Reply #11: I like this piece, Will... but I have an observation

[wyldwolf]

Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act...The passage of these rightist packages...

While these "packages" have certainly benefited those on the right much more so than those on the left (and have actually hurt the left as well), many variations of several of these had Democratic support all along.

Kennedy, Johnson, and FDR himself was in favor of some type of welfare reform. Clinton ran on the topic I believe.

Many Democrats were in favor of NAFTA but have since called for it to be modified or scraped.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Yes, I know there were always people on the left warning against these measures but we can't lay it entirely at Clinton's feet nor can we say they were totally "rightist." Perhaps a better description would be that they did little or nothing to help the working class.

But I agree fully about Clinton lacking the progressive network to back him. Sure, there are always fringe professional protestors on the left, but they hate everything to do with "working for the man."
They, themselves, hated Clinton in '92. For each good thing Clinton accomplished, they would say, "it isn't enough." For every bad thing, their cry was, "corporatist pig! See, I told you so!"

So, yes, it did take the impeachment to wake the base up and nudge the (as Michael Moore calls them) professional left into action in defense of Clinton.

And, indeed, people did vote against their own interests in 2000. Just as we appease a crying child with candy so it will hush, many voters grew weary of the "Clinton drumbeat" from the right and may very well have voted for Bush so they would just shut up!