How did Bill Clinton's 8 years impact the Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

For almost the entire eight years of Bill Clinton, I was pissed off at the compromise with the Republicans or the downright support of Republican policy. At one point, I even switched to the Independent Party.

Now, we wonder why the Democrats are so spineless? Why they don't stand up to the Republicans and present their own agenda and vote on it and stop kow-towing to the Republicans?

In my opinion, many of these attitudes and behaviors began under the Clinton Administration. They were intent on going the "third way". And most Democrats went along so they could keep the White House. At least, that is the way I recall it happening?

[Captain Hilts]

1. 'Began'? Dems have always been spineless.

Can't blame that one on Bubba.

They rolled over and played dead for Reagan and GHWB.

[meegbear]

4. Just about to post that ...

ain't worth shit for a long time.

[Tesha]

40. That's not true; they weren't always spineless.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and several other
landmark pieces of legislation passed during the Sixties come to
mind.

Tesha

[Joanne98]

2. He was the best damn Republican we ever had. He pushed though all the big policies

the GOP had been fighting for.

DE-REGULATION of.. Energy, banking and telecom.

WELFARE REFORM.. Now we don't have a floor to poverty which opens the door for getting rid of the rest of the new deal.

NAFTA.. WTO and admitting China into the WTO..

Thanks a lot.

[WI_DEM]

3. Well nationally the Dems lost ground under Clinton--lost house, senate, governorships, state

legislative seats--the works except for the presidency. In the presidential race he never got higher than 49% but in a three way race that was more than enough to win. Obama is very popular among democrats--if polls are to be believed, he routinely has the support of 90-95 percent of democrats. Republicans are starting to peel away from Obama, so it's independents who, as always, decide elections. This is why there is so much caution, not only under Obama but under Clinton. They believe you can't anger the middle or all will be lost. We'll have to see in 2010 how the dems do in mid terms.

[bigwillq]

5. He almost ruined it.

:mad:

[billyoc]

6. Craven triangulation and bow-and-scrape bipartisanship was encoded in the Democratic DNA.

Along with an organizational commitment to free market fundamentalism and media monopolies.

Good times.

[madrchsod]

7. he gave us the big pile of dog shit known as neo-liberalism

and the stench still pervades the party.

the progressives and liberals saved the party this election cycle and now neo liberals have no use for us.

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. He did a great job. Good to see that Obama will

turn out to be a lot like him, minus the infidelity. The thing is that not all Democrats are super leftist and as such you will not always get what you want. The left of our party, just like the right of the republican party always find ways to fuck up a good thing. All in all though Clinton did a great job.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Clinton did the best he could with the Congress he had. nt

[WI_DEM]

15. true, and in the first term of Clinton he had about the same dem majorities that Obama now has

103rd congress 93-95: Senate 57-43 dems House 258-176 dems
111th congress 09-11: Senate 59-40 dems House 257-178 dems

I think this is why Obama is trying to do so much on so many fronts this year because he knows that the odds are that the GOP will gain some ground in the next congressional election.

[Captain Hilts]

Republicans gained seats in '92 when he was elected. The tide was still turning right. nt

[WI_DEM]

24. So? he still had roughly the same numbers in the house and senate as Obama now has.

That's all I said. (also recall that in 1990 election Dems did gain seats in house and senate, and you are true GOP did gain some back in '92). We don't know what 2010 will have. But even with overwhelming democratic majorities in the house and senate in '93-'95, he just barely got his economic program passed and failed on health care. We'll see what happens with Obama on health care. I'm pretty sure we will get something, but obviously not as much as most here would want.

[Captain Hilts]

26. Trends are important. The country was still turning right. 'Reagan Democrats' were still common. nt

[karynnj]

22. If you consider that 2 of Obama's "Democrats" are Specter and Jeffords

it is even closer than it appears.

[WI_DEM]

25. No, Jeffords is gone. The other "Dem" is Lieberman, worst than Jeffords.

[karynnj]

28. oops you're right - I forgot Sanders replaced him!

(that was brain dead)

[WI_DEM]

12. true, if you break down the dem party by labels liberals actually make up only about

a quarter of the party. The rest consider themselves moderates or conservatives. I consider myself a liberal but a mainstream Kennedy/Humphrey liberal.

[JHB]

35. But what does that mean, "mainstream Kennedy/Humphrey liberal", in 2009?

I was born in '64, so I don't have any real reference points for Humphrey, JFK, or even RFK. And Ted has been painted as the very embodiment of "ultra-liberal" since I was a very little kid.

Not to mention all the economic and social conditions that are different from the early- and late-60's. You have people today regularly appearing on television and in Congress who will tell you with a straight face that the kind of economy we had back in Eisenhower's or JFK's day is "socialism".

So what do you mean by "mainstream Kennedy/Humphrey liberal"?

[JHB]

33. Whenever I see a comment like this, I want to ask...

"So, exactly what do you consider 'super leftist'?"

In fact, I think I will:

So, exactly what do you consider "super leftist"?

[SIMPLYB1980]

38. People on our side of the isle who argue for things that have no way to pass, and

call our president a sell out if he doesn't do it their way. Among other things.

[dysfunctional press]

9. he made the old center the new 'left'...while the pukes made the old far right the new right...

nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

27. succinct and accurate, IMHO.

:thumbsup:

and the old "right" became the center.

Meanwhile of course, the public is moving left.

[dysfunctional press]

39. and clinton governed from the new 'center'...

but then, it sometimes seems that most southern democrats would probably be republicans in the north.

[get the red out]

11. Republicans were climbing then

The Republicans were climbing toward the height of their power during the Clinton years. They demonized him and achieved legitimacy, and Clinton kept going along with them on policy. NAFTA being the stellar achievement in efforts to destroy our economy and the middle class. Then Republicans reached their height after 911, death and war are their cup of tea, they thrive on fear and hate. Now we are in new territory, it is hard to say what happens. The Democrats still are way too cautious and they pretend that they have a formidable rival even though the Republican Party has disolved into an almost strictly southern white male bunch of Religious Fanatic loons. Very strange dynamic.

[el_bryanto]

13. I think there is a question to be asked

Do Obama and Clinton genuinely believe that their middle of the road policies are the right answer for America? In that case well, well you might disagree with them, but you can't really fault them morally.

Or do they, in their heart of hearts, want to see a more liberal nation than they are willing to articulate outloud, but feel their middle of the road policies are the only way to move in that direction. In that case, well, it's mildly dishonest but it's a tactical question.

I don't know.

Bryant

[Captain Hilts]

23. That's THE question. Obama was hanging out with Sam Nunn and Jim Cooper during the campaign.

And they are the two guys who, respectively, stopped the legalization of gays in the military and stopped healthcare reform for nearly 20 years.

Both Bubba and Bam are slippery customers, so it's hard to tell what's them and what's politics.

[Beacool]

14. Oh geez, here we go again............

Yeah, blame Clinton for every freaking bad thing that happened to this country.

I guess that the 8 years of prosperity we had then must have been a figment of my imagination.

The left, far worse than the right when it comes to disparaging the Clintons.

Some Democrats have no balls because they never had them in the first place. I don't see that many in exhibit right now either, and that includes from the very top down.

Stop blaming Bill Clinton for everything!!!!!!

x(

[WI_DEM]

16. Don't worry they are starting to blame Obama for everything now.

[Beacool]

29. Yep, that they are..............

:7

[leftofthedial]

17. his reign overtly turned the "democrats" into Amurka's second

(and second-rate and second-fiddle) corporate party. He completed the "democratic" abandonment of workers.

[kentuck]

19. But, I think we kept waiting and waiting to see the results...

that would help the working people and the average Democrat....but it never came. Robert Rubin may have been his biggest mistake?

[Winterblues]

18. IMO it was because Democrats blew it on Health Care that they were thrown out in masse

Clinton was certainly not "left wing" but he was the best President we had had since JFK..IMO Imagine what could have been accomplished if Republicans had not been in full attack mode for eight straight years...

[kentuck]

21. That is the CW (conventional wisdom)

But I don't know if that is true or not?

[Selatius]

34. The Dems "blew it" on FMLA and NAFTA on top of health care reform.

FMLA did not include a paid maternity leave clause. That was a big concession to conservatives. NAFTA obviously didn't include any labor protections or environmental protections. These were also big concessions to corporate interests pushing for the free trade deal.

All of this meant a lot of Democrats simply stayed home in 1994 during the mid-term elections.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. He convinced the Democratic Party that being neutered was for it's own good.

And, successfully pulled off a Democratic version of Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

[tom_paine]

32. Him, the DLC, and trillions of dollars. n/t

[kentuck]

30. I think the thing that pisses off a lot of Democrats is...

that they don't even try. They assume that the middle is the Republican position. So they don't even try. They begin by compromising their principles. The Democratic Party has not always been like that.

[tom_paine]

31. Oh, I think it started before Clinton, though he clearly did a lot of neutralizing.

Look at what happened with Iran-Contra, four years earlier?

We had them dead to rights for HIGH TREASON! And we let them walk.

And so much more. By the time Clinton even got in office the die was already cast.

But yes, Clinton and the DLC put the final kibosh on any semblence of actually being a seperate party. Sadly, for the most part it appears as if Obama is merely another Clinton.

United States of America 1776-2000. RIP.

But it was putrifying and dying long before that. Now we have an Inverted Totalitarianism, a Corproate Oligarchy that is way too far entrenched to be changed by anything less than total revolution.

And if we even had the gumption to try that, the Bushies would simply finish Nazifying-Bushifying as needed. The number of Bushie Brownshirts is now more than enough to fully Nazify. Law Enforcement is already mostly Bushified.

We are fucked. Clinton did his part, but it started long before him. Maybe all the way back to the Bushies killing the Kennedy Brothers.

Maybe all the way back to FDR letting Precsott Bush and his Nazi Friends when we had THEM dead to rights for HIGH TREASON.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

It may well be that, even before our brief moment of egalitarianism and greatness 1945-1980, the seeds of tyranny were already sown.

Just like the Roman Republic.

[Romulox]

36. Wrenched it hard to the right.

Now "Free trade", War on Drugs, and Imperialist Adventures are "main stream" Democratic positions.

[ccharles000]

37. I like Bill

[FrenchieCat]

41. The telecommunications act of 1996 gave us the Cable Clowns as they are currently

in all of their glory.

In signing that bill, Clinton guaranteed disaster for the American people for years to come.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Clinton was the inevitable result of the Democratic Party's split with white working class people

Fact is that a lot of white working class people said "fuck you" to the Democrats because of civil rights and other progressive legislation that Democrats supported. Democrats consequently said "fuck you" to labor since labor could no longer deliver the votes that it used to be able to since social issues were more important to white working class people.

The result is that after the economy goes south after 12 years of GOP rule, you get a Democrat who tells white people he can fix the economy and that just like the Republicans he will make sure those lazy black welfare queens go back to work.

Yes FDR got more populist economic legislation passed than Bill Clinton. He also didn't do jack shit about civil rights because he knew then it would've split that very coalition that allowed him to get that economic populist legislation done. The fact is that nobody has ever managed to hold together a coalition for very long that is simultaneously socially progressive and economically populist. It's either one or the other.