Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

PLEASE read this 2000 article: Why many of us do NOT want Clintonism again

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:28 AM
Original message
PLEASE read this 2000 article: Why many of us do NOT want Clintonism again
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 09:42 AM by Armstead
This article is a long -- but spot -on -- explanation in depth about why so many of us do NOT want to see the Democrats revert to the Clintonian brand of politics and governance.

This is why -- on a substantial level -- Hillary keeps pushing my own hot buttons, and those of many other people.

Among other things, it outlines the economic and political failures that would later be amplified (but not created) by Bush 2. It also gives context to Obama's analysis that led to "bittergate" and why Obama was exactly right.....And why Hillary's pandering lies about it are so enraging.

It's worth reading over a cup o' coffee or printing out to take to lunch or whatever.

And, if you do find it worthwhile, please Kick and Recommend. The author really does get the core of it in a substantive way.


P.S. I realize peopel might have legitimate disagreements with his analysis. Fine, if you do disagree please say so. But at least read it with an open mind.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000214/greider/5

The Nation Magazine
Posted January 27, 2000 (February 14, 2000 issue)

Unfinished Business: Clinton's Lost Presidency by William Greider

Excerpt:

...Clinton, as President, consigned the malfunctioning global economy to the reform energies of the Business Roundtable and Wall Street. His Administration led cheers for multinational commerce, opened fragile economies to the manic surges of global capital and created the World Trade Organization to judge whether new social standards are, in fact, barriers to trade and therefore forbidden.

When Bill Clinton recites the big challenges, he reminds us of all he danced away from as President. The spirited reformer is the young man we met back in 1992, brimming with big ideas, but he is utterly unconvincing now. One feels sadness for the lost promise of this extraordinarily skillful politician......

Clinton has taught Democrats to think small. And it works as politics in this media age, given his talent for emotive communication. Republicans are learning from him too, smoothing over their big ideas with more charm, less snarl. Clinton's many retreats from large purpose--accompanied always by small, symbolic gestures--were supposed to restore faith in government, bit by bit, and raise public expectations for genuine action. Instead, his political success has deepened the skepticism. For the cynical and disengaged, he confirms their assumption that politics is not real. For idealistic young people, who feel Clinton did the best he could, the message is that large ideas are simply impossible to achieve in this era.....

The "New Democrat" straddle--the money comes from business and finance, the votes from ordinary people--worked for Clinton, but it is a cul-de-sac for the party that claims to speak for the working class and poor, that built its reputation by leading bravely on the toughest questions of reform. The Clinton success actually confines Election 2000, limiting what his party's candidates can say and think. One important subtext of this election is whether the Democrats will find a way out of the dilemma or simply become smaller in number, weaker in purpose....

... That outcome describes the Clinton legacy. Rather than bring Americans together, his presidency deepened the economic fault line that separates the many from the few. Bottom line: The folks who twice supported him for President are worse off in fundamental terms, despite the currently improving conditions. The median family income did not get back to its 1989 level until 1998 (a slower postrecession recovery of lost ground than occurred in the Reagan years). Real wages for nonsupervisory production workers remain at early seventies levels. The maldistribution of wealth--ownership of property and financial assets--has accelerated; its impact is reflected in the negative savings rate for households. In these best of all possible times, how come typical Americans are still spending more than they earn to keep up?

....Clinton's big retreats from party ideals were seen as smart tactical moves, and they often were. But they also became the new starting line for the Democratic Party. Like Bradley, I find myself feeling nostalgia for the stubborn clarity of Ronald Reagan--a leader who believed in a few big things, who repeated them endlessly, never backed off and never admitted defeat, though he frequently lost. The Gipper accomplished great forward progress for his way of thinking.

Clinton instead has talked romantically about a far horizon of progress, then backed away from the messy political conflicts that might actually move the country toward it. The most serious omissions of his presidency define his failure, but are not even talked about in this campaign because he never took up the fight for them. He leaves no legacy on a lot of tough issues, except that he ducked....

...While there are many other contributing factors, money politics helps to explain why presidential elections are no longer very convincing. Choosing a new leader for the nation was once the most absorbing drama of American democracy, but the process is now caught in a spiral of declining legitimacy. Neither major party seems able to speak plainly, convincingly, on fundamental matters that distress Americans, in part because both parties depend upon the same galaxy of contributors to finance their candidates. Real differences endure, of course, but money makes it increasingly risky for any candidate who thinks anew and outside the accepted boundaries (unless the candidate happens to be rich as Croesus and finances himself)....

....By comparison, Election 2000 already looks like a failed brand of soap, since so many Americans aren't buying any of it. Restoring credible accountability in the representative system, from the ground up, is the long way back to a robust democracy, for sure. But don't dismiss it as impossible. Leaving aside the fools and scoundrels, of whom there are many, the great saving virtue of Americans is that they do not always believe what they are told by the authorities. Sometimes, they still find their way to the truth about things, despite the media's opacity and the blanket of propaganda for the status quo. When they do figure things out for themselves, Americans sometimes still get real ornery about it.

MUCH MORE



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. NAFTA, Favored Trade Status w China, Telecom Act of '96, Banking Mergers, WTI Toxic Waste Incinerat
Jackson Stephens connections, Marc Rich pardosn, Failure to investigate BCCI & Iran Contra, ties to lobbyists, DLC, Mark Penn, James Carville, Monsanto; Failure to speak out on the disenfranchisement of Dem Voters in 2000 and 2004: THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CLINTONS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
23. I sure wish that MFN for China had more attention
That made NAFTA look like a tea party by comparison. And Clinton can't blame that one on Bush 1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. He sure can't. On China + the Clinton Administration:
Clinton to renew Normal Trade Relations with China

June 2, 1999
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 2) -- President Bill Clinton will notify Congress Thursday that he is renewing China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status -- now known as Normal Trade Relations (NTR) -- for another year, CNN has confirmed.

