Too True
Bill Clinton's Charlie Rose interview was one of those moments that every Presidential candidate dreads: when the spouse expresses too clearly and with far too much asperity the aggression and frustration felt by the top ranks of the campaign. Just three highlights follow -- Bill Clinton said:
'• That picking Obama would be a "risk";
• Likened nominating Obama to picking "a gifted television commentator";
• Called Obama a mere "symbol for change," adding that "symbol is not as important as substance";'
As Bill Clinton well knows, any criticism of an opponent as a symbol is as hollow as a drum -- the whole point of campaigns in a media era is to create out of a structure of policy statements, promises, and personal history a general impression that is appealing to voters and that at the highest level of conceptuality constitutes a symbol. What were "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" or the movie about the town called Hope if they weren't ways to express in symbolic terms the idea of change that Bill and Hillary Clinton embodied in 1992?
When a younger opponent captures and expresses the messages of hope and change, no doubt Bill and Hillary Clinton are exasperated to see the tables of history turned on them. When the younger opponent is a member of a racial minority, no doubt the Clinton campaign is frustrated by its inability to gain exclusive use of the "symbol" of making history by electing a first something -- voting either a racial minority or a woman suffices for those motivated by marking new achievements in the march toward tolerance. And when her purposeful drive to a middle-of-the-road stance on every issue leaves Hillary to the right of the center of the Democratic Party, certainly her husband is anguished, since he was doubtlessly the strongest advocate of her generally pro-war, Republican-friendly positioning from 2001 to 2006.
The problem is that Hillary cannot run a campaign based on a promise of a new approach to new problems, when her core theme has been "don't stop thinking about yesterday." From the inception of her campaign, the message has been: let's all go back to the way we were just after Bush I, when the Clinton era was in its salad days, the dollar was strong, the military disengaged, Hillary was going to fix health care, balancing the budget was all that government needed to do to make everyone better off, the era of big government was over, small steps sufficed in every direction, and foreign affairs were placid or at least generally irrelevant to America's fate. The central fallacy of this approach is that the problems of 1991-92 were far smaller in scale and scope than those of the present. Few of the prescriptions offered in 1992-3 suit the maladies that need curing in 2008-9. Nor does the record of the eight Clinton years tell us how the Clintons would or should lead the nation in the next eight years. Just as one example: from 1998 to 2003, approximately 98% of net global economic growth occurred in the United States. That era of exceptional American centrality to the world economy is as dead as the proverbial dodo. For the next President, the rapid economic growth of China, India and the rest of the world is an unprecedented fact that affects every aspect of domestic and foreign policy. To be blunt, Bill Clinton knows that he had it easy, compared to the next President. So harking back to his time in office as a basis for voting for her just does not compute.
To compound the perception of looking backward for the election of the next President, the current Clinton campaign has spent a year arguing that the would-be President was virtually a co-President while being First Lady. Emphasizing the linkage, Hillary and Bill have run the current campaign together, and repeatedly communicated that in effect voting for her was as close as the Constitution allows to re-electing Bill Clinton. They have argued, usually through their large claque of supporters, that if only Al Gore had let Bill Clinton guide his campaign in 2000, he would have won in the Electoral College, and Hillary is not making that mistake this time around.
There's no doubt that Bill Clinton was a far, far better President than George Bush has been. But there's also no way for a re-election campaign to capture the theme of change, and to generate in any way the symbolism of a new day dawning. Most Americans have come to believe that 9/11 did change a lot for Americans, globalization has changed a great deal more, immigration is changing still more, and the climate crisis is redefining the very scope of change. For those with this emerging set of beliefs, the job of President now seems ill-suited for one whose frame of reference is the past, even when the past is as recent as the 90's. Instead, for those who believe the very concept of how to be a national and global leader requires redefinition, the idea of bringing back the Clinton crowd seems short-sighted. Especially unappealing is the prospect of bringing back the Clinton White House's unique brand of personal attack veiled as thoughtful commentary, expressed with unmatched verbal skill, and yet noteworthy as often more rapid and ungenerous than accurate and fair. (For instance, in the Rose interview Bill Clinton said Obama began to run for President a year after he entered the Senate, when in fact Obama was elected in 2004, not 2006. Nor is it true that Hillary is far more "prepared" than Obama; either would be among the most well-read, intelligent, articulate, hard-working, and accomplished people ever elected to the Presidency.)
Perhaps it was not such a good idea for Hillary not to make a point out of being her own person. Al Gore had to make that case in 2000. When he definitievely did so, at the convention, he ensured that he would win the popular vote, and but for some extraordinary bad luck and an appalling Supreme Court action he would have been the President. But it's doubtful that Hillary has time to make a clear distinction between herself and the huge figure who has had such a complex relationship to her own career. The Clintons will win or lose this election as a team, and if they do win it will be the first time in American political history that voters have selected co-Presidents. That could still happen, but the Rose interview shows the perils of such a campaign; in summary, Hillary would never ever have made the comments Bill did, and we can be quite sure she doesn't know how to handle her running mate now.
I agree with all your points but even this doesn't go far enough:
Were the problems really smaller in scale or wasn't it also a failure of Bill Clinton, particularly in his feckless use of his second term, to fail to foresee the problems ahead and to set a clear direction? Bush took a foreign policy vacuum and made a mess. Had Clinton truly put his stamp on foreign policy or fully appreciated the growing challenges of globalization, we'd have been better prepared for the new century and better equipped philosophically to combat the right wing.
After all, Clinton was supposed to build a bridge to the 21st century. It didn't turn out to be a very sturdy bridge.
December 16, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
you can take the horse to water but can you make it drink?
December 16, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Were the problems really smaller in scale or wasn't it also a failure of Bill Clinton?" Are you kidding? Compared to following Bush, any previous president had a cakewalk. Was Clinton supposed to take advance measures to prevent Bush from bankrupting us, laying our military strength to waste, acting as a war criminal, violating the Bill of Rights as a tyrant, making us despised among nations, and handing over the little wealth we have to his cronies? I don't have much confidence in America's future.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 16, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you get paid to post here?
December 16, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, a paid blogger would be far more coherent.
December 17, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think Davai may be making some good points. To continue, I believe that while Hillary doesn't represent much in the way of change, Obama is even worse. And they both look a helluva lot like Tony Blair.
.
For one thing, Obama is buying into the Republicans' utterly phony alarm over Social Security, perhaps with an eye toward eventual privatization. And his health-care plan is voluntary, which makes no sense unless you want a two-tiered system in which the inevitably underfunded public portion is set up to fail.
.
If Hillary and Obama are the Dems' equivalent to Blair, Obama is moreso. And I don't mean in regard to the Iraq war (though you can't convince me that had Obama been in the U.S. Senate he wouldn't have voted--with a Hillary-like theatrical solemnity--for the war resolution, just as he later endorsed Lieberman) but rather regarding their eagerness to accommodate corporate America. It's time to confront these pirates, not to bend our knees yet again before them, recalling the way Blair's New Labor has been so effective in confirming and institutionalizing Thatcherism.
.
By the way, one side issue I'd like some enlightenment or comment on if anyone can help: Can't recall where I read this (perhaps right here on TPMcafe somewhere), but last June, Chuck Schumer--3rd-ranking Dem in the Senate--quietly went around to leaders in the financial and hedge fund industry and assured them that, regardless of what they might soon be hearing, there would be no push to raise taxes on obscene hedge fund profits. Then, just a month later (and coming quite late to the table) all 3 principal Dem candidates came out with statements saying they would raise taxes on hedge fund profits.
.
So it appears they had all been waiting for Schumer to give the straight dope to the financial insiders ahead of time so they could still feel safe funneling money to the Dems, knowing that their hot air on hedge funds was no more than that.
.
So it appears all but the fringe Dems were lying to us, doesn't it? Really, come on, doesn't it? And if that's the case on such a no-brainer as hedge fund profits, why believe a damned word they have to say about anything?
.
Tell you what: I'm sick of this campaign. What say we just shake hands with the Republicans, call off the election, go dig up McKinley and prop him up in the executive mansion for a few years?
December 18, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I posted earlier on Joe Monster's blog, "
When the Democrats nominate someone I will support him/her. In the meantime, Bill 'I was against the Iraq war from the beginning' Clinton can shut up as far as I'm concerned."
December 16, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read Glenn Greenwald's "The Lawless Surveillance State", you'll have to wonder how you can in conscience support either party. I mean when push comes to shove how can you tell them apart? Sure, they differ on the little stuff but when it comes to the big elephant, the rule of law, they both agree that all Americans really need is a corporate friendly police state.
December 16, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greenwald correctly fingers Reid as the main culprit in this particular case, and what does he suggest we do about it?
---
Reid is extremely vulnerable in Nevada and if he follows through with his stated plans, those vulnerabilities ought to be exploited to the fullest, whether it be with anti-Reid ads in Nevada to drive his numbers even lower or concerted, all-out support for a serious primary challenge to Reid's re-election bid in 2010, etc. Until Congressional Democrats know that there are consequences from siding with the administration and attacking their actual supporters, they will continue to do that.
---
That's it! Take action in Nevada in 2010!
No, no. As you correctly observe the problem is more widespread and it's not Reid it's the Dem Party. The Donks need a serious wake-up call and soon, not in 2010 and not just in Nevada
December 16, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats, as horrible as many of them are, are better for the country than Republicans. Read Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal.
December 16, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... if you want to ignore Clinton,"
I don't want to ignore Clinton. I want him to shut up and let his Hillary speak without the distraction that he is providing with BS remarks such as he opposed the Iraq invasion from the start. Mr. "... depends on what the meaning of is is..." can save his wordsmithing for later.Right now Hillary needs to put space between her and Bill. If not Obama/Edwards get the nomination (which is fine with me)
December 16, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see, you give Clinton campaign advice :-)
December 16, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
" ... from 1998 to 2003, approximately 98% of net global economic growth occurred in the United States..."
I think this is an absurd statement, conconcted on what basis, I would like to know?
December 16, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Steve Roach, Morgan Stanley. "net" is the key word.
December 17, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton also questioned Obama's experience in that interview. Hasn't any one else noticed that Obama has more years of elective office experience than either Edwards or Hilliary. He at least had to earn his elective office and not ride in on his spouses coat tails. Not only does being first lady not count for leadership experience but Hillary was even a disaster in that role. Health care reform anyone?
December 16, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support Obama, as it appears Hundt does also, but I think he underestimates the appeal of the HRC campaign. The notion of getting a 'Clinton presidency' back, with all the prosperity, balancing budget, and, more subtly, the lack of the climate of fear and jingoism of the era is extremely powerful. Nostalgia (which does not by any means need to be historically precise in the minds of voters) can be very powerful, possibly more powerful than hope. Hope SOUNDS better, but is not necessarily a stronger passion.
The theme of "the experience to effect change" is a convincing one for many. I think that TPM Cafe columnists should pay more attention to the Des Moines Register endorsement of HRC, as it probably reflects a lot of sentiment both in the party and at the grass roots. (Whether and to what extent the Clintons 'bought' the endorsement, as some suggest, is another matter entirely -- the point is that the idea of 'confidence' is a fitting complement, not an alternative, to the idea of change.)
Now, I have a bias. Listening to Obama, both in the debates and in other venues (like the Jefferson/Jackson dinner speech) I have much more confidence in him than I do in Hillary. I just don't trust her not to betray the progressives in the party just as President Clinton did and as she seems to emphasize as senator. It wasn't a crucial issue, but somehow her introducing a flag-burning bill out of the blue is exactly the kind of political maneuver that characterizes the Clintons (possibly ESPECIALLY her) that is so opposite the politics of substance and thoughtfulness, as well as leadership, that Obama projects.
Frankly, though it works for some, and did for the Des Moines Register as well as for many many others, I don't get the feeling of confidence either from her resume or from her presentation that I do from Obama, but then again I haven't had the opportunity to interview her in depth face to face.
On the Charlie Rose show (I read the entire transcript at RealClearPolitics), Clinton often sounded desperate, coming across in the unedited tapes repeating phrases (eg 'Let me finish, let me finish) and almost grasping at straws. Funny how much less potent the 'roll of the dice' remark sounded in that context.
But let's be clear, the gulf that divides Hillary from ALL the leading GOP contenders, (the most personally impressive of whom, McCain, isn't going to be the one) is a vast chasm, just as it was in 2000 between Gore and Bush, even though the differences were sneered at then (not by me!) as "Bore" and "Gush".
One thing I WILL say for Hillary: if she DOES get the nomination, at least the Democrats will have nominated someone who is really fighting to win. Obama is too, and in a more classy way, but both Gore and Kerry lacked that enthusiasm that is so crucial in mass politics.
December 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Can you also explaiin how Clinton betrayed the progressives in the party if over the past generation the only good years for lower and middle income families were when Clinton was in the White House."
Welfare "reform" and NAFTA were both blatant betrayals of the poor and working classes. Similarly, the numbers of poor black males sentenced to lengthy prison terms for nonviolent drug offenses exploded under Clinton.
And your argument that they were working on behalf of the poor and working classes during their presidency has no basis in fact. While they may have talked a good progressive game, their actual policies were almost exclusively in the service of global capital, not working families.
Maybe you should do a little research before spewing your nonsense over every post having to with Obama and/or Clinton. The fact that you like her and don't like him doesn't mean you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion. Every regular on this site knows you support Clinton because you expect her to be more hawkish on behalf of Israel than Obama. That doesn't give you the right to spout falsehoods about the Clinton record; I was here during those eight years, and that record is why she will be the last Democrat to get my support.
December 16, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm well aware of Krugman's arguments. It is also the case that the benefits that the working and middle classes saw were due primarily to the rapidly expanding economy, and not due to any specific policies of the Clinton administration. In their defense, they did not rush out to give all of that additional revenue back to the wealthy via tax cuts, but their emphasis was on deficit reduction, not on programs to help the middle class.
December 17, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you subscribe to Republican talking points that that the resons for expanding economy
were not Clinton policies but Reagan tax cuts.
Even if this is correct, why low and middle class had better life only during Clinton years and not during Reagan or Bush 1 or Bush 2 years?
December 17, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
i was praising the Clintons for NOT cutting taxes when the Treasury was flush.
My criticism of the Clintons is that they governed like Rockefeller Republicans, not liberal Democrats. If you think that is "subscribing to Republican talking points," then your thinking is more incoherent than your many comments here would suggest.
December 17, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whose policies are responsible for making life better for lower and middle income families during Clinton Presidency?
You seems to suggest that Clinton policies has nothing to do with this.
December 17, 2007 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if Bill Clinton engages in double talk, let's look at what WJClinton said about experience before the Rose interview and Hillary dropping in the polls.
Obama is THE Contender. aka as Rocky Balboa as he said in Philly at the debate.
December 17, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Clinton was pretty brilliant on Charlie Rose. And come on, we know he supports his wife. Fine. He still struck me as the likable and persuasive guy that I remember but that I also thought was not liberal enough during the Clinton years.
I like Hillary. I mean that I really like her personally and I also think she's uncannily intelligent and unlike the current occupant of the White House, curious enough to do a good job.
I don't think that she's going to be liberal enough for my tastes, though. But I don't think Obama will either.
Edwards would. Which is why I'm planning to vote for him when my state gets its turn.
I think Edwards is the real progressive in the race. Hillary is the smartest person running. Obama is the most charismatic. I just listed them in order of what I think is most important.
By the way, not calling Obama stupid or anything like that. You can be very smart but not as smart as Hillary, who has true wonk abilities.
I'm a little curious about why Reed Hundt seems not to be supporting Hillary. I mean, Reed... Bill made you famous.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 16, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess. But look... I like Hillary but I'm leaning towards Edwards.
If I'm not objective it's that I like Bill. But I did point out that I have my issues with him as well. It's just that he's such a darned likable guy.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 16, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton says Obama will be a risk? I’m betting a President Obama would not “risk” an effective second term by doing things like getting involved with interns and spoon feeding rabid opponents exactly what they are looking for (not to suggest that any of Bill's actions compared with the spectacular display of hypocrisy and negligence on the part of his invasive attackers).
True. We have no guarantee Obama is the man he appears to be. But perhaps the other candidates are even more risky since most have been on duty in Congress where they have already proven their inability to lead and do much that is meaningful about the most fundamental issues like healthcare, education, import safety, foreign policy, renewable energy, campaign finance etc.
For example, the energy bill that just passed and seemed to come out of nowhere after decades of negligence on the subject? The key provisions were removed before it passed (A little collusion to make the status quo and status quo candidates look like they are actually doing something before the primaries in an election where the voters are demanding change?)
If Obama is as noble as he is smart, he’ll find a way to mobilize the public to do what’s necessary to reinvigorate our democracy. If he is what he appears to be and wins, we wouldn’t have a new Kennedy on our hands, we’d have the next best thing to George Washington.
I haven’t made up my mind on Obama or any other candidate, but it seems clear that the biggest risk voters can take is to allow this government to continue on its wayward path by supporting the status quo.
December 16, 2007 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms Clinton has only two things going for her, as far as I can see: she has name recognition, and she is a pioneer as a woman candidate. The name recognition is starting to fade as a significant factor, and Obama is a pioneer too.
The easiest way to shoot down Ms Clinton's "I'm the experienced candidate" nonsense is to contemplate Ms Bush (either one) as our next president, based on her extensive experience as president. It is a fact that being first lady provides absolutely no relevant experience towards being President.
I am still on the fence about who I support as the Democratic candidate. I know it isn't Ms Clinton. But, I'm not yet ready to go back to supporting Obama. I am relieved that the issue will be settled within about 8 weeks.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 16, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Former President Clinton is right!
Substance is clearly more important than symbolism when it comes to change.
The problem, of course, is that like Obama, Hillary is only a symbol of change too. Her centrist policies, as with all centrist policies, and she has no other kind, are predicated on merely tweaking the corrupt system we have as opposed to implementing any policies that would bring about real, lasting and significant change.
So, listen to what Bill says and take heed: don't vote for Obama OR Hillary if you want change because they are nothing more than symbols of change on the outside with nothing but more of the same on the inside.
December 17, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 17, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a Republican oppo-researcher? Probably. Your posts are so self contradictory they indicate a rather schizophrenic personality, or a manufactured persona.
December 18, 2007 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill says voting for Obama is Rolling the dice?
Unlike Bill and Hillary, Obama is running for President of these United States, he's not playing games
Coonsey's View
HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/
December 17, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Bill's problem is that much of her poll strength is predicated on the perception she's inevitable. One could proclaim her qualities, such as her experience, that she's a winner, and that she was "vetted" ... so long as one never vetted those assertions.
However, that veneer of inevitability is a brittle and fragile thing. She and Bill surely know that. Probably a good third to half of her support is due to that perception alone. Then there is the notion women will stick with Hillary.
From the beginning the strategy was to use her superior name recognition to define Obama out. It needed to happen early. Then women and everyone else could keep betting on her as inevitable.
Unfortunately for the Clintons it all backfired. She launched one bungled attack against Obama after another in various attempted gotchas, which just made her look nasty and perhaps afraid of a fair fight. As her numbers started slipping she tried harder and harder to project confidence and went further on the aggressive. Which again backfired repeatedly as Obama has deftly Akido'ed her attacks.
She's wavered from tough to likable too many times, and somehow wound up as unlikeable, insecure, and heavily over compensating. Even women voters are leaving her for Obama. Last week it came to a head with her cackling over Obama's responses and making obnoxious comments, and he effortlessly Akido'ed her attack again.
Now Bill is going heavy on the offense, which is only making Hillary look more insecure, and again raising the question of nepotism. It's already backfired as the response has been universally negative. It's also highlighting their infighting and campaign turmoil, which isn't helping.
But really, at this point what else can they do?
She's in freefall in Iowa and NH. It looks like Iowa and quite possibly NH will go for Obama. If one or both go for Obama, and to a lesser degree if they're even close, the inevitability veneer will shatter nationally, and without it her national numbers will also go into freefall.
Eventually, Edwards and others will drop out, and most of them will also go to Obama.
Unless there is an unexpected turnaround, predictable events favor Obama. He's better on the campaign trail. Smoother, smarter, more likable. His policies, for people who bother with such things like healthcare proposals, are a lot better too. He's consistently picking up Clinton voters, and still attractive to moderates and Edwards supporters.
Hillary should be miles ahead now having had the inside track, not losing ground and about to hit a brick wall. While Obama started behind but has now passed Hillary and is about to get a few big boosts.
Hillary looks neither like a winner, vetted, nor experienced right now. And while Obama isn't quite the inevitable Dem nominee, yet, he certainly looks more Presidential.
And on the Republican side, ehhh. They're all pretty much bad jokes. I think even Kerry could beat them in 2008, though again Hillary's negatives are a problem in turning out the Republican base, while Obama seems to consistently have cross party appeal.
December 18, 2007 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink