Bill Clinton's leadership led to the demise of Democrats

[cyberpj]

At least that's what this letter to the editor said in my local paper today. I thought I'd check in with DU to see how people here feel about it. Personally, I loved the Clintons but lately I'm tending to agree they and DLC are corporate shills too and not really so good for our party.

The LTTE referenced:
Bill Clinton's leadership led to the demise of Democrats

Former President Bill Clinton's campaigning for Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut is an example of the demise of the Democratic Party.

When Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he was chosen to head the party's new Democratic Leadership Council. He possessed Rhodes scholar intelligence combined with the charisma of a snake oil salesman. His leadership moved the real Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Stevenson and McGovern into a Republican-lite malaise.

By abandoning what is right and just, Democratic decision makers at the state and national levels have attached corporate-issue knee pads as they hit the floor on command from those who have purchased their thoughts, decisions and morality. Clinton's Connecticut appearance shows he's still at it.

The promising political trend in our state and nation is the increasing number of voters who are registering and coping, groping and hoping as independents.

Floyd McDowell, Bear, DE

[wyldwolf]

1. someone's mad that Clinton campaigned for Lieberman

to that writer, this one CT primary race has become more important than the fact Clinton was the only Democrat to win the white house twice in over 60 years, gave us the greatest economic expansion in history, gave us the lowest poverty level in a generation, never sent a man to war who didn't return alive, etc.

The fact is, the Democratic party was a party in national decline before Clinton's arrival, and Clinton did much to slow that decline down, allowing us the opportunity to reverse it.

The Democrats had lost (and lost decisively) five of six national elections, they'd been losing support steadily on local and state levels, and had lost the Senate in the 80s, and this writer thinks Bill Clinton's leadership led to the demise of Democrats? LOL!

[557188]

29. Clinton Propaganda

Why did Clinton win in '92?

Perot split the Republican vote.

Rinse and repeat in '96.

So Clinton's election success is not due to an overwhelming majority, failing to get 50% both times. Amazing how people always forget this.

Clinton is responsible for NAFTA, DOMA and destroying welfare. The so called great economy people talk about was mostly due to the internet boom of the era. Anyone could've had a great economy during that period.

Clinton was anything but a great president.

[wyldwolf]

31. strange leftist/rightwing hybrid rhetoric

Why did Clinton win in '92?

Perot split the Republican vote.

Rinse and repeat in '96.

Urban political myth, debunked countless times.

Clinton is responsible for NAFTA, DOMA and destroying welfare. The so called great economy people talk about was mostly due to the internet boom of the era. Anyone could've had a great economy during that period.

Sorry - the great economy began before the tech boom, and is directly attributed to his economic package. and Clinton didn't "destroy" welfare.

But I'll issue you a challenge - name one politician you think is great and whatch how I can pick his or her record apart.

[Demeter]

2. The Democrats Rejected Bill Clinton---

He was totally dissed by his own party while he was in office, and as a result, the Democrats lost both House and Senate.

And that is why (I suspect) that Bill and Hillary are busy supporting Bush's wars and Lieberman's failng primary, and knifing all of us, but especially women, in the back.

Perhaps all of this would have been turned around, had the proud patrician Democratic mob bosses of the 70's and 80's fallen in behind their Commander-in-Chief, supported his efforts, defended him against Ken Starr, etc. But we will never know, will we?

[Ninga]

5. The very same patrician democratic mob bosses you speak of

in terms of abandoning Clinton, abandoned Carter as well.

WHere were the clamoring voice demanding justice on Regan's first day in office when the American hostages from Iran were released???

The Democrats have been looking the other way for a long, long time.


We reap what we sow.

[Kahuna]

10. Here here! The Dems are their own worst enemies..

They didn't stick up for and behind Clinton, or Carter. And they sure as hell didn't stick up for Al Gore. They're pathetic.

[Demeter]

11. You Are Absolutey Right, Ninga

The Democrats also treated Carter like an interloper. Fortunately, Carter grew and improved from the experience. He's more respected now than ever before.

[blm]

15. Clinton stuck up for the years of work put in by Kerry and Gonzalez

exposing IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate.

Oops - - no, he didn't. He closed the books so Poppy Bush could have a peaceful retirement.