MFN/NTR status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.

The formal notification, required by the Thursday deadline, is expected to trigger a major debate in the House and Senate due to allegations of Chinese espionage against the U.S. and other recent diplomatic tensions, including charges China tried to influence the 1996 presidential election with illegal campaign contributions.

One of the first speak out against Clinton decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), derided the president for making the decision near the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

-snip

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/china.mfn/




Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

-snip

House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

-snip

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/



White House Had Ended System of Checking Foreign Guests

By TIM WEINER
Published: February 3, 1997

Ten years ago the Reagan White House adopted a rule about foreign businessmen, lobbyists and consultants who wanted to get in to see the President without the blessing of their embassies: they shouldn't.

But President Clinton's aides did not follow that rule. In their eagerness to raise campaign money, they invited friends of the President's fund-raisers -- including China's biggest arms merchant, favor-seeking Indonesian businessmen, a reputed Russian mobster and other dubiously credentialed dealmakers -- to meet with Mr. Clinton. Nor did the White House check the suitability of Americans invited by the Democratic National Committee to meet the President, allowing, among others, a twice-convicted felon to sip coffee with Mr. Clinton.

-snip

And that is why nobody on the White House political team saw fit to ask the National Security Council staff a year ago about a man named Wang Jun, who showed up on a guest list for a White House coffee with the President. The question of exactly how Mr. Wang got into the White House has a simple answer: ''Nobody ever asked anybody,'' a National Security Council official said.

So, at the behest of a tireless political fund-raiser from Arkansas, Charlie Yah Lin Trie, Mr. Clinton wound up sipping coffee with Mr. Wang, who runs the Chinese Government's weapons manufacturing and procuring agency, which is involved in secret arms deals around the world. These coffees for fund-raisers and donors began as a way to raise morale among party loyalists after the Democrats' disastrous showing in the 1994 election. By 1995, they became a way to reward big donors and prospect for new ones, according to Democratic fund-raisers.

-snip

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2DC103DF930A35751C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

New York Times, May 17, 1998



How Chinese Won Rights to Launch Satellites for U.S.

(BY JEFF GERTH AND DAVID E. SANGER)
On Oct. 9, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher ended a lengthy debate within the Clinton Administration by initialing a classified order that preserved the State Department's sharp limits on China's ability to launch American-made satellites aboard Chinese rockets.

Both American industry and state-owned Chinese companies had been lobbying for years to get the satellites off what is known as the `munitions list,' the inventory of America's most sensitive military and intelligence-gathering technology. But Mr. Christopher sided with the Defense Department, the intelligence agencies and some of his own advisers, who noted that commercial satellites held technological secrets that could jeopardize `significant military and intelligence interests.'

There was one more reason not to ease the controls, they wrote in a classified memorandum. Doing so would `raise suspicions that we are trying to evade China sanctions' imposed when the country was caught shipping weapons technology abroad--which is what happened in 1991 and 1993 for missile sales to Pakistan.

-snip

Other powerful Chinese state enterprises also had multibillion-dollar stakes in getting access to American satellites. Among them was the China International Trade and Investment Corporation, whose chairman, Wang Jun, gained unwanted attention in the United States last year when it was revealed that he attended one of Mr. Clinton's campaign coffee meetings in the White House. The day of Mr. Wang's visit, Mr. Clinton, in what Mr. Rubin said was a coincidence, signed waivers allowing the Chinese to launch four American satellites--though they were unrelated to the business interests of China International Trade.

-snip

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/1998/h980618-prc5.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmine621 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
56. NAFTA was NOT initiated by Bill Clinton. It was passed by the Congress
that preceded his election. He supported it and signed the bill. It was highly favored by the majority of legislators. Clinton always favored stronger enforcement of the provisions that forced other countries to abide by the same environmental and employment standards as the US. The idea of NAFTA was and is not bad. The implementation and enforcement of NAFTA is the problem. The same can be said of Affirmative Action. It was and is not a bad idea but the implemntation and enforcement was and is the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Poverty fell under Clinton, wages went up, the number of people below the poverty line fell
In short, he did everything progressive pretend they want. Only, he did it in a way they claim doesn't work. In addition, he erased the budget deficit--one of the biggest hindrances to economic growth.

Bush reversed all of what Clinton did, shifting the burden of taxation, and the economy responded predictably, by going in the opposite direction it had under Clinton.

I'll take the Clinton "failures" any day of the week, and I'm so goddamned tired of fake Democrats posting shit like this I could scream. We deserve what's happened to this nation if we don't have any more sense than this. Why do we even need a Republican Party, we do more harm to ourselves than all their lies and slanders could ever do.

And since people have forgotten, Clinton beat a president who had a 60% approval rating when he began campaigning against him, and had a 90% approval rating before that. The choice back then wasn't between Clinton and some "progressive" (I'll use that word even though modern progressive seem to be the opposite of what the word means), it was between Clinton's brand of the Democratic Party and more of the Reagan era. Clinton aimed this nation in a different direction, and despite Obama's idiotic ramblings about Reagan, fundamentally changed where we were going. With a Republican Congress there was only so far to the left we could go, but without Clinton, we'd be so far to the right now that Bush/Cheney would look like the liberal option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:51 AM
Original message
Well sai.... err done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberblonde Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Don't waste your time.
They're all under a spell and no one can break it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Did you read the full article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Crickets....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
54. Crickets, yes, but they're inhabiting the cavernous hall where some
expect the Clinton-hatefest to take place.

Nothing like sticking one's head in some orifice in order to make their case that Clinton was the worst thing that happened to this country in the last generation.

It has now gone beyond ridiculous.

It's stinks of desperation. A clingy, stale odor.

Take it from this Edwards supporter--stick to fighting McCain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Yes, it's like Shawn of the Dead around here. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Again I ask -- Did you botehr to read the full article?
I really don't care whether you agree with it or not.

But don't refute it with the same "happy,happy 90's" or "Obama Zombies" talking points that don't address the points made in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Did you read the full article?
Reasonable people can disagree, but the article addresses the points you made.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. No. When the first bite seemed rotten, I stopped eating the apple.
:shrug: I've read the talking points before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. So much for an open mind
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 10:20 AM by Armstead
Speaking of zombielike reflexive behavior....

But then again you and I have been round this block many times before, and I know your opposition to progressives is at least consistent :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
45. The article was written in 2000. "Open mind" I have. The patience to rehash old arguments
especially founded on evidence we've batted around here for two thirds of a decade, I don't. At some point, the most open minds make decisions--not to close, but to arrive at a conclusion based on the available evidence. New evidence may re-open the case, but an 8 year old article that I might have read already anyway won't.

As for my views on progressives-- I love progressives, I just don't meet many here. The word is used, but not the reality. Proof is Obama being called a progressive, when he's right of both Clintons economically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Unfortunately, Hillary is trying to take us back to the 90's
If we weren't faced with the proepect of eight more years of that GOP lite approach, I'd let bygones be bygones and say "Bill Clinton had his faults, but he was an okay president in some ways."

But Hillary has proven to be trying to put the same crew back in charge with a different figurehead.

The fact that the Clintonians want to return to that is made clear by her willingness to use GOP talking points against Obama (whose only real crime so far is running against her).

Maybe Obama is not totally the type of progressive that I might prefer, but he's a whale of a lot better, and -- if nothing else -- is a chance to move beyond all of the Clinton baggage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. Clinton never fought for the long-term gain. He was all about
the political gain of the moment, something Hillary is repeating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. striangulation. by any other name, still a shortsighted scheme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Nonsense.
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 10:13 AM by Spider Jerusalem
Free trade, banking deregulation, telecoms deregulation, intensification of the war on drugs, more Americans imprisoned for nonviolent crimes, welfare 'reform', and on and on...Clinton did not actually do much that was progressive. On economic issues, there's a reason why Ayn Rand cultist Alan Greenspan called him 'one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had'. He was, on balance, a generally conservative Democrat with a few socially liberal inclinations. He was decidedly not a progressive. He was unable to get the most progressive parts of his domestic agenda through a Democratic Congress, when he had one, and after that governed from the centre-right. Sure, he raised taxes and eliminated the budget deficit. But at the same time most of the '90's economic growth was based on an economic bubble (the tech/internet boom) that went bust (during Clinton's term in office, actually), and was illusory. Oh, and the recession of 2001? Started too soon to have been the result of Bush's economic policies. Yes, the reckless Bush tax cuts and Bush's general economic fuckery made things worse, but most economists put the start date at March 2001. Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics and business cycles will tell you that the conditions for recession don't just manifest themselves out of nowhere in 2 months.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Clinton was basically lucky that his term wasn't longer
Otherwise the "Bush recession" of the early decade would have been perceived as the Clinton recession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. You act like there's one way to fix an economy. They are dynamic
You fix them based on what came before and what you have to work with. Clinton was coming off the most reactionary government this nation has ever had, and he had a Republican Congress for most of his term, and before that, when he had a Democratic Congress, he had Sam Nunn to undercut everything he did. Even so he managed a works and jobs package and responsible tax increases targeted to the wealthier (to reverse Reaganomics). And the American people rewarded his liberalism by putting Newt Gingrich in charge of Congress. Even then, Clinton thwarted Gingrich's budget, which Gingrich himself said would roll back the government to pre-FDR levels.

Clinton did that by working with what he had, not creating some fantasy of denial about what he wished he had.

Progressive isn't a place, it's a direction. You don't just get elected and drop your country onto a progressive island, you begin steering the ship that way, often against currents created by people who feel as passionately and as righteously that you are wrong as you feel that you are right. Clinton did what he could with what he had. The alternative was more Reagan.

Look at it this way. If Clinton, with all his tremendous political skill and a Democratic Congress, couldn't get some of his rudimentary progressive plans passed, what chance would a progressive's dream have had? Who would that have even been? Who could have gotten elected over a president with a positive approval rating, battled Gingrich, Armee, Lott, Sam Nunn, and the moderate to conservative southern Democrats still padding our numbers at that time, and done better?

The answer is no one. Even if someone else had gotten elected, their plans would be crushed as easily as Clinton's attempt to remove the ban on gays in the military was crushed, or as easily as his first jobs package was crushed. Clinton did the best job we could have expected, and he did a lot better than some people around here think he did. You'd think after eight years of Bush that wouldn't have to be said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. The problem is that Clinton pushed the very things that he supposedly opposed
If Clinton had "fought the good fight" but lost against superior forces, your argument mighjt have some merit. But all too often, he was right there with the GOP and the Corporate Oligarchs in selling America a bunch of poisonous Markets Uber Alles snake oil.

Remember all of the praise for Alan Greenspan? Well, the chickens are coming home to roost from Greenspan's steering the economy in a far right-wing corporate direction.

Clinton pushed MFN for China well into his term. It'd be one thing if he had valiently fought against a right-wing push to pass it. But Clinton was right there twisting arms, beating up on fellow Democrats like Gephardt and allying himself with DeLay to push that one through. And that turned out to make NAFTA look like a tea party in terms of devestation to the American working class and many domestic businesses.

The list goes on and on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kick & rec. Thanks Armstead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. "Clinton's many retreats from large purpose--accompanied always by small, symbolic gestures"
In what way is Obama's "purpose" bold in comparison?

I don't see it.

We get to choose from door #1 or door #2. Neither offers "large purpose". Door #1 offers quicker action on Iraq, less deference to "The Generals" and Universal health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Obama may or may not be what Clinton originally claimed to be
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 10:10 AM by Armstead
The author noted that the image of Clinton who started out in 92 was very different in his performance as president.

I honestly don;t know whether or not Obama would actually carry through. But I do know that Hillary is the same mold as her husband, and her behavior in this campaign reinforces that. Obama is at least trying to move beyond that brand of self-defeating politics. That's a start anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is interesting
I find myself feeling nostalgia for the stubborn clarity of Ronald Reagan--a leader who believed in a few big things, who repeated them endlessly, never backed off and never admitted defeat, though he frequently lost. The Gipper accomplished great forward progress for his way of thinking.

I agree with this 100 percent. Reagan succeeded -- although totally wrong -- by having a small agenda that could be relayed to the average person succinctly and understandable. Reagan was an idiot, but he succeeded because his message was short and to the point.

When Obama said something along these lines, the Hillary camp savaged him as a Reagan-lover. But Obama was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
8. "Clinton has taught Democrats to think small."
I hated this about Bill Clinton. It did irreparable damage to the Party which we can see manifested here on DU even today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. That is ultimately what drove me crazy about him in the 90's
Rome was already starting to burn, and Clinton talked about V-Chips.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. That's absolutely true.
Nevertheless, we are now obliged to choose between "incremental" and "potentially incremental".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. On Iraq they're about the same.....On Healthcare my own belief is...
that both of the are missing the mark, because both are merely "reforms" of a bad system.

However, given that, I believe Obama offers the most realistic starting point.

Mandates are the worst of all approaches. The only way a mandate makes sense is if it is tied to a true, Medicare style universal coverage public system.

But a mandate is also the most politically unpalatable aspect of reform. So if we're not going to get a true Universal syatem, any reforms ought not to include them. That's why Obama's approach -- although not the ideal solution IMO -- is a lot more frealistic than Hillary's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Something I find vexing.
In the span of 20 minutes, posters often go from criticizing "the Clintons" (a phrase that I see used frequently to describe political topics, unlike "the Obamas") for lack of vision, for pushing incremental change, for "thinking small" and being satisfied with small scale proposals. To pushing Obama because his healthcare proposal has the benefit of being the most like the complete debacle we have now.

Mandates are mandates. They are also a prerequisite of "universal". Medicare is a big part of the Clinton plan, and it is much more plausible that national single-payer would evolve when the first step in that direction is a) actually in that direction and b) not designed to fail.

You'll get no argument from me that Obama's plan is more realistic. Of course it is - it is the bare minimum which will defer immediate and complete collapse. "Bold"? Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I don't want a repeat of the Hillarycare debacle of the 1990's
The Clintons (and I think that's a fair term since they are a team) were all over the map on healthcare reform in the early 1990's.

I see no reason to believe (especially judging from her current badly managed campaign) that she would be any more effective as president in getting her plan enacted.

What I honestly think is that she would end up doing what the article above criticized her husband for constantly doing. Making big promises but backing off and settling for some small symbolic "victory" while the Republicans get the bigger slice of what they want (or don't want).

I think you and I basically agree on the long-range goal on healthcare. But I honestly think Obama would be a lot smarter and more effective in moving us in that direction (a goal I believe he also shares with us).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. 1) If one concludes that they are "a team"
then one must acknowledge that Hillary's executive experience is vastly superior. In fact, if experience is the important trait, there are only two people who are comparably qualifed (Carter and Bush SR).
Personally, I don't buy this "team" stuff. Hillary and Bill are different people - she's not an ambulatory rib. Think of it this way, does anyone give Bill credit (or blame) for Hillary's actions as Senator? I've been accused of being tone deaf on the topic of sexism, but this is one even I can't miss. I'm no more inclined to blame Hillary for NAFTA than I am to blame Obama for "for the first time ever, I'm proud to be an american". In fairness, I'm not going to give Hillary credit for being the only (co)president in my lifetime to balance the federal budget, either.

2) I don't want a repeat of that debacle either. The plan both needs to be implemented and to succeed once implemented. Hillary's plan represents fundamental change. Obama's is innocuous.

3) I'm not sure that backing off big promises when hitting a brick wall is worse than failing to make the big promises initially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. Yes they are two people -- But they share a political strategy and philosophy
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 11:40 AM by Armstead
Her attacks this week on Obama only reinforce the basic sameness between Hillary and Bill. Her antics are Clintonian to an extreme -- The politics of personal distraction that actually undermine the goals that Hillary claims to profess. She doesn't really disagree with the point Obama was making. But she chose to jump on his admitted poor use of words to make a political cheapshot that actually helps the GOP.

And "backing off big promises when hitting a brick wall" is a strategy of poor leadership. Better to set big goals AND achievable results towards those goals, which is basically what Obama is doing.

As for Healthcare -- Read accounts of what actually happened during the years Hillary was leading this effort. It was a managerial and leadership disaster. She screwed the pooch in a variety of practical ways.....PBS had an excellent in-depth timeline on it. I'll try to dig out a link for you.

I would also refer you to the main article, about how The Clintons basically abandoned some nbasic tenants of liberalism and progressiveism -- including putting a balanced budget over all else as a goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. The point Obama was making *with the audience to whom he was speaking*
was that he can convince those bible-thumping gun-loving bigoted rednecks to vote for him because he understands why they developed such antisocial sentiments.

Every other explanation is post facto rationalization. At best he was pandering to the stereotypes that he perceived his audience to hold.

Of course people are embittered about the total and complete failure of the government to represent their interests. Faith is not a symptom of that. Rural values are different from urban/suburban ones, but they are values - not a pathology.

I don't want to stoke the fires that these insensitive comments caused, but it did a great deal more damage to our general election prospects than Obama's more urbane supporters will admit. They offended me, and I'm already committed to voting for him if he's the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Obama was asked what his challemges are as a candidate
he wasn't saying those statements in the context of claiming he was the only one who could convince those voters. He was describing the challenge that Democratic candidates -- especially himself -- have to contend with.

ALSO IMPORTANT -- Obama was -- like most people do -- using shorthand when talking to people who agree with him. if you simply add the context of endless analyses by Democrats -- such as the Whats the Matter with Kansas" view -- he was not denigrating religion or rural habits. He was referring to how people vote when neither party is really representing their economic interests.

Hillary made the same basic point herself in an article on the MSNBC site last year about the immigration controversy. She said that people don;t worry about the immigration issue when the economy is good. "But when the economy is bad, they look for someone to blame."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. I think you falsely assume that many of us are "pro-Obama"
I think you falsely assume that many of us are "pro-Obama";
speaking for myself, I'm definitely not.

If I were to rank the original eight 2008 Democratic candidates,
Obama would have been my seventh choice and Clinton my eighth
and last choice. (And the non-candidate Gore would have been
my first, mostly for political rather than policy reasons).

So if I spend a lot of time here tarring Clinton, it isn't
because I like Obama. I simply see Obama as only a "likely
disaster" whereas I see Clinton as "certain disaster, whether
defeated or elected".

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Present company excluded, I don't think my assumption is false.
At a minimum, Hillary hatred has forced a great many DU'ers into a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. If that's what we're given that's what we'll go for
I was an Edwards supporter (with a Kucinich view of policies).

Now it's between Obama and Hillary, I supported Obama by default, in a kind of lukewarm way.

But to be honest, the more I hear and see Obama the more I like him. I think he does "get it" and is actually working to bring about a fundamental change in a more progressive direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. So was I.
I think that Hillary has done a better job of internalizing the Edwards policy values.

Neither candidate appeals to me in any fundamental way, (I'm a little ambivalent about both) so I'm left to look at policy promises. Clinton's are better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
28. Mais c'est magnifique!
How prophetic. Merci milles fois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
29. This article has fundamental faults in both facts and assumptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. And they are??? (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Please elaborate
Like I said reasonable people can disagree. But this article explains very well what many of us believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
40. I love this sentence (quoted above)...
"...the great saving virtue of Americans is that they do not always believe what they are told by the authorities. Sometimes, they still find their way to the truth about things, despite the media's opacity and the blanket of propaganda for the status quo. When they do figure things out for themselves, Americans sometimes still get real ornery about it." --Wm. Greider

I'll read the rest in a moment, but I want to comment on this. Two years after it was written, in the Bush Junta/war profiteer buildup to the Iraq War, in Feb. '03 just before the invasion, FIFTY-SIX PERCENT of the American people opposed the Iraq war (NYT poll; other polls 54-55%). Many people may not know this, because it was back-paged in the print media, and nowhere in evidence in the corporate TV/radio news monopolies. 56%! That is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). The number then dipped a bit, during the invasion months, when U.S. troops were at max risk, and began its steady climb to today's whopping, unprecedented antiwar majority of 70%!

The American people have, in fact, shown amazing resistance to the relentless, 24/7 fascist propaganda and warmongering that they have been subjected to. We are the biggest targets of corporate brainwashing on earth, because we live at the vortex of corporate evil and have the potential power to reign these fuckers in. A significant majority resisted the tsunami of war propaganda and it's interesting how that 56% breaks down. About half (the people who had truly learned "the lessons of Vietnam") opposed the war outright, on principle. The other half would only support it if it was a UN peacekeeping mission (i.e., international consensus on the need for action--which never occurred; major allies and most others opposed it). In other words, they didn't trust Bush that there was any threat justifying a war.

Another interesting stat is that, at about the same time as 56% opposed the war, about 50% of the American people believed that Saddam had WMDs and/or had something to do with 9/11. This means that a small but critical portion of the 56% of war opposers were exercising excellent discrimination between a serious threat and a minor threat. They thought that Saddam may have some WMDs, but it wasn't that big a deal, and/or, if Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it was minor. In short, again, they didn't believe Bush or his corporate media echo chamber.

This 56% stat really perked up my interest in polls, so I began following them closely--approval polls, and issue polls, from both independent and corporate sources (and also how the corporate media was reporting poll results). What I found was staggering, and, basically it is this: The great, progressive, peace-loving, justice-loving American majority is alive and well, has been alive and well all through this nightmare. You name the issue--torturing prisoners, Social Security, women's rights, the deficit: big numbers of Americans--way up in the 60% to 70% stratosphere--have all along opposed virtually every Bushite policy, foreign and domestic.

Even if you factor in that, after a certain point, I was looking for evidence to support my abiding faith in the American people--and, leaving out a few issues on which the American people are not progressive (for instance, on the death penalty)--the huge discrepancy between people and leaders, and between corporate media portrayal of the country and the real country--is quite remarkable.

And there are several extremely important implications--with regard to stolen elections, and with regard to the corporate media, both of which have played the major roles in DISENFRANCHISING the American people. Bushite dirty tricks and Bushite-run "trade secret" voting machines were covered up by the corporate media. (And I have to say that our Democratic Party leadership has also been complicit in that cover up.) How can a 56% antiwar majority--which, in 2004--was on its rise to a 70% antiwar majority, have resulted in a Bush/Cheney re-election? How can a 70% antiwar majority, in 2006, have resulted in a Democratic Congress that ESCALATED the war, and larded Bush/Cheney with billions more of our non-existent tax dollars to keep killing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights?

This and a lot of other things just don't add up. And I think election fraud--outright changing of the results with the "trade secret" code--has been the final fascist blow to an election system that was already highly corrupt due to campaign contribution filth and corporate/war profiteer lobbying. Electronic vote stealing is how Bush/Cheney flipped a 4 million vote Kerry/Edwards win, in 2004. But back in 2000, it was just money, big money, and the corporate news monopolies. The "trade secret" code electronic voting systems were fast-tracked into place, during the 2002 to 2004 period, because, while you and I might not have noticed that 56% antiwar majority in Feb. '03, our political establishment certainly did, and they needed a surer means than money/corporate media of controlling who gets elected. In 2004, the American people, in fact, "threw the bums out"--but the "bums" didn't go. By 2006, the people were really riled up--70% antiwar majority--and Diebold, ES&S and other election theft corporations stood ready to tweak that revolt toward pro-corporate, pro-war Democrats (the "Blue Dogs" and others).

We can fight money. In 2004, the Democratic grass roots matched the Bushite money machine, dollar for dollar--an amazing feat. We can fight corporate news monopolies--with word of mouth, with the internet, and simply by most peoples' native intelligence. But we can't fight SECRET vote counting by BUSHITE corporations--or we couldn't fight it in 2002-2004, because we didn't know enough about it, and couldn't get it significantly changed for 2006, because, by then, the $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle voted by the Anthrax Congress (in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution--Oct. '02--and closely related to it), and massive corrupt lobbying, had thoroughly entrenched the system, so that we have to fight many corrupt county registrars, and corrupt state legislators, both Democratic and Republican, to UNDO this horror of "trade secret" vote counting.

It is there--"trade secret" electronic voting--that we must start restoring our democracy. Until we correct that coup d'etat, real reform is blockaded. Barack Obama may or may not be a real reformer. It's hard to tell. He's certainly the best of the current choices, for his sympathies with the working class and the poor, and his stances on some issues (the Iraq War, free trade). But what is even more important are his supporters, who really do represent the progressive majority, and their great activation by his campaign. Citizen activism is THE key to election reform. Counting all the votes is the key to restoring our democracy.

And then we will see William Greider's prophecy come true: "When (Americans) do figure things out for themselves, Americans sometimes still get real ornery about it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. An epic post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
41. Greider is an amazing commentator who knows from whence he speaks . . .
I have a great deal of respect for his writing, and I've bookmarked this article to read later . . . actually, I think I recall reading it some time ago, but don't remember the specifics, so it won't hurt to read it again . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
42. Thanks for posting this.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
43. You'll have to have parts of your brain removed to forget all the good stuff Clinton did.
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 12:38 PM by Perry Logan
Unless you never knew it in the first place:

longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993
AGAINST TERRORISM

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. Launched pilot projects in low-income communities across the country to redevelop contaminated sites into useable space, create jobs and enhance community development.

President Bill Clinton sought permanent funding of $1.4 billion a year through the Lands Legacy initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide significant new resources to states and communities to protect local green spaces and protect ocean and coastal resources. Won $652 million for Lands Legacy in the FY 2000 budget, a 42 percent increase.

Launched effort to protect over 40 million acres of "roadless areas," which include some of America's last wild places. Dramatically improved management of our national forests with an ambitious new science-based agenda that places greater emphasis on recreation, wildlife and water quality, while reforming logging practices to ensure steady, sustainable supplies of timber and jobs. Balanced the preservation of old-growth stands with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities through the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Adopted a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other light-duty trucks, producing cars that are 77 percent cleaner -- and light-duty trucks up to 95 percent cleaner -- than those on the road today. Set new standard to reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline by up to 90 percent. Once fully implemented in 2030, these measures will prevent 43,000 premature deaths and 173,000 cases of childhood respiratory illness each year, and reduce emissions by the equivalent to removing 164 million cars from the road.

# Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. Defending the standards against legal assaults by polluters.

# Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as the previous two administrations, with cleanup of more than 90 percent of all sites either completed or in progress. Secured $1.4 billion in FY 2000 to continue progress toward cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by 2002.

# Providing Safe Drinking Water: Proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure that our families have healthy clean tap water. Required America's 55,000 water utility companies to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water.

# Established EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that provides grants to States to finance priority drinking water projects that meet Clean Water Act mandates. To date, the DWSRFs have provided $1.9 billion in loans to communities.

# Awarded nearly $200 million in Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and grants for over 100 safe drinking water projects in rural areas of 40 states. USDA grants and loans target rural communities plagued by some of the nation's worst water quality and dependability problems.

# Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communities from potentially dangerous microbes, including Cryptosporidium, in their drinking water.

# Ensuring Clean Water. Launched the Clean Water Action Plan to help clean up the 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways still too polluted for fishing and swimming. Secured $3.9 billion since 1998, a 16 percent increase, to help states, communities and landowners in reducing polluted runoff, enhancing natural resource stewardship, improving citizens' right to know, and protecting public health.

# Strengthening Communities' Right to Know. Strengthened the public's right to know about chemicals released into their air and water by partnering with the chemical industry and the environmental community in an effort to provide complete data on the potential health risks of the 2,800 most widely used chemicals. Nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to communities, while expanding the number of facilities that must report by 30 percent.

# Expanded the community right to know about releases of 27 persistent bio-accumulative toxins (including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs). These highly toxic chemicals are especially risky because they do not break down easily and are known to accumulate in the human body.

# Secured $83 million in FY 2000 for two major new efforts to restore salmon in the Pacific Northwest: $58 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which provides resources for states and tribes to protect and rebuild salmon stocks; and $25 million to implement the historic Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, which established two regional funds to improve fisheries management and enhance bilateral scientific cooperation between the two countries and provides funding to buy back fishing permits in Washington.
# Expanding Wildlife Refuges. Added 57,000 acres, including lands along the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River, to the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to protect salmon habitat in Washington.

# Forging Partnerships to Protect Habitat. Completed 255 major Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), compared to 14 before the Administration took office, to protect more than 20 million acres of private land and over 170 threatened and endangered species. These voluntary agreements protect habitat while providing landowners the certainty they need to effectively manage their lands.

# Strengthening Protections for Wildlife. Signed legislation that strengthens protections for wildlife by mandating that the most important use of our nation's wildlife refuges is giving refuge to migratory birds and other animals reliant on this rich system of natural habitat.

Protecting our Oceans and Coasts

# Creating Comprehensive Oceans Policy. Directed the development of key recommendations for strengthening federal oceans policy for the 21st century and appointed a high-level task force to oversee the implementation of those recommendations. Convened a National Ocean Conference in June 1998 that brought together government experts, business executives, scientists, environmentalists, elected officials and the public to examine opportunities and challenges in restoring and protecting our ocean resources.

# Strengthening Our National Marine Sanctuaries. Secured a funding increase of over 100% to better support national marine sanctuaries -- homes to coral reefs, kelp forests, humpback whales, and loggerhead turtles. Supporting the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions to explore, study and document ways to better protect underwater resources.

# Preserving Coral Reefs. Issued an Executive Order to expand protection of coral reefs and their ecosystems to address issues of coral reef management, expansion of marine protected areas and increased protections for coral reef species.

# Protecting Marine Mammals. Led negotiations resulting in a multilateral agreement to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Issued new standards to protect the endangered northern right whale from injuries from ships by instituting a first-ever ship reporting requirement in two areas of right whale critical habitat. Fought for creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an area of more than 12 million square miles off the coast of Antarctica.

# Banning Ocean Dumping of Toxic Waste. Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The U.S. was the first nuclear power to advocate the ban.

Introduced "Better America Bonds" to generate $10.75 billion in bond authority over five years to preserve open space, improve water quality and clean up abandoned and contaminated properties known as brownfields. Local communities can work together in partnerships with land trust groups, environmentalists, business leaders and others to develop innovative solutions to their community's development challenges.

# Provided leadership critical to successful negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.

# Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money. Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001, reducing emissions and reliance on imported oil.

# Growing Clean Energy Technologies. Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies, which can convert crops, trees and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and materials. Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons a year -- the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

# Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earth's climate system. This record research budget continues strong support for the "Carbon Cycle Initiative" begun last year to improve our understanding of the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed lands in capturing carbon.

# Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances. Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. The new standards will cut the average appliance's energy usage by 30 percent and save more than seven quadrillion BTUs of energy over the next 30 years, more than seven times the annual energy consumption of the entire state of Arkansas.

# Promoting federal Energy Efficiency. Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year. Forged new partnerships with industry to develop and promote energy-saving cars, homes and consumer products with the potential to save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills and significantly curb greenhouse gas pollution.
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/gore.html

PS: What about corruption?

Forget about it. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, Clinton's was the cleanest administration since Teddy Roosevelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. nice that you keep that cut and paste handy
Except that it is largely a blivet. The most telling thing is that many of those explain how great Clinton was from a Republican point of view.

"Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years"

Ironically, it's too bad he didn't spend all of that money on social programs. That might have prevented Bush from enacting his tax cut to give most of it to the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. I'm gonna guess that you haven't bothred to read that article
It direct general responses to the perceptions of achievement in your familiar cut-and-paste post.

It's fine to disagree with article. But how about a little critical evaluation of the actual substance of the article, rather than just repeating the happy-talk surface of the Clinton years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. And you think these Clinton accomplishments are going to be repeated after
the massive Bush Junta looting and lawlessness, by a Hillary Clinton administration? Some of these accomplishments (for instance, increased military spending, and slashing of welfare) and other policies (for instance, NAFTA, the WTO the Telecommunications Act, and the "war on drugs") led to the Bush Junta--and enabled the Bushites to do far worse. But not all, it's true. My point is that, whatever Bill Clinton created by way of prosperity, was quickly undone--undone so thoroughly that we may never recover--because of the global corporate predator-friendly nature of Clinton's policies. We got lulled by temporary prosperity, while the rug was pulled out from under us. U.S.-based global corporate predators employed us while they were planning to move our industrial capacity, and multi-millions of jobs, to the cheapest labor markets they could find in the world, in countries with the least environmental protections. This is what Clinton did--he oversaw a "bubble," truly--a sort of magician's trick--which stopped us (not to mention our congress critters) from actually reading NAFTA et al. In fact, Clinton--after breaking his campaign promise to include labor and environmental protections in NAFTA--rammed it through Congress in order to prevent people from reading it.

The ground work was thus laid not just for a recession but--with a few additions from Bush (the Iraq War, multiple tax cuts for the rich)--for Great Depression II, coming amidst the crisis of global warming, which threatens all life on earth. I credit Bill Clinton with a number of things--the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan not being one of them (it is not even close to being sustainable)--but with other things, such as running a relatively clean and transparent government, not a particularly democratic or visionary one, but a decent one. I credit him with the technology boom, which got a lot of good things started. (The "bust" was not really his fault, but the result of overly venturesome capital.) But we need to understand where some of the prosperity that he oversaw came from. For instance, it came from the destruction of small peasant farmers in Mexico and throughout Latin America. We are paying the price for that now in vast illegal immigration from the south, in busted Latin American economies, and in a full-scale revolt in South America against anything to do with the U.S. (They are forming a South American "Common Market," to--among other things--get off the U.S. dollar.) We don't tend to be very aware, here, of the devastation that Clinton "free trade" and "war on drugs" policies have caused elsewhere. Basically, the small peasant farmers--the best food producers--have been thrown off the land, everywhere--and into urban squalor--and, in countries where U.S. ag products have been dumped--Jamaica, for instance--whole sectors of the domestic food economy were permanently busted. And the "war on drugs" in Colombia ($5.5 BILLION of our tax dollars under Bush--but Clinton started it) has created an enclave of fascist thugs who have murdered thousands of union leaders, small peasant farmers, political leftists, human rights workers and journalists, with the Bushites now trying to use that fascist enclave to start an oil war in South America.

Clinton laid the foundations of a number of Bush policies--including softening up Iraq for invasion, with no-fly-zone bombings and economic sanctions. It is very difficult not to see the Clinton and Bush Iraq policies as a continuum. Probably Clinton would not have invaded Iraq--but where was Clinton (and Hillary) when Iraq was invaded, at a cost of 1.2 million innocent Iraqi lives, four thousand American lives, and counting, and unmeasured trillions of dollars looted from our treasury, to the point of U.S. bankruptcy? They were for it.

Measuring Bill Clinton's accomplishments in past terms--against other more normal times--is one thing. He comes off as more progressive than Bush I or Reagan--which is not saying a whole lot--and more fiscally responsible than both of those so-called "conservatives," but, looking at those accomplishments now, through the lens of the Bush II nightmare, Clinton doesn't come off so well. What happened to the news media--as a watchdog over the government? Out-to-lunch, compliments of Bill Clinton. What happened to our manufacturing base, and multi-millions of jobs? Out-of-control outsourcing, under Bush--started by Clinton. What has happened to the environment, through nearly eight years of out-of-control corporate ravaging, here and abroad? Global warming made worse--possibly made unsolveable--starting with Clinton's mostly P.R. policies, and failure with regard to the Kyoto Protocol (fighting against U.S. responsibility as the world's biggest polluter; failure to submit it for Senate ratification).

It was all of these failures that brought out 50,000 protestors in Seattle in 1999, against the WTO and Clinton policy--and, as you may recall, one of the chief objections of the protesters was the loss of sovereignty of Americans over our own lives (and that of people in other countries over theirs), to global corporate predators, who were intent on attacking local labor and environmental laws, proliferating sweatshops worldwide, destroying farm lands and farmers, and heavily polluting oceans and lands--all with Clinton's blessing.

The Clinton years were something of an illusion of prosperity. Some of us did well--but at the vast expense of other people and of the earth's ecology. You mention more people investing than ever before, but investing in what? In our own demise as a country, and in the demise of the human species (--not to mention our companion species)? Those invested in Monsanto, or Exxon Mobil, or Bechtel, or the insurance or finance industries, or the war profiteers, or any of the other global corporate predators, may have prospered for a while, but what were they creating? They were creating a fascist/corporate coup in the most powerful country on a dying planet--a country that has the potential--with our democratic traditions--to rein these fuckers in. But, instead of reining them in--as a Democratic president should have done--Clinton gave them more rope to hang us with.

Through this lens of Bushitism, Clinton doesn't look good to me--he looks more like Act I of the Bush Junta, disguised as "liberalism" and sold to us by a pleasing personality--a guy who had smoked dope and protested the Vietnam War when he was young. I feel...fooled. I feel had. I feel like we were all suckered in (with the exception of the Seattle protestors). And now where are we? A $10 TRILLION deficit, a totally fucked up country, a totally fucked up (mostly by us) world. It's superficial to say that Clinton was great, when the reality is that Clinton set us up.

The same thing happened in California, with the Gray Davis administration. Davis built up a huge surplus--partly from the tech bubble, partly by taking it out of the hides of the poor--but was insufficiently vigilant over corporate power, and much too cozy with it, so that Enron could just drop in and loot it all--ALL! It's gone, just as the Clinton surplus is gone, because neither of those leaders believed in regulating corporate power in the public interest. They paved the way for the Cheney's and the Enron's. They were/are not Democrats, really. They are corporatists. We need leaders who will battle these global robber barons on our behalf--not collude with them. I am not sure about Obama--although his supporters give me hope (we really need that kind of citizen activism). But I am sure about this: Hillary Clinton sees her role much like Bill did, as a corporate enabler, not as a champion of our sovereignty and our interests as a people. And there isn't going to be any kind of "bubble" to cushion her corporate policies. There are going to be breadlines, and massive homelessness and joblessness, with global warming disruptions (of the weather, of the food chain) added to our sufferings. We need new leadership to face the coming Bush disaster--and Obama is all we've got, Obama and an activated citizenry determined upon change and reform. With new leadership--especially new leadership in the Democratic Party--we might eventually recover, perhaps via the new "green" technology, and through grass roots economic, social and political efforts.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
52. K & R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
53. I just read the whole thing. It is brilliant! So prophetic! Highly recommended.
The one thing he misses is the dark, dark intentions of the Bush Junta, beneath their lying, scumbag "compassionate conservative" veneer in 2000. But on every other score, this article is almost psychic in its ability to suss out long term trends and future events from the given facts of that period. It is incredibly accurate about where the Democratic Party leadership was headed, and about what was needed to revive democracy in the U.S.A. He nearly writes the manual for the Obama campaign--way back in '00. He doesn't envision Obama the candidate, but he lays out the grass roots effort that has re-invigorated the party and the country. His analysis of the Clinton presidency, and of the Gore/Lieberman campaign, and of the mood of the country, are wonderfully accurate. Really an amazing read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
55. Very good article
I think, like the last poster, that it was very prophetic. I never understood the Clinton cult as I always found them to be opportunistic, ruthless and very poor actors. The propensity to govern by poll was very shortsighted and not a quality of good leadership. Bill Clinton should have run a public relations firm or a tv network rather than a presidency.

I was a registered independent voter during the Clinton years.

I remember the Clinton years. Gas was very cheap at the time but we were really struggling to make a living. Maybe some of you here on DU were doing well, most likely in tech jobs. I remember when the earned income credit came out and we were $13 over the limit. Then IBM closed in the Hudson Valley and the jobs moved away. Sure, they were only hiring from ManPower, a temporary agency for their line and administrative positions -- who received no assistance, while their managers nursed big separation and early retirement packages.

I really felt there was not much of a difference in leadership. Then that whole Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky stuff-- that was just embarrassing. Why didn't he just settle with Jones earlier? That suggested to me that there was a high level of arrogance in the White House. I also felt it was a smokescreen to prevent us from seeing the true larceny that was occurring, selling US out to the Chinese and the corporations; renting out the Lincoln bedroom to the wealthy willing to pay admission was an metaphoric understatement. The current use of "Hill-raisers" and the campaign fundraising scandals have only signaled to me that things haven't changed. There has been no ethical reform in their characters.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC