Memo to Obama Fans: Clinton's presidency was not a failure.

[Clinton Crusader]

Memo to Obama Fans
Clinton's presidency was not a failure.
By David Greenberg
Feb. 12, 2008
History lesson

There are several reasons why Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has shied away from running on the accomplishments of Bill Clinton's presidency: anxiety about a Clinton "dynasty," a concern not to be seen as dwelling on the past; and a clear public hunger for "change," however unspecified the content of that change may be. But the upshot has been a bit perverse: Clinton, like Al Gore in 2000, is downplaying what should be an enormous asset.

Barack Obama's upscale white supporters (and those too young to recall the 1970s and 1980s) tend to describe Clinton-ism as a betrayal of liberalism, a sellout to Wall Street, and proof that "the Clintons" won't bring about change—a view encapsulated in the Daily Kos blog's visceral aversion to Terry McAuliffe's mug. Yet while the courting of big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom left a bad odor, as a historical matter, the Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, especially on the economy. And it seems that as Obama mania sweeps the educated classes, the party's struggling lower-income base still prefers Hillary. One reason is that they're less prone than their better-off party mates to vote out of an enthusiasm for stirring rhetoric or viral videos or a wish to play their part in a grand narrative of racial reconciliation. Having been battered by globalization, rising health care and education costs, and the subprime mortgage disaster, they're remembering the Clinton years and voting for who they think will help
them.

Understanding Clinton-ism's appeal to the distressed starts with Bill Clinton's candidacy for president in 1992. Though he ran as a New Democrat, Bill was not, contrary to legend, a classic example of centrist Democratic Leadership Council thinking. He was well to the left of DLC stalwarts like Georgia's Sam Nunn or Virginia's Chuck Robb, who, according to Ken Baer's history of the DLC, Reinventing Democrats, had been the preferred choice of the body's chairman, Al From, to seek
the presidency. Clinton also ran to the left of his chief rival for the Democratic nomination that year, Paul Tsongas, a former Republican who trumpeted his pro-business stands and his desire to reform Social Security. Clinton's 1992 slogan, "Putting people first," and his stress on "the economy, stupid," pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Clinton's populism was complicated—more so than the simplistic "people versus the powerful" cant that has sapped the vigor from innumerable Democratic campaigns. Clinton's version incorporated a technocratic, neoliberal vision. Before globalization became a buzzword, Clinton grasped that the main reasons for worsening inequality and the disappearance of good jobs were those larger economic forces that regressive tax policy might exacerbate but that even progressive tax policy would be powerless to stop. So on issues like trade, he argued that liberals had to make peace with globalization and find policies to help spread more fairly the wealth that globalization would create.
Clinton's neoliberal strains and his populism—as well as the budget-balancing zeal of deficit hawks such as Lloyd Bentsen and Leon Panetta, who joined his first administration—naturally conflicted at times. In 1994, I assisted Bob Woodward with his book The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House, which pulled back the curtain on infighting among the different factions in Clinton's first year as they struggled to craft and pass the 1993 budget bill. Although some of the populists saw Clinton as having caved to the moderates, the resulting deal included a good
dose of increased progressivity. Indeed, the tax hikes on the upper brackets were the main elements that made it controversial even in a Democrat-controlled Congress and led to its passage by only one vote in the Senate and two in the House.

More---> http://www.slate.com/id/2183941/

[Jane Austin]

1. It was a failure for the Democratic party.

We lost Congress and there was little infrastructure and few rising stars in the party by the time the Clinton years ended.

[DiamondJay]

16. there were no rising stars in the party before Clinton

and the party would be nothing without him. we woulda lost congress either way with or without him, the reagan revolution was costing us seats all thruout the 80s and early 90s, we lost like 20 seats from the late 60s the the early 80s. face it, bill clinton was not responsible for us losing seats. Not to mention, our electoral vote average from the 3 elections preceding Clinton was 47.5 After Bill clinton in the last 2 elections it is 258. I think thats a big help to the party.

[Jane Austin]

36. We lived in TN part-time back then

and I thought our senator, Al Gore, was a rising star.

And back in Texas Ann Richards and Jim Hightower and John Sharp were among the many rising stars.

Then Karl Rove slimed into town. But that's another story.

[oasis]

2. Those were the good years. Clintonian prosperity.

Those golden days had real substance which rewarded our "hope".

[izquierdista]

4. Eight years

Sandwiched in between 20 years of Reagan and Bush. Even a weed looks pretty sitting between two piles of dog-crap.

[jackson_dem]

6. No, it was the longest economic expanasion ever in American history

That includes everyone from Washington to Bush 43...

[hfojvt]

29. big deal. It was still an expansion that helped the rich far more than the poor

and part of that was because of Clinton's policies and part was because of a lack thereof. It was 8 years that included Republican Governor Tommy Thompson giving a speech in Eau Claire bragging about the creation of jobs that paid $6 an hour. It was 8 years that included Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack talking about how to handle a future "labor shortage" while hundreds of people in Iowa, myself included, could not find a job. At least not one with benefits.

[jackson_dem]

32. It was the only time working folks and the poor have made gains since the 60's

What is Barack Obama's economic record? Is he going to create twenty million jobs?

[Jane Austin]

37. Nobody's going to create 20 million jobs after

the devastation of Nafta and eight years of BushCo and Corporate dominance.

[jackson_dem]

42. Bill Clinton did it

[Jane Austin]

48. After NAFTA and 8 years of George W Bush?

I don't think so.

[hfojvt]

43. that's not true

from 1983 until 1989 the poverty rate fell from 12.3% to 10.3%. During Clinton's two terms, the share of income received by the bottom 40% fell from 12.6% to 12.2%, by contrast their share at the end of Carter's term was 14.7%. The poverty rate fell from 10.1% in 1970 to 8.8% in 1974.

[jackson_dem]

47. Reagan took office in 1981, not 1983

Shares don't affect the lives of people. It is an academic issue for well-off folks to discuss. The actual median wages for folks rose under Clinton for the first presidential tenure since the 60's. No one cares much about shares if the other guy is gaining 8% and you are gaining 6%. It beats losing ground on the treadmill like you have for the past thirty years.

8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton.

[MagickMuffin]

67. With the New Green Collar Jobs, maybe he could reach that goal

We won't know until he's elected.

[IndieLeft]

9. nice choice of words...

I didn't inhale... LMAO

[Vinca]

3. NAFTA was the beginning of the end of the America many of us

knew and loved. We didn't know it at the time, but it's been a real tragedy for many, many families. I can't look back on the Clinton years without thinking of all the boarded up factories and deserted Main Streets. It was a better time than the Shrub years - goes without saying - but, in retrospect, it was far from perfect.

[DiamondJay]

12. NAFTA IS NOT THE BE ALL AND END ALL

not to mention it woulda happened under Bush or quayle anyway. the rest of the country did great because he cut the deficit without a vote of republican support. there are many other things that happened other than NAFTA

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. NAFTA was authered by Bush Sr. and Reagan...they saved it for Clinton to sign so that......

they wouldn't have the shame of it on their names in the History books.

[anigbrowl]

21. So why did he sign it?n/t

[Iris]

59. republican congress

[hedgehog]

60. There's this thing called a "veto"..........nt

[JVS]

61. Democrats held the house when clinton came aboard.

Clinton supporter that BS. That's what 3rd way is all about

[Alexander]

63. Democrats controlled Congress in 1993. Nice try.

I thought it was the Obama supporters who knew nothing about politics. :eyes:

[Iris]

66. oops, sorry.

was thinking about welfare reform

[Captain Hilts]

17. Boarded up factories are what ousted GHWB. We lose FAR more jobs to China - go to Wal-Mart...

and see how EVERYTHING is made in China. Radio Shack too.

And all clothing. And shoes.

I wish it were being made in Mexico.

[Vinca]

62. The factories are boarded up because the jobs are in China.

There are 5 or 6 within 10 miles of where I'm sitting. They used to manufacture books, shoes, handbags and paper products. Meanwhile, Walmart is planning to replace its store with a "super" store. Some people did better than others under NAFTA. The Walton family comes to mind.

[Vincardog]

5. Clinton was not "a classic example of centrist Democratic Leadership Council thinking" BULLSHIT

While you are ti fuck neoliberalism and all the flat earthers out there too.

[Johnny__Motown]

7. Ah yes, Impeachment and letting the Repugs win both houses of congress and the white house . SUCCESS

[DiamondJay]

18. freeper alert

you could be someone on the Rush limbaugh fansite. get out of the party, or go worship how awesome jimmy carter was for the party.

[Cadwallader]

26. freeper alert on the freeper alert

calling someone a freeper to start a flame war is certainly freeperish. Calling someone a freeper because they express the opinion of 50% of the Democrats and 79% of the progressives in the party is just denial writ large

[Johnny__Motown]

38. Honesty is not a Rush Limbaugh trait. Everything I said was true.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Impeachment was Bill Clinton's fault? Blame the victim!!! nt

[XemaSab]

30. His dick just fell out of his pants into "that woman's" mouth...

:eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

33. The Whitewater investigation found NOTHING. That never should have been part of it. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

41. LIES.. Hillary created a document that was used in the commission of a felony

That is a fact. It can't be denied, not even by you.


The only thing that can't be proved is if she knew that the document she created would be used to commit fraud. We can't prove she knew, we can't prove she didn't know.


Saying that Whitewater found nothing is a Lie. They just can't prove she knew what was going on.

[Alexander]

65. All Clinton had to say was "it's none of your business". Why didn't he?

Instead he felt the need to deny it and then talk his way out of the denial.

[Johnny__Motown]

39. he did something wrong that led to impeachment. (although Censure would have been appropriate)

[goodgd_yall]

49. Which wouldn't have except for the Republcans who hated the success of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton was the Neocons nightmare come true. Whitewater didn't work so they pounced on an affair. The media circus around it was incredible. Just like the idiocy (much shorter-lived and less monumental) about Howard Dean's scream.

[VotesForWomen]

70. kool-aide drinker. if they blame that on Clinton, they have clearly gone over to the dark side. nt

[rodeodance]

8. rec

[OzarkDem]

10. It was a great success

The economy when he took over was in much worse shape than it is now. Everything was a mess. He cleaned it up, balanced the budget, created new jobs, put billions into inner city programs and schools.

No president is perfect (and we wouldn't want them to be) but he had fewer mistakes than any in recent history and plenty of accomplishments too. He was a tireless worker with a great imagination and desire to help everyone live a better life.

It would be a pleasure to have his wife back in the WH, too. They were and are a great team.

[Cha]

11. I don't care ..I just don't want

his wife as president.

[emilyg]

13. k/r

[Exultant Democracy]

15. "Having been battered by globalization, rising health care" whos fault are those again?

How signed and championed NAFTA and through absolutly terrible management set back health care reform 16 years?

Sure it wasn't a failure but we can also do better and part of the key to that is that we stop allowing the DLC to call the shots.

[Cadwallader]

20. Sorry to burst your bubble, bubba

If you look at it , the Middle four years were excellent. Lots of progress. The first two were totally suck ( remember the Time magazine cover piece " the Incredible Shrinking President"?

The last two were the WORST. Communications Act. NAFTA implementation. Impeachment. Crashing disappointment in Bill.

and the coup de grace:

The NET of those last two years resulted in the Republican takeover of Gov't for the next ten years.

After 8, we reversed the trend, but not the damage.

It is this legacy that Clinton supporters rationalize away because it doesn't look good on the resume.

[tinrobot]

22. It wasn't a failure, it was simply another time...

...and elections are always about the future.

[KittyWampus]

23. Banking Deregulation was Clinton. And Media consolidation, Govt. privatization

[jillan]

50. Banking deregulation was in the 80's - not 90's.

I worked at a bank, and I remember those days too well.:puke:

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Bill Clinton: "The 1990s were a time of prosperity, 22 million new jobs, 8 million out of poverty"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/317/
"The 1990s were a time of prosperity. We created more than 22-million new jobs, moved 8-million people out of poverty, and turned our economy around."
Bill Clinton on Friday, January 25th, 2008

The 1990s? Good times

With heightened fears of a recession, Bill Clinton wants you to remember the good old days, the days of Spice Girls and Starbucks and economic prosperity ... the 1990s. The days when, you know, he was president. In a radio ad that is running in South Carolina, Bill Clinton suggests things could be like that again, if you elect his wife.

“The 1990s were a time of prosperity,” Clinton says in the ad. “We created more than 22-million new jobs, moved 8-million people out of poverty, and turned our economy around.

“It’s time for another comeback, time to make America great again. I know Hillary’s the one who can do it.”

There are two main statistics in this advertisement (which Hillary Clinton has also thrown out from time to time), and we find that Bill Clinton is on target on both.

The first is about new jobs. According to Bureau of Labor statistics, the number of employees on nonagricultural payrolls went from 109.7-million in January 1993 (when Clinton took office) to 132.5-million in January 2001 (when Clinton checked out). Net gain: 22.8-million new jobs.

The other claim is fewer people living in poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people living in poverty went from 38-million in 1992 to 31-million in 2000; not quite 8-million as Bill Clinton said, but pretty close.

Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institute, says there’s no getting around the numbers.

Sure, Burtless said, the dot.com craze may have helped the economic numbers, and some may argue that the U.S. economy was due for an up-cycle during the 1990s, “but the fact is, there was significant economic growth during that period. It’s tough to get around that.”

“To the degree that a president can effect economic progress,” Burtless said, “most would say Bill Clinton did well above average.”

Let the partisan folks argue about whether Bill Clinton deserves credit for the numbers, or whether Hillary Clinton can recreate them. The numbers are right. We rate Bill Clinton’s statement True.

[nomorewhopper]

25. i dont think obama supporters think bill's presidency was a faiure ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THIS

are you suggesting that hillary should be elected because of her husband's successful presidency?

nomorewhopper voted for clinton in my first ever election when i was 18, and enjoyed him as a president, very much so indeed.

just because you support obama doesn't meant that you reject the clinton presidency. sheesh

[Cadwallader]

34. It's clear to me that the Clinton campaign is doing exactly that

They are pointing to Bill's record as a joint accomplishment; of a co-presidency if you will.

Why else is the Clinton presidency so prominent in Hillary's campaign? The implication is that Hillary was a direct participant.

By extension then (although they neglect to mention it, and it seems apparent if you've seen Bill campaign)
Bill plans on a co-presidency with Hillary.

He really wants it badly, if you've seen him on the stump for Hill.

[DemGa]

27. ObamaMania is based on smearing the Clintons

Take that away and all that's left is fluff. Without it, Obama supporters are left standing -- holding nothing.

[jillan]

51. It's the 'unity'.

United around Obama and nothing else.

[yellowcanine]

58. I don't know about "ObamaMania" but my support of Obama has nothing to do with Bill or Hillary.

I think it is the Hillary Clinton supporters that are missing the point here. It is not about her. It is about Obama. I see a leader who is in the right place at the right time. That is all.

[Neo-wobbly]

28. WRONG

Economy: In 2001, every company on the Fortune 400 restated its earnings for the previous 10 years DOWN; Clinton just let them lie about it for 8 years. NAFTA was another disater, shipping desperately needed jobs south for the benefit of large corporations. His allowance of massive deregulation also led to the media conglomerates that are killing progressives, today.

Liberalism: Clinton left welfare half-dead, did nothing for education, was antagonistic to Civil Rights (remember the CDA?); accusing him of running "to the left" of Paul Tsongas is like accusing him of being abstinent compared to Hugh Hefner.

Health Care: Bill had the opportunity to head this issue off at the pass; this was Hillary's cause until she was informed (to the tune of a couple of million dollars) that she would never become a senator, much less president, if she kept pushing it.

Iraq: What? You say that he had nothing to do with that? On the contrary, he bombed the country nearly non-stop through both terms, and then looked the other way while they abused the oil-for-food program. Madeleine Albright is on record as saying that they would have loved to have invaded Iraq, but they didn't have an excuse.

Taxes: Yes, he increased taxes on the rich, and cut them for the poor, unless you were actually poor, and couldn't meet the income requirements for the earned income credit, or actually rich, and qualified for the (numerous) loopholes. Give the man a Guinness (Brilliant!).

No, Bill Clinton's winning quality was not being George H. W. Bush, and shilling for the media companies, who consistently gave him good press, even when he didn't deserve it. Keeping the man as far away from the White House is as good a reason as any to vote against Hillary.

[hfojvt]

31. actually in his 2nd term, he cut taxes for the rich too

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

and talked like a rightwinger from day 1

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/74

[truebrit71]

53. Thank you for speaking the truth.

Finally!

[Jed Dilligan]

35. "Clinton's version incorporated a technocratic, neoliberal vision.

Great summary of why I never have, and probably never will, vote for a Clinton.

[goodgd_yall]

40. Is this OP ever needed!

I can't believe the Republican talking points being regurgitated by some DUers here.

[mimitabby]

44. geez, i don't get it.

Can't someone have a lot of respect for Hillary, a lot of pride for the Clinton years and still want Obama to be our next president?

And who cares who Bill slept with? REALLY WHO gives a shit. It's none of my business and it was a horrible horrible
waste of time and money to pursue it. and you guys are still talking about it! It had NOTHING to do with what matters.

Isn't it more important that the current occupant of the white house is killing people and taking away our liberties?

and the divisiveness in threads like this is leading us right down the merry trail to a mccain victory!!

[goodgd_yall]

46. I agree

No need to knock a Democratic president to show support for your candidate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. It wasn't good enough.

NAFTA
Rwanda
DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell
No college loans for people with pot convictions

We could have done better.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Clinton's presidency was a failure if you were poor (Welfare Reform),

sick (failed Health Insurance Reform), or Gay\Lesbian (Don't Ask, Don't Tell represented a cave-in to the Dr. Strangeloves in the U.S. military).

[HeraldSquare212]

54. He achieved much less than he could have. That's failure.

And he fought for less. The budget bill you reference above? He had to sacrifice two first-term Reps who won in traditionally Republican districts to get that passed. Did he care? Nope, because he was more worried about not looking good - it's all personal with the Clintons, party or long-term policies or politics don't come into play.

[yellowcanine]

55. No it was not.. But what does that have to do with Obama? He is not running against Bill Clinton.

And anyway, A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, not a vote against Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton. As long as the Clinton camp does not recognize that they will keep losing.

[Zech Marquis]

56. it was a personal failure for Bill

I don't fault the Clinton years for how well the country did back then, I would on;y say that it was a personal failure of Bill Clinton for messing around with Monica. Had he kept his free willy zipped up, I dare ay that history would be totally different (aka President Gore).

[K Gardner]

57. Is Bill Clinton running again?? Actually, I could care less what history or anyone

else says about Clinton's Presidency. I liked Bill Clinton. Until a couple of months ago. I liked his wife too, until a couple of months ago. It is quite clear now that whatever he did is relegated to the history books, as are they. Time to turn the page and look forward, not back.

[cottonseed]

64. Hill ain't Bill.

I keep forgetting who's running this year.

[VotesForWomen]

68. yep; peace and prosperity. the O-dreamers have no understanding of political realities; they think

O is going to slide into the white house and painlessly, perfectly enact every piece of progressive legislation they've ever wanted, and the repugs are going to happily co-operate and like it! damn, why didn't the clinton's do that?

[Occam Bandage]

69. No, I don't think it was a failure. HRC's campaign, on the other hand...

[donheld]

71. DUer's seem to blame Bill Clinton for

Everything the right wingers like Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich and others are responsible for.