"the Elmer Fudd "be-vewy-vewy-qwiet" school of political discourse"

[ProSense]

A really accurate discription:

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

[ginnyinWI]

1. bravo!

I'm glad somebody stood up and said it. I think he has the ability to charm a crowd, but otherwise got lucky, running at the time he did, and against two other guys. His good Democratic policies did the country a lot of good, but other Dems would have done the same or even better. Politically he is not the one all other Democrats should imitate when trying to run for president. I don't know if he'd even win now, in the post 9/11 atmosphere we're currently in.

[wisteria]

2. Clinton has the common touch. However, his wins were unique to

him and should not be used as a guide on how to win an election. This is where the party goes wrong. It remembers all the positive things and forgets about things such as how Clinton was responsible for us loosing the Congress. He also shares some blame for the party being viewed as lacking a moral compass and not being trusted. He took the party focus away from the people and went after big corporate money. In many ways the party disconnected from the people during his time in office. Frankly, I will be happy to finally see him yield his power to someone else.