00 / 0)
"Why would a Democrat go on FOX NEWS and say that Bill Clinton is annoying and bash his economic advisors?"

Because it's the truth.

Look, we aren't the Republicans.  We don't march in lockstep, and never criticize each other, and go along to get along.  

Bill Clinton did a lot of good things.  But his presidency was, in the end, a waste of a great opportunity.  He blew a great chance to establish universal health care, and didn't pare down our military budget nearly enough to avoid a gross misadventure like our conquest of Iraq.  I don't want another Bill Clinton.  Like another poster wrote above, I want (and I think our country needs) another FDR.  If Obama turns out to be another caretaker president, who balances the budget and keeps the Pentagon happy and doesn't let any US cities drown, and little else, I will be sorely disappointed.

[ Parent ]
ah-dunno... (4.00 / 1)
Blaming Clinton for 'wasting opportunities' elides the evil that is Gingrich and (as you pointed out) the lockstep Republican flying impeachment monkeys.

I recall Clinton coming flying outta the gate in '93... Health care, Lani Guinier (sp?) and gays in the military. Well, he got knecapped by Sam Nunn on teh gays and Harry and Louise lied about his Health Care plan.  After Kimba Wood and Waco dominated the news... he ended up losing the Congress to the Contract on America in 1994.  After that, it was trench warfare and hand-to-hand combat.  Hard to be progessive under siege,no?

Don't get me wrong, Clinton had his flaws and he dithered on a lot of nominations early on.  Maybe he tried to do to much... but laying the blame solely upon Clinton misses the point of the Federalist Society, doncha think?  

And don't think they won't try to impeach Obama either...  

[ Parent ]
Trying again... (4.00 / 1)
Let's go over this slowly...

One, there is a difference between truth and opinion.

Clinton was too conservative for many people's tastes, often my own.  So is Obama.

It is a valid opinion that the Clinton presidency was a missed opportunity, most especially on health care.  On the other hand, many people liked Clinton for who he was, and what he did - that's why he won a second term.  So, it really isn't the "truth."

And it isn't a reason to bash him personally or a reason to adopt a purge mentality.  Sirota wants no Clinton advisors in the Obama administration.  That's absurd.  Robert Reich, for example, has a blog.  He was extremely critical of Hillary during the campaign.  I don't know what Clinton policies he would continue.  Reich knows. Everyone should be evaluated on their own merits, and their opinions today, not purged because of prior associations.

Second, you and I have a fundamentally different view of democracy.  I'm for it; you are apparently against it.

I will always remember, early in the Bush administration, when Bush broke his promise on regulating C02 emissions.  I didn't vote for the guy.  But the fact that he seemed like he wasn't a complete global warming denier made him seem less like the disaster he ended up being.  

Bush ran as a moderate, and governed from the far right.  That angered me - not only because I disagreed, but because it was a fraud on democracy.

Obama is running as a corporate, centrist Democrat.  I see people on the left supporting him because they want him to be another FDR.  They want to pressure him to take far more progressive positions than he did in the campaign.

Now, extreme circumstances can justify a change in position.  If the global economic crisis approaches depression levels, then of course radical departure from current campaign promises would be expected.  But if not, Obama has a moral obligation to govern as he represented himself in the campaign.  Anything else is lying, and an affront to representative democracy.

Kucinich didn't win.  I think that's a shame.  I'm disappointed that someone from the true left is unviable.  But I won't be disappointed if Obama doesn't act like Kucinich because, well, Kucinich didn't win.  Mr. bipartisan, no-mandates-in health-care, FISA-is-cool-with-me, won.  The people are entitled to the President they voted for, not the President you want.

If you don't want a corporate Democrat, then don't vote Obama.  If you vote Obama, don't complain about how Clinton was a missed opportunity.  Obama is promising, every day, to forego that same opportunity.

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with bashing Clinton all day long if you aren't acting on national television as essentially a pro-Obama spokesman.  I think, if you support Obama, diluting the Democratic brand in front of a national conservative audience is counterproductive.  Certainly, if there was some great moral issue at stake - for example, rendition, which was as unacceptable under Clinton as it was for Bush - I can see it. But saying there should be a sweep of the Clinton advisors and bashing Clinton personally - that does nothing but discredit the Democratic record in front of people who are basically hostile to it already.  It's just dumb.  

[ Parent ]
Right! For Sirota, it's all about Clinton. (0.00 / 0)
And this obsession is really pathological. Besides, it's always the same old same old smears, only the package changes. It would be really nice if David could manage to stay away from the topic, but I guess this would take a twelve step therapy at Anticlintonites Anonymous.
[ Parent ]
No sense letting them know they are enemies (0.00 / 0)
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama is actually a progressive.  If he becomes president is it a good idea for him to publicly exclude the centrists in his party?

No.  Exclude Rubin and Rubin is going to bad mouth you to the big donors, to congressional leaders, to people on Wall Street, etc.  If he manages to convince them that Obama is a radical, that will be communicated to the public through an obsequious press (filled with those who love nothing more than parroting what rich people say at the cocktail parties that the journalist was lucky enough to get invited to).  That makes it harder for Obama to keep the Democratic caucus in line, makes it easier for Republicans to make a 2010 and 2012 case against him, etc.

Do you, just because you make a person an adviser, actually have to listen?  Of course not.  Look at Bush and people like Powell and Richard Clarke.  Now the only question will be, if Obama employs Clintonites but does not do what they suggest, will they quit, like Clarke, or will they like their spotlight too much, like Powell?

I don't have a high opinion of the character of people like Rubin, so I am guessing he will like basking in the glow of power too much to leave because he isn't getting his way, especially give the sorry state of the private sector jobs he would be in line for right now.

So I think that even if Obama is really a progressive (something I doubt by the way), the smart play on his part would be to keep the Clintonites close.

Funny THing... (0.00 / 0)
I have been incredibly critical of you in the past, but I was going to say I agree with you.

Clinton looks out for Clinton... He was a decent President but an extremely selfish man... the Monica debacle is proof of that.  he does hold some responsibility for the economic crisis, though nowhere near that of Bush.  I agree we need to get rid of the Clintonistas and Obama needs to focus on the new and next gen of workers.

As for Fox, I don't think ANY Dem Politician should go on there... however, someone that's a pundit should go one ot represent the Progressive viewpoint.  I have no issue at all with it.

heard Bill himself (4.00 / 1)
say, a week or so ago at a private event, that the challenges of 2009 are nothing like the challenges of 1993, and Obama should not go in and try to balance the budget but should immediately put a hold on foreclosures, create a new HOLC, pass a massive stimulus with extended UI and food stamps benefits, and move to a green collar economy.  This wasn't a campaign event, either.

Bill is about Bill a lot, but if Obama is asking for advice this is probably what he's hearing.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

Every appearance by a Progressive on Fox Noise... (4.00 / 1)
...Plays into their frame and feeds the trolls.

...Period.

David, you don't like the Clintons, you don't really like Obama... (4.00 / 1)
and weren't you critical of Edwards, too? Well, could you pls give us a hint which candidate would pass your secret Candidate Aptitude Test? Or are you just generally against everybody who isn't named Sirota?  
Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term? | 52 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox