Clinton's legacy amongst progressives owes as much to the right

as any thing else. Our (yes, I include myself) support for him, I believe, is commensurate with the vitriol projeted from the right. We rallied around him for the fact that HE FOUGHT BACK. I enjoyed his tenure because he confounded them at every moment (and still does); he turned his greatest weakness into political strength against them. He was the master of political ju-jitsu.

All that said, he did little for the progressive movement. He was a master of triangulation and co-opted much of republican policy. He just gave it the face of compassion. If we look back at political posterities, Clinton, I believe, was the downfall of a real liberal/progressive bloc of American politics. Liberals/progressives were marginalized, perhaps for good.

I do not mean to bash the Big Dog. I just mean to place my respect for him into perspective. Clinton's success can only be thought of in terms of context.

I await your flaming.

Humbly yours,
the monster from the mere.

I'm not quite sure, however, that I like Grendelsuncle.

I think I know you from another board.

I maintain my lovin' for DU.

for good is silly. Lotta history in the world, very few ideologies, especially as one as broad as liberalism, are ever marginalized for good. The winds will shift in our favor once more someday, no worries.

which is why I said PERHAPS. Indeed, no worries.

Clinton, thwarted at every turn by a hostile congress, faced with ol' Greenspan raising interest rates 5 or 6 times a year, still produced the most fantastically successful economy in the history of the human race, and gets blamed with the downfall of liberals and progressives. Never mind that he also won TWO major wars without losing a single American life and appointed two excellent liberal jurists to the supreme court (God bless Ginsberg and Breyer!). Oh, well, no good deed goes unpunished. By all means, let's give the "right" credit for his accomplishments.

That's an odd statement.

I'm not sure I said such a thing, or even implied it.

My thesis is quite simple: the hatred felt for Clinton from the right was met with a rallying support from people who wouldn't necessarily have agreed with Clinton's policies. It's pure mimetic reciprocation.

I don't believe I ever said Clinton's economic policies were a failure; they were quite successful (but progressives may hesitate as to the cost of their effectiveness).

Indeed, God bless Ginsberg and Breyer.