Helping Elect Other Dems Has Never Been Clinton Strong Suit

[JPZenger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/helping-to-elect-other-de_b_91454.html

Excerpts:

"When Bill Clinton entered office in 1992, Democrats held a 100 vote majority in the House of Representatives, 267 to 167. After his first two years, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time since 1954, and did not regain a majority until 2006 -- long after he'd left office. In 1992, Democrats also had control of the Senate, but lost control in 1994 and did not regain it throughout the Clinton term.

When the Clintons entered the White House, Democrats controlled both legislative bodies in 29 states. The parties had split control in 14 states, and Republicans controlled both chambers in only six states. Democratic control gradually eroded throughout the 1990's. By 1998, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 21 states. Republicans had gained control of both houses in 17 states, and 11 had one chamber controlled by each party. ...The GOP picked up a whopping 472 legislative seats across the country in 1994 alone.

...The failure of Hillary Clinton's 1993 healthcare initiative was a disaster for down-ballot Democrats. Of course the Clintons should be commended for having tried to create a universal health care system. But the way they went about it doomed it from the start. Their proposal was a Rube Goldberg contraption meant to allow the insurance industry to "buy-in" to the deal. But the insurance types didn't really want government-sponsored universal health care in the first place. So after they had gotten all they could in the way of concessions, they savaged the proposal with their famous "Harry and Louise" nationwide media campaign...

...First, it set many Congressional Democrats politically adrift... Instead of taking on the Republicans with respect to big issues, and drawing sharp distinctions between progressive and conservative values, conservative values simply went unchallenged. Conservative assumptions about the economy and the role of government were allowed to become the de facto benchmarks against which political positions were measured. The result was that Democrats spent years in a defensive crouch. When you're on the defensive, you're losing."

--------

Here's a quote from a Philadelphia Inquirer article from March 12, 2008:

"...priority No. 1 for Obama's campaign is registering as many voters as poossible - at least 100,000- before the March 24 deadline....

While Obama's goal is to expand the Democratic electorate in Pennsylvania, Clinton is hardly as focused on doing the same. The New York senator's campaign said it had no similar voter registration drive because that is not central to its strategy ...

In Philadelphia ... the number of registered Democrats grew by 6,079 between Feb. 11 and Monday."

The article was entitled "Obama's Keystone Strategy: Register Voters."

[Captain Hilts]

1. This is wrong. HRC has given TONS of money and time to senate Dems since 2000. nt

[bemildred]

2. If Clinton had resigned like Spitzer, the Gore would have been President.

And that would have been a lot better for the USA.

[Demeter]

4. And We Would Have Had a President Driven Out of Office Over

consensual sex without any money even involved? I don't think so.

[bemildred]

5. So Bush is still in power, have you noticed?

When the system is as decadent and corrupt as ours is, worrying about how the system "works" is misplaced. It does not work, it has not worked in a long time, and worrying about its integrity will get you nothing. Only by getting a Dean or a Gore in power do you have any chance to reverse the trend. I do not think that saving Clinton, who was at best a mediocre President, or protecting the "integrity" of our thoroughly broken political system is worth the damage done in the last 7 years.

[Mojorabbit]

6. It is a what if

but Gore would have been prez, we might be on an environmental renaissance in this country, we would not have gone to war with Iraq. One of those forks in the road. Who knows how it would have turned out.

[Demeter]

3. The Democrats Ran Away From Clinton's Help

He offered to campaign while President, and everyone who took him up on it won office.

But most Democrats turned up their noses at him, and lost. Al Gore turned down his help for the Presidency, too.

And after he left office, Clinton returned the snub. He pardoned Marc Rich, sold out, and joined the BFEE.

In a way, it's very sad that he didn't have enough of whatever it takes to ignore the coldness.

In another way, it's very hypocritical to carp about his decision to go where the hand was extended, whether the friendship was real or not, whether the money was clean or not. Clinton isn't Carter, and he never even pretended to be. Carter is in a class by himself--the inner-directed, ethically governed, truly independent man. Too bad he hung around with Burt Lance!

And in a third, it's a damn shame he and Hillary sold out. Not a good lesson for the children.

It could well be that Clinton's help came with strings--I put you in office, you put Hillary in office. And that could have been part of the repulsion. Until somebody starts talking or writing memoirs, we won't know.

[JPZenger]

7. Excellent Piece on Hillary's Hoarding of Cash in 2006

The above article is mainly talking about the pre-Lewinsky years, not the 2000 election.

The following is an excerpt of an article by author Paul Loeb. He doesn't even get to the point that Clinton's fundraisers diverted money that otherwise would have gone to more needy candidates. She was too busy raising money in partnership with Rupert Murdoch.

www.paulloeb.org

"Maybe Hillary Clinton's right that going back to the candidates' past illuminates their character... let's look at the 2006 election. Barack Obama's Hope Fund PAC ...gave to a broad spectrum of candidates ... 2006 was a Democratic opportunity, and grassroots supporters dug deep and then deeper to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races. Hillary, meanwhile, made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign.

... Edwards and Barack Obama, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for their own pending campaigns. The Edwards campaign ended that season still in debt from 2004. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.

... the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million that season, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $103 million. Hillary spent more than a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America that year. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history. And she did this for a race that was never in doubt.

Imagine if she'd transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. By late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance in more of these races. That's why so many of us were stretching to contribute, even when it hurt. Hillary made different decisions. ... While the money she spent may have gained her a few extra points of electoral margin, it did nothing to shift the power from an administration she said she opposed. If we're going to use 2006 as a measure of Presidential character, we might remember the choices Hillary could have made--and the priorities she chose instead."