Think about that - - what if Clinton had done the RIGHT thing by this country and supported the work of Kerry and Gonzalez and allowed the American CITIZENS to see the crimes being committed on their tax dollars and in their name?

No 9-11, no Iraq war, no oil wars, no Bush in the WH.

[cyberpj]

17. Makes you think he always knew where his future bread would be buttered.

It's as if the big pols actually have no distinct party any longer.

Edited to add: including Tony Blair - future Carlyle Group member!

[MagickMuffin]

32. From my research on BCCI

Kerry was told by his own party to stand down. Senator Lee Hamilton was the one responsible for stopping Kerry from investigating BCCI and Iran Contra.

So, this is actually much deeper than just the DLC, which I don't really care for at all.

They have taken away from what the party used to be about, the working class people.

I have a theory about the Bill Clinton and Poppy Bush.

Bill is Poppy's illegitimate son, and Mad king Boy George is one of the Boys From Brazil. That would explain a lot:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

6. c'mon!

patrician Democratic mob bosses were all but extinct in the 70s and 80s - swept away by George McGovern's Reform commission.

However, many on the left slept through Clinton's entire witch hunt ordeal. But I cannot agree that Clinton would exact revenge on those who wouldn't defend him by joining forces with those who were trying to beat him up.

[Kahuna]

9. Here here!

:yourock:

[cyberpj]

16. They didn't support and defend then, and they still don't now.

We have been lacking a strong loud voice for some time now. I have no rebuttal to Repubs that keep asking me why there's no strong central message or voice from Dems. It breaks my heart that we've become so namby pamby.

[karynnj]

42. The Democrats DID support Clinton before 1996

Many voted for his (very necessary) tax increase, some to the political detriment. What political cause did the Democrats not support? From memory, Clinton didn't even submit the healthcare legislation to a vote.

As to Ken Starr, it wasn't the Democrats who appointed him. It was the courts that said that the Paula Jones case could precede. (Hind sight being 20/20, Clinton should have settled out of court.) The constitutional crisis happened because Clinton committed perjury - rather than refuse to answer or tell the truth. The Democrats did protect him then as much as they could - from their statements I would guess many were really not happy to be in the position they were in. For many, perjury, not sex was the problem.

I think the LTTE is over the top - Clinton didn't kill the Democratic party. In MHO, he was lucky to being running in 1992 when people became sick of Bush 1 (whether through Perot's criticism, Iran/Contra/BCCI/Vomiting on the Japanese FM). Perot did pull some people from Bush before he self destructed - many having rejected Bush went to Clinton when Perot pulled out and stayed with him when Perot came back in.

He had the charisma that he could have strengthened the party, but he was harrassed throughout his term. Unfortunately, he gave them an issue to hit him with.

[Totally Committed]

3. I agree with the LTTE...

I have no further use for Clinton (either of them, actually) and anyone in the DLC membership rolls.

Nada. Zip. Zilch.

They are dead to me.

TC

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Clinton gave us a replacement though. The "not as bad " Party.

Proudly standing on the platform of "We're not Liberals!".

[Larkspur]

12. Agree with you and the LTTE writer

[a kennedy]

7. I didn't vote for BC either time.....

won't say who I voted for, but it wasn't Bill. I felt he dragged us, (the democratic party) way to far past center.....or so close to the other side of center.....nope I never voted for him, and I won't vote for her either. That is of course she's the candidate. (keeping fingers crossed she doesn't get the nomination.) :scared:

[HereSince1628]

8. Welcome aboard...

You wrote: "I'm tending to agree they and DLC are corporate shills."

[SaveElmer]

13. The letter writer has his history a bit incorrect....

Stevenson and McGovern were far more liberal than Roosevelt ever was. It killed FDR to have to run deficits for example. His most important task he felt was to drive the economy between those demanding radical government intervention, and business interests trying to keep government off their backs. Roosevelt was always concerned the Government was doing too much manipulating of the economy. What made him great was that he did it even though it went against his nature...the mark of a great leader.

And frankly, Stevenson and McGovern, as much as I admire them, were horrible Presidential candidates. I do not want to re-experience 1972 again thank you.

Bill Clinton was a great President.

[burythehatchet]

19. Bill Clinton was a great president for America

He also led to the demise of the liberal democratic party.

[SaveElmer]

21. Sorry that is not true...

The failure of Liberals in national electoral politics led to their "demise"...which is an innacuarate term bt. Liberals are alive and well, just unelectable nationally.

[wyldwolf]

26. is there a "liberal democratic party?"

Because the only time the Democratic party could be called anything but centrist was a brief period between 1968 and 1992.

[intheozone]

14. Wrong--electronic voting and a bias Supreme Court

led to the demise of Dems.

[burythehatchet]

18. the options aren't exclusive to each other

[cyberpj]

20. about which we could have screamed, shouted, nagged and exposed.

None of which happened a the level it should have.
No one else seems afraid to rant and rave, why are we Dems?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I think this is silly.

Blaming the first democratic leader to win to terms in office since world war II for the demise of his party is not, I think, an easy position to support.

[cyberpj]

24. well... it depends on whether or not you believe corporate power did it.

I think what we're all questioning is whether or not our entire government has been bought.

[cyberpj]

43. and I do. kick. nt

[sweetheart]

27. blair's doing exactly the same thing

Its clinton redux II, showing at a cinema near you, and you must wonder
if the venom felt by the labour party for blair is likewise felt amongst
democrats for clinton.

Their third way was to open the gate for bush.

[theboss]

23. It's not the Party's "DLC"

The DLC is independent of the party. It was an organization of Democrats who decided that the Democrats needed some...um...what's the word...oh, yes....Ideas!!!

[dusmcj]

25. Clinton less so

but the sentiment is dead-on for the lackeys and hangers-on and third-way accomodationists who followed him into power - the coterie is always the problem, whose who exploit the work of the pioneers without exerting themselves equivalently. Progressive has nothing to do with salon liberals who're rich enough to break wind trying to engineer social fashion before getting back into the SUV for a trip to the wellness retreat. The personal is political, in various senses of the phrase.

[sweetheart]

28. what do you mean?

Progressive has nothing to do with salon liberals who're rich enough to break wind trying to engineer social fashion before getting back into the SUV for a trip to the wellness retreat.

Are you saying that Clinton is that kind of liberal?, or that DU reader's are that kind of liberal,
or that the democrats are that kind of liberal? or the republicans are that kind of liberal?

what is break wind trying to engineer social fashion? Is that being president, or is it
writing on DU, or is it being a democrat, or is it being a republican?

[dusmcj]

34. who are they ?

the coterie of hangers-on (the outer penumbra, not the inner circle) who swept into power on Clinton's coattails were several orders of magnitude less capable than him and his inner circle. Further, in his (well-conceived) push to gain the kind of funding the GOP traditionally has, and to reacquire the moderate center, he opened the door to what could be termed 'pantywaist liberals' and rich ones at that - dilettantes, particularly from the media community, who are rich enough to dabble in liberalism but as a sort of Sunday salon hobby. The Democratic party is about being the party of the people, about representing the interests of the people. Policy set based on the interests of a dubious elite whose eliteness consists of their wealth (please don't try to assert that media money is a cultural elite; I've wasted $18 at the movies too many times for that to possibly be true) does not serve that end. And on the front of gaining the center, I find that the accomodationist third-way crew of the likes of Cantwell, Lieberman and Landrieu are a walking talking disaster area second only to the current administration. Vigorous advocacy of trade globalisation and looking for common ground with reactionary imbeciles who feel that it is appropriate to freely apply American military power because we are inherently morally superior, not to mention suggesting that we backpedal on support of normal social structures which include people's consensual personal behavior being a matter between them and their physicians and their God, have nothing to do with advocating the interests of the people; instead it is an approach which accepts the sanctity of traditional corrupt power structures and seeks accomodation with them. There is no way to play the neocon system; opposition until its destruction is the only functional course.

And as for "breaking wind trying to engineer social fashion", all that Connected and Under Control social engineering shit that started appearing under Bush I has been embraced by reactionaries in both the Democratic and Republican parties, I'm sorry to say. With its core message that the traditional tribal socioeconomic power status quo that asserts the untrammeled right of all to pursue self-interest - enlightened or not - and gain is sacrosanct. I'm reminded of Mr. Andreesen on Beavis and Butthead by the wheedling assertions that all viewpoints should be included in a 'progressive' viewpoint, when in reality the mission of all those who have the interests of the people at heart must be to vigorously identify the corrosive and subversive effects of certain agendas of certain sociopolitical groupings, and marginalize them unconditionally, in fact suppress them out of existence. It's like the problem of the pedophile - he can think whatever he wants, he just can't act on it. The same needs to be applied to the socially conservative and economically liberal fascists at work in this country today.

