Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Might the emails be grounds for impeachment? [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)94. Thank you so much, karynnj.
Was Gore serious in 1988, or was that part of the plan for 1992 and beyond, to begin to get Gore known nationally and perceived nationally as Presidential timber?
With Bubba, Hillary, Lieberman and others, Gore had been a founding member of the DLC. This anecdote may (or may not) have been about something that happened in 1989, but I believe that Bubba was always supposed to be the first DLC POTUS. Gore, with a famous political and liberal surname, and a Senator from Tennessee in his own right, was a near perfect running mate for the Governor of Arkansas, including from the standpoint of a Southern Strategy, which Democrats desperately needed by then.
A little after four oclock on the afternoon of April 6, 1989, I walked into the office of Governor Bill Clinton on the second floor of the Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock.
Ive got a deal for you, I told Clinton after a few minutes of political chitchat. If you agree to become chairman of the DLC, well pay for your travel around the country, well work together on an agenda, and I think youll be president one day and well both be important. With that proposition, Clinton agreed to become chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, and our partnership was born. With Clinton as its leader, the New Democrat movement that sprung from the DLC over the next decade would change the course of the Democratic Party in the United States and of progressive center-left parties around the world.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/recruiting-bill-clinton/281946/
My personal opinion is that this is spin, at least as to timing, if nothing else The DLC, which was founded in 1985 as a conservadem organization, did not just have an epiphany after the 1988 election to decide that being a conservadem was the way to go. Bill Clinton, a founding member of the DLC, hardly needed to be recruited in 1989, whether it was to head any political organization of which he had been a member since about 1985, or to be President, which his own words tell us he wanted to be since he went to Washington as a high schooler and shook JFK's hand.
Then again, I don't trust Al From as far as I can throw him.
Anyway, my point is, I don't know how seriously Gore was running for POTUS in 1988. I think the agenda all along was for Clinton to be the first DLC President. After all, being Senator Fulbright's mentee since high school and working in the Democratic Party for decades, it was his turn.
I don't like to speculate about what imaginary or dead Presidents would have done. Ironically, Democrats who were in office at the start of World War I, World War II, the Korean "Police Action," the Bay of Pigs, and the Vietnam "Era," have, since at least the anti-Vietnam movement, been defensive about being weak on defense. They have taken measures to counter that, including appointing Republicans as Secretaries of Defense, as did both Bubba and Obama.
After having been drawn into the Bay of Pigs, JFK became leery of the CIA and the Pentagon and had his brother to weave him through potentially mutually assured destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Democrats, starting with Johnson seemed to have forgotten all those lessons and, thanks to some turd, we lost RFK and no one has replaced him.
Anyway, the inexplicable defensiveness of Democrats on the (snort) "defense" issue may have led Gore to do something precipitous after 911, rather than avoiding war, nas most seem to assume he would have. Heck, even Sanders voted for the Afghanistan War. That'll teach those tribal farmers to go into Pakistan and turn Ben Laden over to the US!
Anyway, we'll never know. And, as nice as it is to imagine that Gore would most certainly done better after 911, I also think it's potentially dangerous to America to assume that we know exactly how imaginary (even real) will behave. Inasmuch as it's moot anyway, I don't see a reason to engage in a way of daydreaming that I consider potentially dangerous.
Sorry. As must be obvious, the imaginary President thing is a pet issue of mine. That's my only excuse, such as it is, for rambling about it. Come to think of it, the DLC is also a pet issue, so you were smack between Scylla and Charybdis, you poor thing.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
107 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Maybe Obama will pardon her as one of his last acts and render the whole matter moot. n/t
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#3
Yes, the last time they impeached a Clinton we got Shrub right afterwards.
Motown_Johnny
Mar 2016
#31
Clinton did not take damage. His ratings went up, he could not seek re-election and he is still
merrily
Mar 2016
#53
I agree it hurt Gore - remember Bush had a slogan to bring back honor and decency
karynnj
Mar 2016
#69
That was my point in mentioning that I first saw Bush announce on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.
merrily
Mar 2016
#91
A sitting President lying under oath to a grand jury is relatively serious, IMO.
merrily
Mar 2016
#38
Where is it required the act had to occur while in office as president?
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2016
#70
Well, according to that article cabinet secretaries can and have been impeached.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2016
#73
The email scandal is very much a matter of when she was in the cabinet.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2016
#75
Impeachment is the mechanism for removing someone from office because of high crimes & misdemeanors
EffieBlack
Mar 2016
#105
The investigation will likely be complete by then which will probably exonerate her.
DCBob
Mar 2016
#12
"Likely" and "probably" are your speculation. I wouldn't bet an election on either of them.
merrily
Mar 2016
#40
Not surprising that your sheer speculation and a % you pulled out of your ear are good enough for
merrily
Mar 2016
#54
That's a good question as it appears the consensus is the official's action...
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#65
It's widely believe that a President can't be criminally prosecuted while in office. That is why
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#67
the republians will certainly try; but Hillary will NEVER get elected president
amborin
Mar 2016
#33
No, if you want to go so far as to call this a crime (at this stage of the game)
Samantha
Mar 2016
#63
No if I were going to fantasize, I'd imagine her being impeached for BENGHAZI!
brooklynite
Mar 2016
#64
I'm waiting for someone to start shooting melons in their backyard, and breathlessly
msanthrope
Mar 2016
#72
Hillary could always "buy" her way out of impeachment with support for the TPP, fracking, etc.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2016
#78
Of course they will begin impeqchment hearings on day one, were she ever elected.
peacebird
Mar 2016
#79
It doesn't matter. The simple fact is that with a Clinton in the WH, scandals and impeachment will
magical thyme
Mar 2016
#86
I think this misses the point. The "scandal" is right-wing bullshit. But the content of the emails
Attorney in Texas
Mar 2016
#95
I agree it was an error, and I agree that she was godawful about admitting her error, but it is an
Attorney in Texas
Mar 2016
#97
We're on the same side here so don't take this as an attack, but didn't Colin Powell do this, too?
Attorney in Texas
Mar 2016
#99