Busting the Clinton Ghost

Published on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Busting the Clinton Ghost

by Bob Burnett

The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it's legacy is the philosophy that principles don't matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who's a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill's charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.

In 2006, Clintonistas remain a powerful element in the Party. The Democratic Leadership Council, the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and the role of Rahm Emanuel as chair of the DCCC, shows the extent of their influence. At a recent event, DLC leaders were asked about the Democratic message in 2006; they replied that the "events and the economy will determine the outcome," therefore Dems needed no "message" at present. Of course, the Clintonista "no message" mantra produced their vacuous position on Iraq: make it President Bush's problem; don't demand withdrawal because it makes Dems look weak; instead insist upon "benchmarks for success."

Here's the point: recent polls indicate that three-quarter of Democrats are people who have definite moral values. They may have voted for Bill Clinton in the past but they don't embrace situational ethics. They certainly don't believe that the Democratic Party will be successful by abandoning its historic principles. They feel that FDR's party actually has a set of values that should dictate what its program is. Prominent among these are honesty, responsibility, equality, opportunity, and community.

Ironically, these are values that candidate Bill Clinton talked about, and then jettisoned once he became President. Now Democrats have to put the Clinton era behind it and move on. It's time to reassert core Democratic values and purge Clinton's ghost.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0308-21.htm

the best President this country has ever seen, and in spite of how many on both sides of the aisle feel about him, I was one of millions who prospered while he was the President.

We were defeated not by Clinton's morals, but by apathy and a smart and timely campaign by the RNC first against the Congress and then against him. I am still of the belief that he was set up, and I still believe he would be President if he wasn't term limited.

When we as a party stop taking shots at Bill Clinton and just find a way to undermine our political adversaries instead of him, we'll be better off.

Problem is that leaves a few hundred million that didn't.

Check the economic data, and the "ghost", and get back to us.

My job was outsourced to Taiwan in 2001. You can continue to blame Clinton for everything that's wrong with the world, I understand. The current mis-administration and it's Fascist takeover of Democracy isn't to blame at all.

Someday, history will write something other than "Blame Clinton", and I'm ashamed we as Liberals can't exorcise that ghost.

So, Clintons support of WTO, et. al. had nothing to do with your job loss? :popcorn:

Did I "blame Clinton for everything that's wrong with the world"? No. :popcorn:

Did I hold blameless "the current mis-administration and it's Fascist takeover of Democracy". No, again. :popcorn:

I actually faired well, economically, under Reagan. Did I support him? No. That would have been selfish.

And I refuse to blame Clinton for anything except taking the bait. Period.

My signature line says everything about the way I feel. And if I have to devote one second defending he who does not need defending, than that is one second less I can use to defeat those who are deluding you.

Bash Bill all you want. I refuse to play your game.

I got a tax break on going back to school for a Master's degree. This was at a time that my spouse was out of work.

The financial markets benefitted my mother, a widow, that supported her well until her death at 94, in 2005. I have inherited her estate which had grown so much in the Clinton years. I have a very good income in retirement as a result of those great years. P.S. I worked for nonprofit agencies my entire work career and had no special "perks" or benefits and certainly not a large salary.

CT's state surplus was a boon for us. We had kept real estate taxes low because our dem Mayor had a friend in the White House.

Life was better then. Small businesses got started and could get a foothold, which was not the case with G.H.W. Bush. It was a great time.

... given it was Clinton's pushing NAFTA that sent many jobs out of the country and many voters out of the party.

---

I think Clinton *was* a good President, overall, and respect him for compromising his early objectives in order to get the deficit under control; however, much of what became policy under Clinton is disagreeable and he did little to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to push the liberal/progressive mantra. And Bill's morals *did* have an effect on the 2000 election, as well as on his ability to effect policy in his 2nd term.

It's patently ludicrous to declare Clinton "the best president this country has ever seen," and REAL damned insulting to a whole host of very fine, courageous, principled, strong leaders, including at least one Republican I can think of (Lincoln).

I won't quibble with you about your claim (personal opinion) that he's the "most effective" of your lifetime, but the other is an awful thing to say.

Certainly Bill's moral deficiencies made life difficult for Al, but anyone who paid attention during the 2000 campaign knows that Al shot himself in the foot many times. I watched the second debate between him and Dubya, and I still can't believe that performance.

Then there was the Florida recount -- African-Americans were disenfranchised, blatantly, throughout Florida. Anyone who watched the NAACP hearings on CSPAN knows that. Where was Al? Too worried about Palm Beach. As much as Jesse Jackson irritates me, I have to admit, he was the man of the hour in that state.

I still admire Al a great deal, and I still think the Democratic party could have a future. But one of the first things they have to do is quit blaming Bill, or anyone else.

.... did have *some* effect, along with a looooot of other factors, in Gore's stolen victory in 2000.

First and foremost, let's all remember that Gore won. (where "won" = it has since been *proven* that a plurality of Florida voters cast their votes for Al Gore, but were disenfranchised by an ineffective and corrupt vote counting process)

The list of factors making the margin in Florida (and elsewhere) close enough for BushCo to steal the election is too long to enumerate, given it's not all the critical to the point re: Monica's effect.

No sense blaming Gore, because in doing that you ignore the real culprits.

now that they have shot their wad and quickly on their way to popularity rivaling herpes, it's time to stop aping them and cowering before their legion of jethros, a demographic that will shrink over time no matter what.

real progressives need to stand up and shove the political pendulum hard to the left.

Universal Health care. Quality Free Public Education for everyone. Jobs for all at LIVING WAGES, Respect for the environment. OPEN FAIR PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS. The end of corporate "Person hood". Equal rights for all. Personal privacy respect

Just a few to tart with.

You'd get the "rabble" coming out to vote, with issues like that.

:sarcasm:

... and especially an end to privatization of the military and war profiteering.

He did much I liked, lost some battles I pulled for, but did several things I could not support. Welfare reform and NAFTA are two primary examples.

That Clinton was bascially a Rockefeller Republican.

The trend he started by pandering to the far right and enabling their policies (as opposed to relegating them to the fringe where they belong) is the single biggest reason why, as a practical matter, the Democratic party isn't even relevant in national politics anymore.

History will not be kind to him in this respect.