Confessions of a Clinton Basher

[Armstead]

I'm well aware that I've become a rabid Clinton basher in this primary. Frankly, I've been a Clinton critic from the first day I joined DU back in the Dark Ages.

Why? I feel I owe an explanation...Not that anyone cares, but since the label "Hillary haters" gets tossed around, I believe it's important for people to realize WHY some people are so opposed to her.

Hillary is a great politician. She seems to have her heart in the right place. She is certainly tough and accomplished. She would be light years ahead of any GOP nominee.

BUT she represents the reason the Democratic Party has become so ineffectual and so meaningless over the last 20 years. She stands for the brand of corporatist Sell-out Democrat that has stolen the soul of the Democratic Party and which has helped the GOP push the center of the political spectrum so far to the right.

It is ironic that Hillary is currently running as the "Women's candidate" since she and her husband were in the forefront of distancing the Democratic Party from feminists, blacks, the poor and other "liberal special interest groups of the far left" in the late 70's, 80's and 90's.(yes the Clintons only became a factor in the 90's, but they were the catalysts to cement the power of this brand of centrist politics).

More importantly, The Clintons were the figureheads and main cheerleaders for economic/social policies that has been an extension of the right-wing Markets Uber Alles movement that replaced progressive populist liberalism with corporate CONservatism.

The Clintons bought into and actively pushed the neoliberal "free market" trade policies that have intended to impose the dictates of "markets" over the political will of the people and the domestic economies of all nations. NAFTA, MFN with China and other polices have hollowed out our economy, and created a system of global capital that is making it more and more difficult for the US or any other nation to address its own domestic problems if they run contrary to the dictates of Big Money and Markets.

Domestically, they were either silent or supportive, as corporations gained a major foothold through mergers, deregulation and privatization.

They benefited from a brief bubble of prosperity in the 90s due to the tech boom, but that was a merely a superficial paint job on a rotting economic foundation.

I find it impossible to believe that Hillary, Bill, the DLC and the interests they represent will change their stripes if they take the White House.

So, Hillary may be a really good Senator and a better president than McCain. But we can and should use this potentially historic turning point to do better than that.

(P.S. I'm going out, so I won't be responding to any replies until later. This is not intended as a hit-and-run post, and I'll get back to it.)

[mutant80]

1. So the Clinton Prosperity was luck, eh?

and he just happened to balance the budget.

And he happened to end wars as soon as they started.

And the right wing wants him killed off because he's a slacker.

[Cooley Hurd]

You mean their properity in Chappaqua?

;)

[hfojvt]

25. ah yes, balancing the budget

where have I heard the fiscal responsibility mantra before?

Here's how Grolier online describes the Republican Party:

"after World War I the Republican party became the more conservative of the two major parties, with its support coming from the upper middle class and from the corporate, financial, and farming interests. It has taken political stances generally in favor of laissez-faire, free enterprise, and fiscal responsibility and against the welfare state."

Used to be the Democratic party cared more about social programs and the working class than they did about balancing the budget.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Well put.

:thumbsup:

[mathewsleep]

3. *bling*

what a gem this post is.

[cooolandrew]

23. Is that you RandiRhodes.

[HughMoran]

4. "Vichy Democrat"

You may want to edit that out!

:(

[Armstead]

6. Okay I changed it to sell out

[HughMoran]

7. that's cool

"Vichy" carries connotations that I've seen get threads locked in the past.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. 'cause somewhere in the quisling clinic

There's a shorthand typist taking seconds over minutes...

(Elvis Costello, "Green Shirt")

Vichy Democrat DOES have a ring to it, but perhaps the Chamberlain riffs are a better tack to take...

Republicans win by going extreme and sticking up for their ugly, selfish and cold ideals. Democrats try to reach an accord with the primitives and just disgust everyone. Bill Clinton was still trying to appease the reactionaries while they were spending 80 million dollars to ratfuck him, and this is his and similar Democrats' weak spot: the need to be loved. A true conservative doesn't give two pins about being hated, but the average lefty is in agony that someone might think ill of him/her.

Jim Hightower put it best: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

[sniffa]

5. Well said

:thumbsup:

[jus_the_facts]

8. Ahh this is why I love you Berksh....

....kicked and recommended! :hi: :loveya:

:pals:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. Does it carry any weight with you that the Clintons brought the Democratic party back from oblivion?

And the two Clinton presidential victories and one Gore presidential victory are the only ones we've seen since the party was pronounced dead after Reagan

[Vincardog]

13. Does it mean anything to you that the Clinton Presidency was an abdication of Democratic progressive

policies for the faux neo-liberal policies that sold out working men and women the world over in favor us unrestrained "free markets"?

[Armstead]

31. Probably not

The 90's were "prosperous." Clinton won election. 'Nuff said for some people.

[Armstead]

26. They lost Congress and capitulated to the GOP agenda

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I agree with your assessment and would add

that during their tenure in Arkansas, they did things to the "common folks" that I consider rude. They have their cronies and to heck with the people. That has been their style.

[DJ13]

11. Excellent, and I feel the same way

Thank you.

K&R!

[OHdem10]

12. It is not the Clinton's I maintain--it is our party.

If one looks at the strategy of each candidate and the path
to delegate win--you may not get dreamy eyed over either
candidate if you are a Liberal.

Just observing, Obama appears to be using the GWB Playbook.
Bush knew he probably would not win large NE States and California.
Being Conservative and having as a goal to stake the flag of
Conservatism permanenly in our Government--he very carefully
courted and won those western, plains states, and some large
Midwestern States. We have ended up with the most ultra Conservative
Government ever in the US. OH Yes, the South of Course.

Frome these states come the most Conservative Democratic Senators
and Congressmen. When The Demoocrats are trying to legislation
passed--where do they find opposition ---not just the GOP
but their own Red state Members. We will continue to have
conservative Government. Hopefully not as RW as GWB.

Yes, Hilary is DLC. But she has enough clout in DLC to
push back and will not hesitate to so.

Bash Hilary as much as it makes you happy, but do not
dream some unobtainable dream,

[Armstead]

27. I think it's a chicken-and-egg dilemma

The toner of a party is set from the top. The Clintons and DLC set a tone that was conservative Democrat, which shaped the nature of the party.

Also, I believe liberal and conservative are labels that are not uniform. There are social and economic conservatives, and on more individual issues someone may be a mix.

IMO the Democrats lost it because they gave up a strong economic liberal populist core agenda, which created a vacuum that the GOP was able to capitalize on by emphasizing non economic issues and by selling an economic agenda that was against the interests of the middle class.

[Lisa0825]

15. K&R

:kick:

[Bluerthanblue]

16. this is an honest introspective

post.

I have to admit that the failure of Healthcare Reform- bothered me. The secrecy that surrounded the program alienated some people who may have been less antagonistic about it otherwise, not to say that it really had much hope.

I was also VERY disapointed by "welfare reform"- which is often championed as one of the highlights of the Clinton Administration. This was a vote against the least of us- The lie of the 'welfare queens' should have been exposed for what it was. Seeing how bush has dug his heels in even when he no longer has the majority, and been able to prevail, is frustrating. The '90's may have been an economic heaven for some, but it was the begining of some very cruel and callous policies for many citizens.

As for NAFTA-....

You highlight many issues that we tend to look back at with vaselene lenses, Armstead-

Hillary doesn't hold all the responsibility- And I agree that her heart is good. I also can't minimize the distraction that 'white-water' and 'Monica' was- but I too, feel we need to move forward, not try and go 'back'. We cannot go back- we can never really'go back' to the 'good old days'- even if we could, we would find that much of the 'goodness' comes from our need to look back selectively.

Thank you for this very good post- One that should make us stop, listen, and think-

happy to recommend-

peace to all~

[housewolf]

20. So true - your words: "We cannot go back-"

"We cannot go back- we can never really'go back' to the 'good old days'- even if we could, we would find that much of the 'goodness' comes from our need to look back selectively."

There's much wisdom in what you say, thanks for adding it to the discussion.

