I Wish Democrats Would Listen To Bill Clinton

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I was listening to a show called "Left Jab" this evening. I've never heard the show before, so I have no idea who the hosts are, but one of them apparently used to be a White House Aide under Bill Clinton. This guy said he had a chance to sit down with Clinton recently, and Bill basically laid out a plan for the Democrats to completely clean the Republicans' clocks this year.

Essentially what he said was that Democrats need to just focus on ONE ISSUE that is important to the American people, and then explain how Republicans would handle, and then how they would handle it, and just let the people decide which one sounds best. The example he gave was education. Everyone agrees that education is important. Well, how do the Republicans plan to further education? According to their "Pledge," they're going to slash $8 billion dollars from the student loans programs. So is that going to make it easier or harder for kids to get into college? Now, what have the Democrats done to further education? The Democrats have passed laws making student loans cheaper and easier to get, and it has resulted in increases in college attendance. Now, if you heard it laid out like that, who in their right mind would vote for a Republican when considering the issue of education?

And you can do that with EVERY issue.

After hearing that story, it made me shake my head and just wonder how could it possibly be that nobody in the current leadership of the Democratic Party or in the White House is listening to this man or seeking him out for advice? I mean, they've already run Howard Dean out of town, the guy who orchestrated one of the biggest Democratic comebacks in history, and now they're ignoring Bill Clinton too? Sometimes I feel like this Party doesn't maintain power because they're just too stupid to know what to do once they're in power. With the plans that the Republicans are openly and unabashedly trumpeting right now, there shouldn't be a soul alive who would EVER vote for a train wreck like that. And yet we're sitting here hoping to just minimize the damage. You know, whenever I don't know something, or need some help, I always seek out the people who know what they're talking about and/or have been there before. Lately, we've been taking the smartest guys in the room and hustling them out the door like they're nuisances or something.

[saracat]

1. K+R I agree with this. What on earth are people thinking?

BTW, "It's the economy, stupid" STILL resonates and that is the kind of messaging we need.

[AndrewP]

15. Clinton is right

[Radical Activist]

2. I wish Clinton would Shut the Fuck Up

and stop campaigning for "Democrats" like Blanche Lincoln.

1) We don't have the luxury of dealing with only one issue. That's fucking moronic. At minimum we have to deal with both the economy and climate change or else we're all fucked.

2) Clinton never had a big Democratic comeback. He didn't even get a clear majority of voters in '96 for his re-election. He lost Congress in '94. I took Obama's large margin of victory to restore the party.

Clinton is good at promoting Clinton. Otherwise, he moved the country right and fucked over the party.

[saracat]

7. And Obama isn't promoting Obama? Seriously? And the problem isn't

having the "luxury of dealing with just one issue". It is the complete inability to articulate a message about anything.I do not believe Clinton meant take a single issue specifically but he did mean take a single issue at a time and message it.
And I wouldn't go there about who moved the country "right" more. That isn't goling to play well.Considering the President just made a statement about "being perceived as too liberal" and not being bipartisan enough.

[Radical Activist]

17. Does bashing Obama make Clinton better?

Yes, let's talk about who moved the country right more because Obama has been cleaning up Bill's messes. First, we've got a lot of liberals who won't even give Obama a chance because they're sure he's going to be a replay of Clinton's betrayal. The damage Bill did to the party still lingers.

Second, Obama has re-regulated nearly every sector of the economy after 30 years of steady deregulation. That includes Bill's deregulation of the lending industry that Obama had to fix. The media is on the list for the next two years, which would fix one of Bill's worst mistakes (passing the telecom bill that allowed more media consolidation). Obama did more on climate change during his first two months in office than Bill did in eight years. And of course, Obama is repealing the DADT mess Bill left behind.

I think it says a lot that you had to resort to citing the latest quote from Obama that people are spinning and crying about, but I can cite an even longer list of liberal accomplishments that Obama is taking action on. So I'll admit that Bill is better at pandering, whether or not he has actually done anything useful. Obama is moving the country left on every major issue, regardless of how much some agenda items were watered down by the Senate.

[saracat]

22. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Clinton and I am not "bashing" Obama.

But the Obama WH has a consistent record of "bashing" the Left.And thus far their "messaging ability" has been tone deaf. No one is praying harder than me that at this last juncture ,Obama has some coattails because he hasn't so far. It doesn't matter squat how many turn out to cheer him if they do not vote for the down line.He isn't on the ballot.

