Clinton warns candidates against 'too liberal' stance

Former President Bill Clinton says that the Democratic presidential candidates cannot win the White House if voters think they are too far to the left, according to an interview published this week.

"We can't win if people think we're too liberal. But we can't get our own folks out if people think we have no convictions. So the trick is to get them both," Mr. Clinton told the American Prospect, a monthly magazine devoted to political liberalism. In the interview, conducted last month in his Harlem office in New York, Mr. Clinton also admonished Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, without specifically naming him, for saying that he alone represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

Calling on the party's liberal and centrist wings to stop their ideological warfare, Mr. Clinton said he had "no objection in this primary season Candidate X saying, 'I'm for that,' and Candidate Y saying, 'I'm against it.' You've got to have a little of that."

"But I don't believe that either side should be saying, 'I'm a real Democrat and the other one's not,' or, 'I'm a winning Democrat and the other one's not,' " he said.

more: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031022-104645-8779r.htm

I completely agree with President Clinton on this one.

who conducted the interview. He discusses how the Washington Times totally distorted what Clinton had to say. Please read to get the whole story...

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/tomasky-m-10-23.html

this kind of idea, that Jesse Jackson type liberal lytmus tests are unconstructive and unfair, are completely alien to many members here and it drives me nuts, and it also drives away many less patient dems

Howard Zinn was correct in saying that the number of good things Clinton did could fit into a thimble.

Ah, Billy Boy. You were an unprincipled, mediocre leader who was fortunate enough to run against men who were even more craven.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If I were you, I wouldn't confuse a Republican carrying a "moran" sign as the bloodbath in Iraq began with a Christian socialist who's disgusted with a president who extended Reagan and Bush's rape of the New Deal and Great Society.

Don't even.

Are you calling me out? Don't even....And your assessment of Clinton is as absurd as it is infantile.

And when your post changes to Name Deleted, you'll still get full credit for your hateful slam on another poster who did not attack you.

Let people form their own opinions on Bill Clinton, RummyTheDummy.

Didn't mean to get personal, but Clinton hating threads on this board have become ever so tiresome. It's all so 1997.

Thank God for the ignore function. I just added two more names to my ever growing list.

Lots of days I pine for Bill Clinton, and I wish we had him back. But he's not without his problems, and he's not real liberal.

Notice that none of what I said had a single thing to do with sex, or the hatchet job that the Republicans did on Clinton. We're progresives, discussing amongst ourselves. I close ranks around Clinton when Republicans are involved in the conversation, but when we're talking amongst ourselves, I don't have any problem with real and constructive criticism of the man.

Thanks.

instead of jabbing out calling names! Thanks!

My anger was directed towards an authority figure whom I deem a failure. One thing I don't do is attack other people during a conversation.

Perhaps you're right though, I started a thread about Clinton two months ago; I should thus leave the topic to others for rumination.

Clinton didn't say what the article pretended he said.

I didn't think a journalist working for a newspaper, even if it is the Washington Times, would so blatantly distort the words of his or her subject. Based on this and the fact that Clinton is not progressive, I assumed that the article was true.

My feelings on Clinton remain the same, but I have a greater disgust for mainstream media in America because of this.

They're really like FOX, but even more marginal. But the more mainstream media do exactly the same things. They break every law of journalism cub reporters used to be taught: don't spin, don't inject yourself, don't try to get into the minds of your subjects. In that sense they're all of a piece.

And a belated Welcome to DU from me! :toast:

...longest running expansion of the economy in American history?

what is more important is that he didn't do much bad. A moderate status quo DLCer would be a thousand times better than what we have now.

Look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=66524#66587

or here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=180667

Why should we believe him?

:)

what the fu*k clinton has to say. How did his campaign go in Calif. for Davis? clinton is Not the godfather.

I always felt he was too far right for me however. I'd love to see a dem run on a centrist theme, and then do the opposite of Bush--make a sharp turn to the left once he/she's in office.

A critical reading alone debuinks it. Clinton did not say the Democrats can't be too liberal. He said the trick is to be liberal enough for the base and not too liberal for the electorate--he clearly said the trick is to be both. He also did not call out Dean by name, as the article admits while claiming he meant Dean. The Moonie Times is more clumsy about bias than the average paper. If they try to hide it, they fail miserably--which is a plus for readers trying to see through it. DUers should not take anything in the MT's reportage at face value.

why the link to the Moonie Times?

This stinks something fierce...a little research before you post, please.... (30 seconds of research), and:

Here's the link to the prospect article ABOUT the times article (Clinton source interview available for subscribers)

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/tomasky-m-10-23.html

Here's the whole context: I asked Clinton about the schism within the Democratic Party. I said to him that sometimes the arguments between the liberals and the centrists had taken on a tone of not mere disagreement but of mockery. "And this has happened," I said, "more from the centrists toward the liberals than the other way around," at which point he cut me off and said, "Yeah, and I think it's a big mistake."

I completely agree with President Clinton on this one.

because he is taking shots at Dean while he himself is whoring for votes by shrinking from the red letter "L" word--then acknowledging lack of conviction accusations for not upholding the Democratic identity.

Clinton is a liability and his ego overwhelms him to the point that he can't bear the prospects of anyone's rising start ecplising his own. Time for him to make a gracious exit.

Unless you just feel like bashing Clinton for no good reason, then take it straight.

Reminds me of the days when he was president...

I would have said it a little differently, though. Instead of saying, "We can't win if people THINK we're too liberal" he should have said, "We can't win if we adopt positions that are too liberal." It's as if the only thing that matters is perception.

It's not just that silly, far-left views like those espoused by Dennis Kucinich turn off swing-voters (which they do), but that they are wrong simply out of principle. For example, vowing to completely eliminate profit from our health care system and replace it with a one-size-fits all, government-mandated system that CRIMINALIZES private health care is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's antithetical to a free society and it will erode our quality of health care. And it's so far from feasible that it makes Kucinich look like a fringe radical which he is.

Clinton was NOT saying Dems have to be less liberal. Ironically, you have more reason to be pissed with what Clinton actually said than the more left-oriented Dems.

It's about not APPEARING too liberal. Dems need to change theie propoganda, not their policies. Their policies need to be promoted in a way that does not make people think "liberal". They should think "Hey, this will help me!"

...convince people they've taken other positions? So, in short, you're suggesting we should embrace dishonesty as a political virtue? Yeesh.

If there's a position that you have to disguise in order to get the American people to accept it, it may not be such a good idea.

It's not just that silly, far-left views like those espoused by Dennis Kucinich turn off swing-voters (which they do), but that they are wrong simply out of principle. For example, vowing to completely eliminate profit from our health care system and replace it with a one-size-fits all, government-mandated system that CRIMINALIZES private health care is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's antithetical to a free society and it will erode our quality of health care. And it's so far from feasible that it makes Kucinich look like a fringe radical which he is.

Yup. He's a fringe radical just like the governments of Canada, Germany, Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, and so on are for providing health care for all of their citizens.

If we wanted the GOP talking points on health care, we'd consult their website. We don't need you spreading this kind of tripe here.

BTW -- nice the way you didn't pass up the opportunity for a baseless smear on DK. Totally in character.

I think we have a responsibility as the world's most prosperous nation to provide health care to every citizen as a birthright. I just think it's absurd to prohibit private health care for those who wish to pay for it. More than that...it's just plain wrong. Where does the government derive the authority to explicitly proscribe profit in providing health care? What would the constitutional basis for such a policy be?

Speaking of never passing up an opportunity, how about once, just once, responding without a gratuitous taunt about "GOP talking points," as if everyone who isn't as far-left as you MUST be a Freeper.

I just hear you spout off plenty of stuff on these boards that makes me wonder if you didn't take a wrong turn somewhere.

...act like an adult and explain why this position is wrong.

Answer my questions:

Where does the government derive the authority to explicitly proscribe profit in providing health care?

What would the constitutional basis for such a policy be?

I thought you were bashing the idea of single-payer health coverage in general. For that, I was wrong.

But one danger with what you propose is that doctors will just opt out of the single payer system in droves, leaving it to only the least experienced physicians.

:puke:

It might have worked for Clinton, who had difficulty taking a strong stand and wanted to please everyone. It came at the expense of the party's identity and effectiveness because he triangulated everything away.

This is the issue everyday for those who want to see the party at least competitive again. At least stand firm and sure again without always blurring the edges in a slippery compromise as an effective strategy that whittles away credibility.

Under the Clintons we got Walmart and free trade and increasing monopolization. Under Clinton the hard won New Deal was further eroded, under Clinton we had the selfish era of yuppie dominance and SUV values. The Republicans took the ball and ran and now, more than ever, we have to flex the muscle of what a Democrat stands for again. That is what a Democrat of the Democratic wing stands for. Not Centrism, not DLC lost identity.

Because it's a pain in the ass to have to go from post to post waking people up to the fact that they're swallowing Rev. Moon's story whole.

that Clinton mentioned we shouldn't appear too liberal. How can he be such a fool? It only reinforces and legitimatizes right-wing smears. We should not shrink from their tactics but rebuild our image, not sneak around and posture as them to outsmart them in the short run, only to lose our identity in the long haul. It just moves the entire framework further to the Right while we lose our footing even more.

There is a difference between a Repub-lite and a Democrat who isn't a liberal though. The Democrat still knows the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats-and can still take the opposing role.

:hi:

No matter where it is written. Their cult of personality following is tiresome.

unless they have a real honest to god reason for bashing them. It becomes as gratuitous as freeperism when lefties willingly swallow right-wing propaganda--or just go with it--just to get another kick in.

It's obviously not just you I'm criticizing here. It's any DUer who gives the Washington Times a milligram of credit as far as Clinton stories go.

Probably somewhere around the D, the N (maybe the L) and the C. I can't help but believe that by the time of the General Election voters will be looking for clear alternatives. California voters reacted to Reagan's governorship by electing Jerry Brown and I believe by November 2004 this nation will be polarized to the same degree.

There's enough country in me (might be my problem) to know that riding the fence results in nothing but injury.

is a perception with no qualifying guideline.

The story is a lie. DLCers are using it to bash lefties. Lefties are using it to bash DLCers.

Mission accomplished, Rev. Moon!

I would feel better if Freddie Stubbs would say something about why he posted this.... or mods should lock this thread

I agree with you.

look how well it works...and I thought DUers were immune

-sigh-

and his political advise is not batting well with voters. Tony Blair and Grey Davis are testamony to this fact. The third way is too far to the right.

We can't win without our base, and the base won't turn out for a moderate.

Please see rule #3 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

An opinion about the Clinton quotes is not the same as an opinion about the source of the article and the article itself.

Thanks,


kaitykaity
DU Moderator