GO BACK TO WHAT WORKS (Be Like Bill) By Al From and Bruce Reed

[ProSense]

GO BACK TO WHAT WORKS (Be Like Bill)

DEMOCRATS

GO BACK TO WHAT WORKS (Be Like Bill)

By Al From and Bruce Reed
Sunday, June 11, 2006; Page B04

As the 2006 and 2008 elections loom ever nearer, Democrats are racking their brains for a political philosophy that can return the party to power. Everywhere, we hear the same lament: If only Democrats had a proven formula for winning elections and governing the country.

Fortunately, we do: It's called Clintonism.

By any logical standard, Democrats of every stripe ought to be embracing Clintonism and its central tenets -- providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals. As an instrument of progress, it's beyond compare. Just recall its achievements: record budget surpluses, rising incomes, more than 22 million new jobs, millions leaving welfare and poverty for work.

As a political formula, its record is just as impressive. Not only was Bill Clinton the first Democratic president in 60 years to be reelected, but consider this: In the three elections before 1992, Democrats averaged 58 electoral votes. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton averaged 375. He won a dozen red states twice.

So why haven't Democratic elites embraced Clintonism -- particularly after the ill-fated campaigns of 2000 and 2004, when party nominees who shied away from it didn't carry a single Southern state? Unfortunately, some in our party never accepted Clinton's willingness to challenge orthodoxy to achieve progressive ends on welfare reform, fiscal responsibility, crime and trade

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902006.html

WTF? Saw that coming!

RJ Eskow
05.18.2006

The Bill Clinton Bubble -- and the "Senior Democrats" Who Promote It

Bill Clinton's charisma and political skill can't be denied, but some Democrats are living in the past, kept in thrall to an over-hyped image of him. Others, for self-serving reasons, actively promote the idea that Clinton's the best politico the Democrats will see in our lifetime. It's time to take another look at the legend and the reality.

Snip...

Remember who we're dealing with here. These "Senior Democrats" are from the "pretend-you're-a-Republican" wing of the party. They're the ones who keep telling us that a) Al (or John, or Russ) isn't the pol that Bill was, that b) a Democrat can't win by actually standing up for what he believes, and c) that Hillary's got that old Clinton magic and Al (or John or Russ ...) doesn't.

So here are a few facts for these "Senior Democrats - these "triangulators," these "Elvis Impersonators," these Dems from the Elmer Fudd "be-vewy-vewy-qwiet" school of political discourse:

Bill Clinton never won a majority vote for President, despite having policy positions that (according to polls) more closely represented the public's wishes than those of either opponent.

Al Gore won three million more votes for President than Clinton ever did, and John Kerry won over ten million more votes.

The Democrats under Clinton lost Congress in 1994 - to Republicans whose views were out of sync with the public's (according to the same polls), but who actually seemed to stand for something.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-bill-clinton-bubble-_b_21239.html

More stats for From and Reed to chew on:

Kerry's margin was 48% to Clinton's 43% of the popular vote his first run

Kerry also got 91% of the African American vote in TN, which was 2% higher than the national. He got the same in AL, 90% in MO, MS and LA and 88% in GA.

Both got more of the African American vote than Clinton (Gore 6% more and Kerry 4% more), and that Kerry increased his margin by 2.5 million more votes than Gore, I'd say Kerry did very well on that score.

[acmavm]

1. NOOOOOOOOO!!!

[emulatorloo]

2. kick and nom - ProSense, you are on FIRE tonight!! EOM

[Webster Green]

3. Yeah, and don't forget to inhale....

That's important.

[draft]

4. SPAM

yuck

[saltpoint]

5. I had hoped Mario Cuomo would run for president in 1992. Aware that

Clinton was a contender, I preferred other Democrats in the primaries.

When Cuomo decided not to run (he had in fact decided to run, but with the plane fueling on the tarmac in Albany to take him to New Hampshire to announce for the race for president, he and Clinton spoke on the phone -- I don't know who called the other -- and after that call Cuomo summoned the pilot in, paid him for his time, and told him to put the airplane back in its hangar).

With Cuomo out, I looked at Jerry Brown and Tom Harkin and liked them both.

Clinton was a distant fourth choice.

Once he was elected he did a lot of good for Democrats, although again, I was less enthusiastic about him than I might have been.

I rose to his defense when the loathsome Kenneth Starr decided to prosecute him for lying about sex. No evidence in the Whitewater investigation? No problem -- nail him for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. I thought that was a complete waste of several million dollars over information I wouldn't give you a nickle for.

Kerry's campaign rolled up bigger numbers on more ACLU-liberal stances on the issues, and I loved it. I thought Kerry-Edwards would have been a ticket for the people, as opposed to the Bush-Cheney screwjob we got. I respect Bill Clinton's accomplishments, and I acknowledge that he can work a crowd like nobody's business. But I love that 100% ACLU rating of Kerry's. Just love it.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Unless your Bill Clinton, Clintonism won't work.....

It's the guy and his skill that made the difference.....

But then as well 2006 ain't no 1992! period.

[AtomicKitten]

9. I agree.

And I adore Bill Clinton.

[blm]

11. Clinton ran against a president BOGGED DOWN in constant headlines from

IranContra, BCCI, and Iraqgate. (Thanks to John Kerry and Henry Gonzalez and a normal media atmosphere)

Kerry ran against a Bush who was turned into a heroic figure post 9-11 by the corporate media machine who also protected the image by NOT reporting his negligent and criminal actions.

And STILL Kerry got 13 million more votes than Clinton. BushInc had to pull out all the stops, suppress votes, purge voter rolls, and rig machines all over the country to stay in power.

[ProSense]

12. Exactly!

From even forgets that Gore won the popular vote!

[wyldwolf]

26. That's true, but he still won the primaries, and had to contend with..

...a third party candidate that got 20,000,000 votes. Twenty MILLION votes. Most analysts say Perot took votes from Bush and Clinton equally. So let's say Perot took 10,000,000 votes from Clinton.

Kerry had the benefit of running against a truly HATED opponent. The left was very motivated to vote.

[blm]

27. The left wanted an end to Reagan-Bush policies by then, and the LA riots

had just shown how out of touch BushInc was at the time.

I think you underestimate how motivated the left was in 92 and how distrusted Bush1 was by so much of the country (THANKYOU JOHN KERRY AND HENRY GONZALEZ) that even a third party was able to make a run.

Bush1 was nowhere NEAR as protected as Bush2 by the media and nowhere NEAR held up on a pedestal for as long as Bush2 was after 9-11. I think you REALLY have forgotten how easy it was for Clinton because of the constant bad headlines, while Kerry was faced with the exact opposite - Bush was PROTECTED so heavily - the media would barely show footage when a million people would protest Bush2.

[wyldwolf]

31. no, blm, I know exactly the feeling in '92

I was working the election. The left despised Reagan/Bush to be sure, but not in anyway like 2004.

[blm]

33. I was in LA at the time, and 12 years of Reagan-Bush disgust was palpable.

And you avoided the point about the media - Clinton had a media climate where bad headlines for Bush were constant thanks to JOHN KERRY'S determination on IranContra and BCCI, and HENRY GONZALEZ' dogged work on Iraqgate.

Bush2 was getting full on protection from the media - - - that's a big difference. And still Kerry won with 13 million more votes than Clinton received - and could Clinton have done the same as an unknown with the exact same media atmosphere?

[wisteria]

7. Wow! great articles. I say no to going back to the Clinton years.

Been there done that and I am a firm believer that you can not go back, only forward with good results. No, the second article brings it all into perspective. The Clinton years were good in some respects, but they were great for Clinton and very bad for our party. He left us without definition.

[unkachuck]

8. hey Al and Brucie....

...."Everywhere, we hear the same lament: If only Democrats had a proven formula for winning elections and governing the country."....

....funny, I don't hear that lament....what I do hear is, '..we don't need Big Al and Brucie types screwing up another election.'....

....you guys know full well, that if the Dems don't define themselves with something other than repug-lite-positions, we're going to lose and lose big....

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Bill's looking good as usual.

[Totally Committed]

13. Triangulate, triangulate, triangulate........

will someone PLEASE take AL From and lock him in a closet until after the '08 elections????

Billism worked for just ONE person -- Bill! Why? Because that's who he truly was. And he was masterful at it. Period. IT HAS NEVER WORKED SINCE.

As long as the Democratic Party continues to think this way, we will continue to get candidates who are "the lesser of two evils". People will be willing to hold their noses and vote for these middle-of-the-road paler-shade-of-Republicans for only so long before they give up and don't vote at all.

TC

[NicRic]

17. I find it hard to believe President Clinton is the only ......

Democrat that is capable of plain speaking and attracting not only the liberials in the party ,those who also are on the fence ,the moderates etc. I like Kerry very much and voted for him and Al Gore ,however in alot of their speeches you had the same old speeches that sounded like exactly that ,another politician giving a speech ,instead of a plain speaker like Bill a guy who made you feel like it was just you and him sitting at a table speaking to one another ? President Clinton is not the only Dem capable of this ,he seems to be the only one smart enough to realize people like those who listen to differant takes on a issue and then decide where they stand ,this is not being one that changes with the polls ,this is someone who uses the human brain for what it was designed for,to think about things before making a decision ! I have faith that somewhere in our party this person exsist ,somewhere there is another "Clinton type " who listens to all the people and makes a intelligent arguement that appeals to all of the people ,and except for the extremem on both sides in both parties ,you know the hard headed type,that stubbornly cover their ears and close their eyes ,that many of us are willing to find a common cause for coming up with answers to our differances and then make policy that will make the Dem party seen as a progressive party for change .I love Bill Clinton the last great President !