Bill Clinton was a much better "messenger" who got even better over time but he lost the Congress as well. I think Obama could learn from him , and I think Obama panders to the right far more visibly than did Clinton.And as for that list of accomplishments, that canard is getting old. The setbacks to choice, DADT reform and even repeal of tax cuts on the wealthy,on which mixed messages are being sent, , is a ridiculous. HCR is a joke, and one that even he admits wasn't "sold" correctly. Financial Reform? The banks are even worse than they were.The attack on unions and education is beyond horrific.There seems to be a pattern that whenever something appeards to be "good" Obama gets the credit, whether he had anything to do with it at all, or when it is perceived as negative, Congress is to be blamed, though WH influence has often been involved.

I have about given up on the Presidency and can only hope a lot of "good guys" are elected that can bring the fight forward in DC because the WH isn't leading.I will support Obama if he is our nominee but thus far, he hasn't been impressive.The alternative is beyond imagining.But on the pragmatic side, it is also likely that no one could have done a whole lot about the economy at this point and any President would be getting pilloried for it.The economy was brought to us mainly by Bushco. But I really wish the Prez didn't feel he always has to win by capitulation because it depresses our votes and doesn't impress the GOP.

[Radical Activist]

30. Major accomplishments are not an old canard.

They make a difference in peoples lives and will for years to come. Just because cynical bloggers say those laws don't matter doesn't make it true.

I give credit when Obama proposes something positive. I blame the Senate when they block it or water it down. Yes, that is a pattern. It makes no sense at all to displace blame for the Senate onto Obama. I don't know why that pattern is so hard for people to see.

[saracat]

34. yeah well, if you were adversely effected by the changes you might see it differently.

My husband just was diagnosed with a terminal condition and our payments were upped by $200 a month prior to that. We are on the brink of losing our house, Sorry if I am less than enthusiastic about something which will never help us.Screw the insurance companies and all those in the Admin who support them. We need universal healthcare and it WAS possible. Now we will have to lose our home that we paid on for twenty years in order to have healthcare. Sorry if I express less than gratitude. I expect better from a Democtratic President but I guess I was wrong! He could have taken the lead on the pubnlic option, but he didn't.

[Ramulux]

10. Kind of harsh

I agree with you that he moved the country to the right and embraced a kind of bullshit third way type of politics but do you honestly believe he fucked over the party?

I disagree with him on many things but the fact is that he guided America through a very prosperous 8 years and did wonders for the democratic brand. A legit liberal couldn't have won a presidential election in 92 and sadly he was what the party needed to make themselves viable to a lot of moderates who had become wary of liberalism after a decade of smears and lies under Reagan and Bush 1.

[Radical Activist]

14. First, Clinton ran as a liberal populist in '92.

So an actual liberal could have won. Second, Clinton destroyed the Democratic brand with an entire generation of voters who felt betrayed and saw a party with no clear beliefs or values. A laundry list of uncontroversial agenda items is not a governing philosophy. Obama has done much to fix Clinton's mistakes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Wish President Obama Would Repeat Clinton's Mistake By Creating Twenty Eight Million New Jobs

3.9% unemployment looks real good like now.

If unemployment was at 3.9% we wouldn't need Clinton on the trail.

[Radical Activist]

20. I hope Obama has more accomplishments

that aren't wiped out within 6 months of the next President taking office, like most of Clinton's were. All of the statistics Clinton rattles off about the budget and economy during his term meant nothing six months after Bush took office. But the negative, conservative things Bill did remained with us and kept doing more damage (NAFTA, media consolidation, mortgage deregulation, no action on clean energy, etc). I believe Obama learned from that and I appreciate his long term view.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Nothing In More Important To Having A Long Term View Than Having A Job

I am unemployed. My girlfriend is unemployed. My best friend is unemployed. Long term to us is having food on the table next week.

[Whisp]

32. it was a matter of being in the WH at the lucky time of tech expansion.

or are you saying Clinton invented IT?

please.....

[paulk]

35. that's the RW line

always used to discredit Clinton

strange to see it used by a Democrat

you are a Democrat, right?

[Whisp]

36. I respect and admire Obama, so I must be!

so tell me again how Bill Clinton single handedly caused the tech explosion? That it was his doing? You mean if he happened to be president, say in the 60s, we'd have the same results?

please don't act dumb and start pointing fucking anti-Democrat fingers at ME, when I hear daily and hourly and minute by minute shit about Obama and god damned fucking right wing talking points are used against him HERE.

so take your huffery out of my face, you make me fucking laugh to say that to me HERE of all places.

[paulk]

37. you are using a right wing argument to discredit Bill Clinton -

that his success with the economy had to do with luck - right time, right place, etc.

Period.

Laugh all you want - when your "respect and admiration" makes you deny the most successful Democratic President

(longest economic expansion in the history of the country)

it seems more than a passing strange way to express your party loyalty.

[dsc]

11. you mean like Obama did

or is it Ok for Obama to campaign for Lincoln but not Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

13. So predictable.

Obama needed a vote from Lincoln and gave tepid support. He did what he had to do. He did not personally campaign and give a speech that handed the primary over to Lincoln, the way that Clinton did. But you knew that.

[dsc]

25. that is just baldly false

He did campaign for her and recorded calls for her. As to who, or what gave her the victory, I have no idea. Incidently, her opponent supported an outright ban on gays and single parents adopting when it was on the ballot. He was no prize.

[Radical Activist]

27. Clinton campaigned personally in Arkansas for Lincoln.

Obama did not. You seem to have an ongoing problem with basic observation.

[dsc]

28. He made a radio ad for her

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/obama-portrays-blanche-li_n_563028.html
that isn't the tepid support you dishonestly said it was.

The one and only reason he didn't campaign for her was she felt he wouldn't help. Incidently, unlike you, I don't consider it evil to campaign for her, but you apparently have a problem with Clinton campaigning for her but not with Obama doing so. That is hypocrisy plain and simple.

[Radical Activist]

29. ZOMG!

Could you be any more self-righteous? I don't like that Obama campaigned for her but I see why he had to, and this thread was about Bill Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. He's The Only Democratic President To Win Reelection On His Own Since FDR

And might stay that way if the economy doesn't improve. I wouldn't poo poo his re-election.

[AndrewP]

23. The word "Clinton" is a swear word to many here

Too bad

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. It's A Shame

As America enters in what seems its inexorable decline people will look back at the nineties as some kind of golden age.

Some folks here dislike Clinton becausae he was a trimmer but so is every occupant of that office. And things were good then. Jobs were plentiful and the unemployment and poverty levels were at historic lows.

[StevieM]

31. You do realize that Obama made ads for Blanche Lincoln in the primary too? (eom)

[Radical Activist]

33. That's a talk radio tactic.

Making excuses for someone's behavior because a Democrat did the same thing is a Rush Limbaugh tactic.

[laughingliberal]

3. " Lately, we've been taking the smartest guys in the room and hustling them out the door...

...like they're nuisances or something."

"Lately" being the past 20 months or so.

[DeltaLitProf]

4. In today's political environment . . .

. . . talking about college loans programs isn't going to mean shit to people who are making about half what they made before 2008. Obama has indeed done a lot, but he has not convinced the American people he has done enough to lift their individual economic fortunes. He needed to be much more populist and forceful with the Republicans.

What will happen in two weeks will be the result of two years of neglect of his base. And he has lost the independents to the crazies who've told them over and over again that the stimulus bill did not work. About 2/3 of the voters show up in midterms. And Democratic voters are unexcited. Independents rely on commercials and soundbites to make their decisions.

The one issue the Dems needed to be talking about was that America is going back to work again. They can't talk about that because it isn't happening. THAT's the problem today. And Obama did not do enough to change that.

[Imagevision]

5. @Radical Activist - excellent comment!!! (shut the fu*k up Bill!)

[readmoreoften]

6. How can the Obama Administration spotlight education when they're privatizing it?

Meh.

[sandnsea]

8. We don't have an echo chamber

The media bashes Democrats. Our foot soldiers are always burning off the feet of our leaders.

That's why we lose. Every single time.

[txlibdem]

12. Our leaders should grow a pair and LEAD

Maybe that would stop all the infighting?

[tomm2thumbs]

9. The Supreme Court - that put BUSH in office & let foreign corps buy candidates

for starters

[mmonk]

19. Don't know. Obama's cabinet and administration is Clintonite.

[TheKentuckian]

26. The messengering sucks because the substance sucks. This ain't the 90's

and trying to pretend it is has caused plenty of problems beyond the clusterfuck left by a generation of Reagan because the tools required to even attempt fixes have been pitched while allowing mid 90's Republican to be rebranded as "Marxism".

What we have to sell is less bad, less quickly and continued Reaganism under different management.