Is this a fair description of Clinton and his influence? The Nation 2003

[madfloridian]

I am honestly asking this, as I learn more about the roles he played in this election. I am thinking about some statements he made at the Unity dinner earlier this year. And something he did there. He pointedly ignored Dean, did not include him in the thanks....just tossed it in later (and Dean got long standing ovation).

What really bothered me was that he also pointedly made a list of all the people who did not support Kerry during the primaries....it was done strangely...he said he did not. He said others did not...called them by name. Said Kerry won on his own...it was a left-handed compliment.

This article by Greider is from 2003, January. I will just post 2 paragraphs, as it is very long.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217&c=1&s=greider

SNIP.."A darker scenario was suggested by a Democratic lobbyist who described "Team Clinton" scurrying around Washington, setting up independent money pots and "issue" fronts to pre-empt other voices and to define the broad agenda for 2004 in Clinton's New Democrat terms. The ultimate objective, in this scenario, is to prepare the ground for Senator Hillary Clinton's eventual run for the presidency (when Mr. Bill might return to the White House as First Spouse). This insider chatter sounds melodramatic and way ahead of the story, but it's not exactly paranoid fantasy. The Clinton circle is busy building things. Whatever the intention, one consequence could be to smother any internal debate about what the party really believes and how to enlarge its sense of purpose.

And from page 3 of the article, and this is something I was not paying attention to then.

SNIP..."On the domestic front, Clinton warns Democrats not to go too far with this "corporate accountability" stuff, lest they injure those "entrepreneurial giants" of Silicon Valley who made the 1990s glow with New Economy promise. "We, especially the DLC, ought to be talking about not killing the goose that laid the golden egg." Clinton's prescription: "We've got to be pro-business and pro-accountability." He takes the same evenhanded approach to poverty. His great achievement (the draconian welfare reform) "worked superbly," Clinton allowed. But, hey, maybe not entirely. "We need to ask ourselves, do we need to provide more incentives than we are presently providing to help poor people who fall into the cracks?" Raising the minimum wage is not on his agenda, much less embracing the "living wage" standard. All in all, the Clinton trumpet summons the Democratic Party to stick with his Goldilocks politics--not too hot, not too cold, but just right for Soccer Moms and Office Park Dads..."END SNIP

I know there must be the right balance of pro-business and accountability.....but in NAFTA, which passed under his watch...there is none of that.

I guess when I found this article, it brought to mind all the talk this week about the future of the party. It sort of reinforces the pro-business aspect of his views, though he came across as a people person as well. I know he has declared Howard Dean unelectable..I won't put the quote here...but it is true...civil unions you know..can't have them. It sounds like he is still pretty much in control of the party, though. Guess I was naive that we had a choice. I am analyzing more than criticizing. I wondered a lot about his Unity dinner speech, but in the name of peace did not bring it up. I think it is time to mention it. Tape is still at C-Span.

[madfloridian]

1. Here is a link to the Unity dinner video.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=unity+dinner&image1.x=36&image1.y=13

[Mend]

2. Clinton Won Twice

Our reproductive rights were secure, our kids were not going to be drafted for war, there was no war, there were jobs, great economy. Too bad if that was not good enough for some people....it was good enough for me and it was getting better for gays, blacks, browns, and all the other people who still don't have equal rights. Now we are screwed.

[madfloridian]

3. I am trying to establish if the party is this firmly in his hands.

That is all. I was fine with his presidency in most ways, but I think they should not be picking candidates. There are so many factions, I am just trying to see if this is a fair article. I think the party needs to be more progressive, populist, stand up against war, stop cutting taxes so much, etc.

[janx]

8. I don't think so. The various media would have us believe so,

but I doubt it's actually Clinton himself who is leading or controlling the Democratic party.

Clinton was a fine president, but he wasn't a political strategist. That wasn't his job.

The people who are behind him, however...

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. I agree with you 100%

Clinton put this country on the right track, and now we have shit!

[madfloridian]

5. I agree we did well.

However, I am trying to figure if hands are playing politics that should not be, especially in this election. If you read the article, you will see what I am saying.

Watch the video. I am not being critical of Clinton as a president, just wondering if too many hands are in the pie right now.

[sadiesworld]

7. The tech boom of the 90's masked a lot of the damage done by

GATT/NAFTA. Now the tech jobs are being outsourced and the manufacturing base has virtually disappeared. We're going to continue to bleed jobs copiously over the next few years and all the DLC proposes are band-aids.

If dems want to continue to listen to the DLC, fine. But the Left will not stand behind a centrist-moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to Corporatism in 2008. I know I won't and I am a lifelong dem. I can only imagine how the Greens feel. This was the unity shot...the DLC won't get another.

[madfloridian]

6. Rubin to Dean: Don't oppose NAFTA or you won't get campaign money.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=greider

SNIP..."The governor has shown flashes of the same bluntness in his prime-time campaigning. Last summer, he told a revealing story on himself--a conversation with Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary and Wall Street's main money guy for Democrats. Rubin had warned that unless Dean stopped attacking NAFTA and the multinationals for the migration of US jobs, he couldn't raise contributions for him from the financial sector. As Dean told it, "I said, 'Bob, tell me what your solution is.' He said, 'I'll have to get back to you.' I haven't heard from him." What I like so much about the story is that powerful, influential Bob Rubin pokes Dean in the chest, and he pokes him back. Then Dean discloses the exchange to the Washington Post..."

This is how the influence of the Clintons continues, be it right or wrong. I don't know if it be right or wrong, but we do need to look at the facts.

Dean was told by a former Treasury Secretary for Clinton to stop attacking NAFTA or he would not get financing. Kerry was told to vote for the marriage act. Yes, there is going to be a battle for the heart and soul.

[madfloridian]

10. Kick because our Dems say not to attack outsourcing and NAFTA

And we need to think about that, don't we?

[chimp chump]

11. .

"Dean was told by a former Treasury Secretary for Clinton to stop attacking NAFTA or he would not get financing. Kerry was told to vote for the marriage act."

Different measures. NAFTA is the darling of the corporations. Of course Dean wasn't going to get contributions from outsourcers if he vilified them.

Kerry's support of gay marriage bans would have made no difference. He didn't lose those votes because they were never his to begin with. For him to win those votes, he would have had to never be antiwar, always been pro-life and anti-gay marriage, etc.

You should instead be wondering how he barely beat Bush among women. And that Bush improved his turnout with blacks and other minorities.

FWIW, I don't think much of Clinton as campaign strategist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Like The Clinton Presidency...

That being said Hillary Clinton will get us killed if she runs in 08...


Wrong person...


Wrong region...


Wrong time....