[Totally Committed]

18. No one else will ever be Bill Clinton...

I like Kerry very much and voted for him and Al Gore ,however in alot of their speeches you had the same old speeches that sounded like exactly that ,another politician giving a speech ,instead of a plain speaker like Bill a guy who made you feel like it was just you and him sitting at a table speaking to one another ?

No one will be able to recreate "Billism", nor should they try. Like I said... only Bill can be Bill. He won voters across the board because he was always himself. It's hard to distrust someone who is so unabashedly himself at all times.

He was also, arguably, the finest public speaker ever to be elected POTUS. He could speak extemporaneously for long stretches, because he had an intellect and a curiosity that allowed him to know a lot about a lot of different subjects. Few will be able to come close to matching him in this arena.

He was sandwiched between two of the dryest, most corrupt, Presidents in history. Neither of them can speak worth a sh*t, and can be trusted about as far as they can be thrown. He was also beset by a rabid Neo-Con infested Republican Party out to avenge the impeachment of Richard Nixon at all costs. These things made him SEEM like a great POTUS, but he was not. He was a good POTUS, but his social policies... as well as his trade policies, his media policies, and much more... were far to Corporate-friendly to help the least among us. For all his lip service to minorities, trade unions, women, and the poor, none of those groups flourished under him. The investor class, and the upper class made out well, and so did Business. Period.

No one else will EVER be Bill Clinton, and we will continue to lose elections until we stop allowing the DLC and their "advisors" to convince us otherwise.

TC

[blm]

19. Gore got 3 million more votes than Clinton, and Kerry got 13 Million more

than Clinton - what Clinton did NOT HAVE in 92 was a corporate media machine working exclusively for the GOP - that didn't manifest until 1997.

[Totally Committed]

22. I agree, and it was Clinton's de-regulation of the media

that has enabled this CORPORATE media machine to exist today.

TC

[OzarkDem]

14. Our policies are fine

We need unity, leadership and a cohesive message.

DLC's divisive tactics indicate they're not interested in helping Dems get elected.

[wyldwolf]

15. If the main concern here in the replies are statistics... remember...

The '92 and '96 campaigns had a viable third party candidate which drew votes from both major candidates. In 2000, Nader could have only dreamed of the vote totals Ross Perot got.

Let's also remember that the 2000 and 2004 elections had a very motivated electorate on both sides - especially the 2004 election. Al Gore, if I recall, recieved more votes than any Democrat on the presidential in history at that point because Democrats turned out to basically defend Clinton's turf. In 2004, the left had never been as motivated to oust a GOP administration, giving Kerry the second highest vote tally on a presidential level in history.

In closing, the polls indicate a certain Clinton nostalgia now. And who wouldn't want to return to that economy compared to what we have now? And I'm sure if given the choice between Clinton and some pie in the sky Huffington Post "expert," I'd bet the farm the American people would choose Clinton.

[blm]

20. Tru - but, would he open the books on BushInc if he got in again? No.

And this country will not rid itself of the fascists until the books are opened.

[wyldwolf]

21. Who knows? But I'm not really referring to Clinton himself...

..nor were From and Reed, but rather, Clinton policy.

[blm]

24. Clinton's policy was to pass issues by moving them rightward. He wouldn't

have HAD To move rightward if he allowed the American people to see the FACTS about BushInc for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

25. For the most part, I was satisfied with Clinton's policies

If they were a move rightward, then it was only rightward from Dem party policies that had moved increasingly leftward since 1968.

[blm]

28. Guess you're forgetting that Carter was a centrist in office and moved the

party right - guess you forgot WHY Ted Kennedy ran against him in 1980.

[Totally Committed]

30. Exactly! (n/t)

TC

[wyldwolf]

32. no, I'm not forgetting that

Kennedy's campaign in 1980 forced Carter to move some positions back leftward. This is a matter of public record. Kennedy's campaign and "act" on the convention floor in 1980 was a small contributor to Carter's 1980 loss.

However, the more liberal House was always at odds with Carter.

[JNelson6563]

16. It's almost as though

the reich wing media is getting their anti-Dem talking points from these guys.

[Totally Committed]

23. Funny how that works, isn't it?

I have believed this for a long time. A very astute observation!

TC

[AJ9000]

29. Clinton's policies were that of a moderate Republican of 25 years ago. He

was no liberal.

And probly neither is Gore.