[Armstead]

32. You hit a nail on the head

"Seeing how bush has dug his heels in even when he no longer has the majority, and been able to prevail, is frustrating."

Yes, even though Bush is universally unpopular, at least he stands his ground and basically keeps getting what he wants. The 90's on the otehr hand was an almost constant refrain of "We can;t do this because the GOP is in charge."

[Avalux]

17. Your words represent how I feel. Thanks. K & R.

:hi:

[WillyT]

18. K & R !!!

:kick:

[grantcart]

19. I am not sure how progressive the second term might have been.

It seems like Kennedy too thought to take care of the middle of the road issues during the first term and then settle the more progressive issues in the second.


But the second term was hijacked. After, yes after, the republicans had started a witch hunt and hired 120 attorneys and investigators the president then started events that would then dominate the stage and suck all of the oxygen out of the body politic. It is unfortunate that there seems to be an element of self destruction that surrounds this great man that will forever leave the question of what might have been achieved speculation rather than fact.

And yes it is most unfortunate that Senator Clinton should have to carry all of this baggage and all of the other baggage as well. Fortunately the democratic party has a credible option that means they can turn the page and enter this presidential campaign without any old baggage.

[housewolf]

21. Very thoughtful & reflective post

Thanks for "coming clean" on this. I share many of your sentiments. Thanks for posting this, it's a good dimension to add to our DU conversation.

[cooolandrew]

22. Whoa, you write as good as Chomsky. Yep for the sake of party we must vote Barack. Teddy Kennedy ...

..knows it.

[AtomicKitten]

24. The Clintons are finding out the "strong and wrong" argument doesn't hold water

... especially when it comes to matters of war.

As it turns out centrism is, in fact, NOT the only way to win. Obama has been touted the most liberal Senator and he CAN win. This is a pivotal moment in history. Gobama.

[Armstead]

28. I'm hoping centrism, will become a historic relic sometime

Or at least a center which is more to the left, which IMO would be the real center.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Americans are hopeful too.

Yes, we can.

[Armstead]

30. kick

[NashVegas]

33. Armstead, I Understand Exactly Where You're Coming From

It's where I was from about 2000 until two-three weeks ago. The #1 reason for my change of candidate preference towards Hillary was sealed with Edwards dropped out. I don't see Obama as being anyone who will keep the groups the DLC is too happy to serve at bay. I really don't. With virtually no difference between the candidates, I have to throw my weight to the one whose methods of dealing with the RW slime machine include fighting back.

[Armstead]

34. I understand your position too. Here's why I see it differently

Rightly or wrongly, one reason the Repugs and the Corporate Elite have gotten away with so much has been that they were able to crowd out real issues with personality politics. More specifically the politics of personal destruction.

Whether deserved or not, the Clintons were prime targets for that, and the remain so. They are good at fighting back on that level, but I think at this point it's just a self-perpetuating cycle.

I don't know whether or not Obama would take on the corporate interests that are the real problem. I felt the same way you did when Edwards left the race.

However, there's a lot to be said for a fresh start. Obama is not tied to that baggage of personal destruction. The GOP will try, but I am hopeful (fingers crossed) that enough people have wised up to the GOP slimeball tactics that it won't be as successful as it has been in the past.

If that is the case, and assuming Obama doesn;t somehow screw up, he would at least be a popular new figure, which could set the stage for more actual progress and a move in the progressive direction.

[ieoeja]

35. This is why I hate seeing McCain get the GOP nod.

Ideally we would see Obama beat Huckabee in the general election. Were Democrats to reject the poster child for centrism in favor of a (slight) move to progressivism while the Republics went with a GW clone, then both parties would see the election results as a referendum on progressivism-vs-recidivism.

Unfortunately, Huckabee needs to win damn near every remaining primary to get the nomination. So we're probably going to have McCain. And when McCain loses, the GOP will blame it on their shift away from whackadoodleland and dive right back in there.

In many ways the worst possible outcome for the future of this country would be a Clinton victory over McCain. For then conventional wisdom for both parties would be that electoral success depends on moving Right. And you could kiss progress goodbye for another decade or so as we continue our drive towards medievalism.