Unfinished Business
When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, not only were Democrats rejoicing, but Republicans were seething. This upstart politician, from the backwoods of Arkansas had defeated the President. Demoralized him. Made him look like a weakling and a dolt. Republicans were mad. There was unfinished business for them and 4 years had been stolen from them.
I believe that they began plotting against Bill Clinton right away. They succeeded in wresting the Legislative branch from the Democrats just 2 years later and commenced to investigate the hell out of Clinton. Travelgate, Whitewater, Monica. Bill’s compromises (“don’t ask, don’t tell”, Health insurance, etc.) were never revisited because of this onslaught culminating in impeachment. The last hope for a Clinton Legacy was a Gore victory to provide a new face on the progressive agenda that Bill had set out to complete. But it wasn’t to be.
Instead, we got George W Bush. He had unfinished business to attend to. In his first few days, he had rolled back most of the executive orders that Bill Clinton had attempted to force through. And his neocons got their chance to finish the business when the planes struck on September 11th. W. is like one of those dead people from Stephen King’s Pet Cemetery. Yes, they are the same person, but they seem to have gone horribly wrong once they return. He is the perfect President for his base and an abysmal excuse for a human being for many more. He is almost universally despised across the country and the world due to his need to finish the business that his Father hadn’t been able to.
There is a segment of our society that sees Hillary embody the unfinished business of Bill Clinton. The Democrats are back in control of Congress and look to extend that lead in November. There are a number of programs that were thwarted by the Republicans in the 90’s, which this segment is willing to do anything to achieve.
I am very wary of these frequent diametrically opposed forces swinging the pendulum of national politics so violently back and forth. I am no moderate, but I believe in moderation. If you are supporting Hillary because she will bring back the glory days of Bill, you are wrong. There is no easier or kinder way for me to say it. Hillary will be even more divisive than Bill ever was, and will more likely resemble George W. Bush. The attacks will renew and we will likely squander our lead in Congress at her first mid-term election.
Obama is the voice of moderation. I have played Obama in the past. I am the guy that sees a fight brewing between two drunks and steps in to cool them down and have another beer while I figure out who’s driving them home. We have to have someone step in and be the adult here. Hillary isn’t that person. She is one of the drunk brawlers and this fight has been going on since 1992 (and maybe earlier). We finally have someone that is stepping in to break it up on the side of the Democrats and Hillary sucker-punches him below the belt. Her behavior is to be expected, I guess. She has unfinished business to attend to.
Can anyone still question what Obama means by “change” after watching the way Hillary has run her campaign? Oh, she’s a fighter, alright… but what is she fighting for? Or, better, who is she fighting against? It sure as hell isn’t John McCain and the republicans.
Her ‘do anything to win’ strategy has damaged her base – and I am not referring to white, blue-collared males in the rust belt. Progressives, activists, grassroots… all cast aside in favor of ‘low information’ white, male voters who, come November, will end up in McCain’s camp.
Divisive? You betcha. Destructive, too. For not only has Hillary attacked Obama, she’s gone out of her way to attack his supporters as well.
I fear her damage is irreversable. If she goes nuclear, and steals this nomination the new, young voters will tune out and the African American vote will sit at home in November. She will have no money, because Obama supporters won’t write checks. And why should we? Hillary has made it clear we don’t matter, that we’re latte drinking elitists who believe in fairytales.
Gas tax holiday, obliterate Iran, suddenly against NAFTA, guns? What’s next? Will she become pro-life when campaigning in West Virginia and Kentucky? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Ah, but along comes Oregon, a very green, progressive state. Bet we don’t hear about the gas tax holiday in this state.
Well said. AGREED.
geek
The only real problem I have with your analysis is about the potential Gore succession.
It was always my read that Clinton was at best lukewarm on a Gore presidency, and if 2008 is any comparison, didn’t do a damn thing to get him elected.
I would have said that this was the first fracture in the DNC Dems that allowed the Dean faction in the door. Am I wrong about that?
I think you have a point, Steve, only reverse the players. I think Gore distanced himself from Clinton because of Monica and the impeachment. The family values gang was out for blood in 2000, and Gore spent a lot of time trying to deflect the Clinton scandals, and not enough on the Clinton/Gore economy. And the MSM fed it.
Pandora’s right — it was Gore and his people who kept their distance from Bill and it drove Bill right up the wall. Heck, it drove some of Gore’s supporters up the wall too.
You’ve done a great job on this analysis, LG. Have you ever read David Brock’s memoir, Blinded by the Right? What was remarkable about Brock’s book is just how focused the VRWC can get (and how much money they have available to do that). The entire Clinton presidency was crippled by the constant effort to make him an illegitimate leader and was, frankly, why even the vaunted Third Way politics was something of a failure. Clinton kept triangulating towards the right as the right keep moving ever more rightward.
Hillary is running to the right now, (when the Weekly Standard starts looking at you as one of their own, look out). Any progressiveness she may claim is certainly triangulated away now, and she will certainly do that if President.
I agree Pandora. I think it was a miscalculation on Gore’s part to not include Bill in the campaign. It was my impression that Bill would have liked to campaign for Gore, but Gore was having none of it.
Gore was the last bit of a legacy that Clinton just couldn’t hold on to. Add to this, that Hillary was conducting an historic campaign at the same time, and you can see where Bill may have been somewhat distracted from the Gore campaign.
But you are right, Steve, that the seeds of discontent among Democrats were sown in that election. Dean saw some space there and started exploiting it, but Gore 2000 would have been more DLC than Deaniac. Gore 2008 has readjusted himself and would likely have run as a hybrid of Dean and the DLC.
Cassandra, I have not read it. I’ll try to pick it up this week. Your triangulation comment is spot on. I felt betrayed by Bill Clinton MANY times throughout his administration. People forget that, but it will happen with Hillary, as she recreates an Iron Lady image. A Maggie Thatcher for the moderates.
“A Maggie Thatcher for moderates”
If you’d been writing for her, geek, she’d probably be doing better
I felt betrayed by Bill Clinton MANY times throughout his administration.
Knowing that he was going to win anyway, I did not vote for him.
Gore’s horrible campaign is somewhat excusable because (even with the VRWC going after Clinton for 8 years) he didn’t know exactly what the Bush/Rove machine was all about. He didn’t know how much they hated the Constitution and our democratic traditions anyway.
John Kerry on the other hand….don’t get me started.
The convetional wisdom of running toward your base in the primary and towards the moderates inthe general is like fighting the last war.
If Rove has proven anything, he has proven how stupid and gullible the American public can be. The 10% in the middle are not picking moderates – they are picking the person they think seems like a “winner.” They want to be affiliated with the winning team.
The new Rovian paradigm is run hard toward your base in the primary and harder toward your base in the general.
As the other side triangulates and moderates they will look like weak losers, and the 10% of non-partisans will come over to your side because your candidate will look “authentic” and “real.”
I’m utterly shocked that a great many Democratic “strategists” like Donna Brazille don’t this.
They want all want to fight the last war.
BTW – That’s why the right wing loves Hillary. They get it.
Her pandering is an electoral disaster waiting to happen for the down ticket dems.
Steve – thanks for the compliment. It means a great deal coming from you. I’d probably decline Hillary’s offer, though.
I felt betrayed by Bill Clinton MANY times throughout his administration.
Me too. And, I think that once serious historians get to the Clinton record, he will end up in the middle of the pack in terms of Presidential job performance. And he did little (altho he wasn’t often in a position to) to help downticket Dems except perhaps in fundraising.
Al Gore was running HRC’s campaign when they were in there inevitable phase. Lots of micropolling, lots of carefully weighted messages and performances, and much courting of positive media spin.
And Al Gore is on Fresh Air this afternoon — 3PM on WHYY.
“Obama is the voice of moderation.”
Now I have heard everything. The most liberal member of the Senate is now the voice of moderation?
That really is hilarious.
Barack “there’s nothing wrong with drilling holes into the heads of full-term babies” Obama is going to be the voice of moderation! You are priceless!
Seriously, thank you for this post. I needed a good laugh.
Yes I agree it was a mistake for the Gore folks not to use Clinton based on his and Gores record. But the thing that upset me the most was Gore’s performance in the debates against Bush. After watching Gore decimate Pero and Kemp in their debates I was shocked at how badly he did against Bush