[burythehatchet]

30. Bill Clinton was able to appeal to the corporatocracy

So the flow of funds was established. After nearly a decade of sucking that pipeline (literally and figuratively), the DEms were pretty well used to that stream. When we try to pull the party left, we threaten that stream of cash for them.

Clinton made the choice to go after that money. That was to the long term detriment of the Dem party because it came uprooted from its progressive base - unions, living wage, consumer protections, etc.

This is another reason that Clinton is now so cozy with the global corporations.

The irony is that if they Dems appealed to their base, there's pleanty of grass roots support for them to win. All we need to do now is count the votes.

[wyldwolf]

39. and about 70% of the American people

[KyuzoGator]

33. To think, people criticized Gore for distancing himself from Clinton.

In retrospect, it's starting to look like it was his wisest move.

[dusmcj]

35. no, it contributed to the de-effectualization of the Democratic Party

Clinton had the brains and the balls to identify what needed doing after 12 years of protofascist Republican misrule, and do it. Dullwitted conventionalists across the political spectrum wheezed their disapproval from their easy chairs because he blew his load on an intern's dress, but measured by concrete accomplishments, as well as the extent of dismantlement of the Reagan/Bush charnel house, he was exceptional. Gore aligned himself with the ineffectual accomodationists when he made his choice.

As the country descends further and further into decay as the Bush administration drags on, and contrasts between the extremes of what policy is being implemented and what policy needs to be implemented heighten, the ability of the Democratic Party (as well as the GOP) to urge hewing to party lines and party loyalties will weaken further. The choice will transform to one between group affiliation with one or the other ineffectual social club, and independent thought and action which identify the concrete needs of the people and the nation in the current conditions, and identify and champion individuals willing and able to effectively represent those interests within the structure of government. Change is on its way. If the Democratic Party insists on business as usual and thinks it's playing from a position of power among its base, it's in for a rude awakening. Groups don't matter, the people and the nation do. Groups serve those, or they are irrelevant.

[wyldwolf]

36. how so?

1. He lost the election (well, not really, but considering Clinton's popularity, it shouldn't have been as close as it was.)

2. Clinton currently has an 88% favorability rating among Democrats, and a 59% favorability rating overall - very similar to his ratings in 2000.

[KyuzoGator]

37. Because now Clinton is endorsing DLC neocon enablers. nt

[wyldwolf]

38. LOL! So because of something he is doing NOW, it was a good idea...

...for Gore to distance himself from Clinton 6 years ago.

Odd logic there.

Regardless, though, Clinton's approval numbers among Democrats STILL stand at 88% and since his appearance for Lieberman, Lieberman's numbers have improved, including a -16% to +7% jump among liberals!

On edit: Those surveyUSA numbers were BEFORE the Clinton appearance. Can't wait to see the numbers after "Mr. 88% approval among Democrats" was finished.

[oasis]

41. "Clinton currently has an 88% favorability rating among Democrats"

:wow:

[JHB]

40. No, Bill was a symptom, not a cause

The immediate cause was the attempts a campaign finance reform in the 70s, which opened the door to "direct" funding of candidates (often with now-legalized corporate PAC money) at the same time as the conservative movement was getting its act together (especially with direct-mailing fundraising and activism).

Clinton was just the best Democratic politician to use PAC-era fundraising to his advantage, and the Democrats found a counter to the direct-mailing funding until the breakthrough in Internet fundraising over the past few years.

[Generator]

44. Yes, just because you are eloquent, hella smart and pretty to watch

doesn't mean you are good for real Americans. Look at Obama. The appeasment of the corpratacracy is all they are. And yet, they "mean well." And yet, I love watching them just like rock stars. But I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them. Appease, appease appease. Yep I DO think Clinton started that shit. Always the compromising to sell out the middle class and the poor. And look at America 2006.

[AnnieBW]

45. ABC

Always Blame Clinton! Or, at least, the Clenis.