"We Can Do Better"
The recent drama about NAFTA demonstrates that Barack Obama cannot effectively run against Hillary Clinton without criticizing the Bill Clinton administration.
At times it has seemed as if Obama wanted to identify with the 1992 version of Bill Clinton who was approximately the same age Obama is now and now was the last Democrat to actually win.
But Obama needs to differentiate himself from Bill Clinton as much as he does from Hillary Clinton. To the extent that voters want a third Clinton term there is no rationale for denying Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination. It is not plausible to depict her as having been a typical First Lady who merely did ceremonial work. She was an integral part of the Clinton administration. That is both her asset and her liaibility. Obama needs to take the bull by the horns and should take another line form John Kennedy's 1960 playbook: ”We can do better.”
The excitement that Obama has created thus far is not because of the ways he resembles Bill Clinton but because of the ways he is different from both Clintons and both Bushes. Part of his traction came from a lack of excitement about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.
One subtext of the Clinton campaign is that Obama is not ideologically different from Hillary. That is the supposed “fairy take,” Bill Clinton was talking about. If Obama is the same except for his eloquence, the argument goes, voters should go with the familiar brand name.
While acknowledging that Bill Clinton was most certainly better than either George Bush he must also remind voters that because of a lack of Presidential leadership during Clinton's time in office, Democrats lost both Houses of Congress. Bill Clinton failed to get national health care. He failed to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Bill Clinton failed to achieve labor law reform such as EFCA to make it easier for unions to organize. He failed to substantially increase the minimum wage. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. The disparity of wealth between rich and poor grew during Clinton’s administration as well as Bush’s . America can do better.
Bill Clinton's administration introduced the language of “regime change” which set the stage for the disasterous war in Iraq. This is part of the “mind-set” that led to war. Bill Clinton let genocide happen in Rwanda. America can do better.
Bill Clinton reinforced the conservative paradigm when he claimed that the era of big government was over. This helped enable the further deterioration of the Bush years. Obama needs to remind Democrats voters what their real beliefs are-and how both Clintons triangulated away from them. Democrats can do better.
Bill Clinton was a good President but not a great one. He didn’t change the landscape of American politics in the long-term. Such a transformation and not a third Clinton term is what America needs.That’s the case Obama needs to make because if Americans believe that the best they can get out of the federal government is what Bill Clinton had to offer, they might as well go with Hillary Clinton.
You are right that Obama must take on the Clintons. He has tried to avoid reminding voters that a vote for Hillary is a vote for a third term for Bill and politically that might not have been a poor decision. But this latest dynamic should force him to change.
He can now come out and explain more clearly that Hillary's experience is not much more than any other first lady (I would rank her above Pat Nixon but below Nancy Reagan). Remind the voter that when she argues experience, she is talking in code to those democrats that are fond of Bill that in fact when the red phone rings she will have Bill holding her hand.
Keep up the pressure on Nafta.
And why not point out that it was the Clinton's that pushed through the repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagel act. Remember, the one that said mortgage banking and investment banking should be kept separate. A rule change that has allowed, well we all know the answer to that.
March 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are indeed important ideological differences between Clinton and Obama. But the most important difference is probably connected more with governing style than political ideology.
The Clintons determine policy on the basis of patronage, exchange of favors and support from established constituencies. Do you think Hillary Clinton actually has a "global strategy"? Hardly. She lacks the imagination for that kind of vision, nor does she possess either the determination or inclination to pursue a strategic policy based on a frank and realistic assessment of the national interest, where such a strategy might run counter to the narrower interests of key Clinton backers. In a word, she's just a typical pol - a hack.
With Clinton, we'll get a Cuba policy written by Cuban-Americans, a Middle East policy written by Jewish-Americans, and a national defense policy written by the big defense industry players who are major stakeholders in the Clinton political operation.
This is just a Democratic version of pay-to-play Bushism.
March 8, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are the important ideological differences?
They don't stand out to me.
When one has been in power for a while, one develops the linkages and relationships you reference with regard to the Clintons. If you think it's going to work differently with a President Obama, well, we'll just have to see...
So far, he strikes me as relatively cautious...not a groundbreaker.
March 9, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Liberal I was never all that fond of Bill Clinton's administration, seeing him as too coroprate friendly. With that said, I couldn't help liking him as a person, he had a great personality and he seemed at ease among all classes of people.
What I feel today is an almost Pavlovian reaction to criticism of either Clinton, I jump to defend them. During his 8 years in office I defended him against the vicious attacks by the Republicans, in and out of Government, and the right wing noise machine.
If Bill Clinton would have aligned himself with the Liberals instead of the DLC he might have been on Mt Rushmore today.
As to the election, I'm not happy with either Dem candidate, but whoever comes out on top I will vote for in November.
March 8, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bill Clinton would have aligned himself with the Liberals instead of the DLC he might have been one term President.
March 8, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
So exactly how would America's first-black-president-to-be differ from America's first-black-president-who-was?
.
Obama can't make this case because he's a wet noodle. Every scrap of evidence from his current campaign and his thin, thin, thin record in Illinois politics indicates that he just has no fight in him, that he wants to cooperate with Republicans, compromise with corporate America, make nice, get along, make himself look good regardless. How Lieberman-like.
.
Of course, Hillary's no better. So the upshot is that the transition from a Bush to a Democratic White House will amount to handover of power from crypto-fascists to the bond market--Bill's great guiding light. I mean, honestly, no matter how this plays out, Robert Rubin or (God help us) someone like this anti-social-insurance Goolsbee character is really going to be calling the shots, right?
.
I suppose that's a positive change, of sorts, an improvement on Cheney. So rather than argue over something about which neither one of them can really make a good case, better for the Obama and Clinton camps to concentrate on the GOP-Dem difference, such as it is.
March 8, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
For better or worse, Bill Clinton is the only real winner the Democrats have had in decades... The only two term Democratic President since.... You count.
How can Obama attack that? What a miserable situation.
March 8, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats deny that Clinton Administration was a success, what is their claims to the Presidency? Republicans have Reagan, who is a popular President. How far back in the history Democrats have to go to find a popular Democratic President?
March 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The underlying problem the Democrats have is that they masquerade as a party of the left... and they are no such thing. Gore Vidal defined it perfectly: "There is only one political party in America, the Party of Property, which has two right wings, the Democratic wing and the Republican wing. The Republicans are simply more authentic. They are what they seem to be, while the Democrats aren't, the Democrats are like closet gays, living a lie and people are giggling behind their backs, especially real gays.
Clinton understood how this worked very well and offered a conservative package in progressive wrapping. Barack Obama understands it even better than Clinton did and offers nothing but wrapping. Emotional sensations of "change" for the sort of people that think that using a certain aftershave is a "statement".
People are not that dumb, you say?
Take a look at this:
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=QVbobdL3yi0
March 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, David, I've seen clips like this before.
But this one is monstrously appalling.
It was long, but I couldn't avert my eyes. And I could hardly believe my ears.
I'm beyond depressed.
Did not like your linking to Stop the ACLU a few threads ago, though.
March 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is FDR.
JFK might plausibly have won two terms, but it's FDR.
I can see being disappointed in Clinton; but you'd think folks would be a tiny bit more humble when they criticize Bill for having done this or that.
Here's a question for you: Who was the last progressive to be elected president--one term or two, I don't care?
March 9, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is obvious to me that Obama's entire campaign has deliberately but subtly included an attack on Bill Clinton. What else does he mean when he says "Its time to turn the page?" Implicitly his campaign has always included the Clinton Administration along with the Bush Administrations in its mantra for change.
This is what makes me so mad; this is sophistry. Thimgs were good during the Clinton Administration. The country was not involved in any major foreign conflict, and the economy was great. There was actually a surplus rather than terrible deficits.
So this whole deal of lumping the Clinton Administration with the Bush Administration is just garbage! Or maybe one might say, it is really trash-talking!!! If someone wanted to undermine the unity of the Democratic Party, this is a good way to start. This is one way to misleade younger voters, who were not too mature during those years.
And as the Obama campaing has progressed (?), it has proceeded to further divide the party. Let's see now, how about using the language of Malcomn X for those folks down south???
LOOKIT latte liberals. You are taking us DOWN!!
March 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink