Since Clinton is back in the news again, and part of the DU discussion,

[WilliamPitt]

here's some more food for thought:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101003A.shtml

The Mission
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 10 October 2003

"The right-wing politics that had forced the scandal were alien and unknown to much of the White House senior staff. To them, what the right was doing seemed so far-fetched, so impossibly convoluted, that they couldn't quite credit it. The self-enclosed hothouse nature of the right-wing world made it difficult to explain what was going on to those who lacked contact with it. Many had never even heard of people like Scaife."

- Sidney Blumenthal, 'The Clinton Wars'

(snip)

Many people believe the statement that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had." There are a great many facts to back this assertion, but it begs the question: If Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had, why did the Republicans work every night and every day for eight years, why do they continue to work to this day, to destroy him and the economic legacy he left behind?

The answer is complex. Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act, and for a variety of other reasons. In many ways, however, this does not tell the entire story. The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle.

But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back. Only after the impeachment mayhem broke loose did the tattered threads of progressive activism come back together again, but by then the damage had been done. Certainly, there were many progressives in America who fought the good fight every step of the way, but there were not enough of them. Progressives in 2003 who label Clinton as 'Republican' should take a long look in the mirror, and remember what they were not doing from 1993 to 1998, before casting final judgment. I am, sadly, one who has trouble facing that mirror.

An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

This was why he had to be destroyed.

The rest is coda. The impeachment, funded by right-wing activists and business interests, stormed along by a mainstream media whose Reagan-era deregulated status led to a complete breakdown in journalistic ethics, and all buttressed by years of unsubstantiated scandals pushed along by congressional zealots with subpoena power, left the American population exhausted enough to vote against their own best interests in 2000. Too many didn't vote at all. The "Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!" drumbeat that lasted over 2,000 days drove the voters into thinking a change was required. Though Gore won the election, the margin of victory was small enough to be exposed to theft by a partisan Supreme Court which, by rights, should not have come within a country mile of touching that case. A corrupted news media, again, pushed the whole farce along.

...more...

[Howardx]

1. as usual

impressive.

[Pepperbelly]

2. Right from the start, the activist community left him hanging ...

The unions, organizations advocating family issues and women's issues, the Democratic Party and, for that matter the Greens, should have had his and Hillary's back when the big drug companies came after them during their monumental efforts for something approaching universal health care.

Instead, the progressive spectrum let him take the damage, the loss and the mockery. Hell, some of our guys even joined in.

Dis-fucking-gusting.

And they are lining up to do the same to Kerry, right and left.

[demgrrrll]

3. I agree, that is a huge problem. While I don't necessarily want to march

in step with everyone else I'm certainly not opposed to a little unity and support.

[cornermouse]

4. I disagree.

The message that I keep getting from Kerry is that he doesn't want the left side of the democratic party near him, let alone supporting him.

Every position that he has taken since he started to run was moderate-to-right. He supports the Iraq war. He supports a draft. He even has let it be known that he considered inviting a republican to be his vice-president.

I suspect that part of the dissatisfaction that you keep hearing is due to the fact that Kerry is studiously ignorning and even snubbing the left side of the party. But guess what? If Kerry doesn't appear to want to represent them, they aren't going to feel any strong urge to vote for him. He could lose part of the voters who would normally support him. Without their votes he could lose.

[Pepperbelly]

7. again ... look at Clinton's experience with the ...

left when he tried for universal health care. Frankly, I wouldn't count on the left for any help whatsoever if I were Kerry BECAUSE of the evidence of their earlier inaction.

Thanx to the overwhelming support :eyes: Clinton had to move to the center to accomplish anything whatsoever.

[cornermouse]

9. So it is your position that the democratic party

should split up?

[Pepperbelly]

11. nope ...

it's my position that what you get is in direct proportion to what you give. After the abysmal performance of the left during the health care reform bushwhacking, all the way from unions to advocates for poor people, it is little wonder that those same people could get very little enthusiasm from Clinton in advancing their own agendas.

And if that is the type of support Kerry receives, what would you expect him to do? Use his own political capital to advance agendas whose supporters give him little support?

That is unrealistic.

[SharonAnn]

21. Remember the money the R-W paid for the Harry and Louise ads

against the Health Care Plan. They were powerful ads and run practically non-stop. They influenced a lot of people.

We didn't have organizations and funding set up to present the truth as loudly and as frequently.

BTW, Mr. Novelli (of Porter-Novelli who created the "Harry and Louise" ads) is now head of the AARP.

[Bandit]

23. It wasn't the left that abandoned him on health care

It was all the DLC centrist Democrats in the Democratically controlled Congress. The Democrats controlled Congress when Clinton tried to pass his health care plan and yet Democrats like Zell Miller broke ranks and voted against it. It certainly did not come from the left leaning Democrats. Also Clinton won the election with Health Care as his primary issue. Most Americans were completely for Universal Health Care. It was the Centrist Democrats with their Corporate leanings that killed it.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Will, you're correct about the (right wing) ARMY. They had a war

machine and the batallions advanced every day without the country knowing it. It was all equisitely orchestrated from talking points to lawyers at the highest level to the military and intelligence to civic employees to the Supreme Court to the fundamentalists to the public relations crap about what to tell the children to the behind the scenes activities to trap Lewinski and drain the bank accounts of employees and friends. And we can't forget the reforming of the objectives of Corporate Propaganda Broadcasting Systems.

However, they also wanted to dig up everything they could and make up what they couldn't dig up = to take him down and to attempt to even the score for Nixon and make people forget the disastrously traitorous act of Iran-Contra. They had to get back in power to hide their thieving and set up gains for their friends and move towards earth control and sublimation.

Yes, the progressives relaxed and yes, the people had no idea how organized the right was with tax-exempt foundations (lots) such as the Heritage Foundation grooming media employees, judges, civic employees, and lock step Stepford Senators and Congresspeople plus gun lovers and christians everywhere - all against him, against us.

Only now do we have a 'liberal' think tank, some radio programs, talk of a TV news system. All only a token attempt when compared to their 'organization' - their 'take-out' organization.

[peacetalksforall]

6. And that is why so many of us are nervous about Kerry.

[Pepperbelly]

8. maybe it's a better example of why ...

Kerry should be leary of the left.

[hlthe2b]

10. Excellent time to bring this back up...

"The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle. .....But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back."


Reading and listening to David Brock, who has pointed out that the same ready-to-go smear machinery (the echo chamber) that so effectively branded Gore as "untrustworthy, dishonest, exaggerating, and flip-flopping," are ready to go (and active) with Kerry. We have made little progress in four years in countering this, although internet sites, blogs, and now some limited progressive radio will help. Some may also "wake up" with the film release of Conason and Lyon's The Hunting of the President Nonetheless, it largely falls to the same grass roots activism that propelled Howard Dean to the forefront of the early Dem primaries to counter the Repug echochamber.

Thanks for this timely reminder, Will. I would argue that one of the early efforts we MUST push for under what I pray will be a Kerry administration and at least one majority in Congress,, must be the resumption/reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Regardless, that grassroots activism will only need to become stronger and not complacent.... Those who question what role DU would have with a major success in '04-- that's the answer....

[Pepperbelly]

12. you are exactly right in one regard ...

Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine is THE essential first step in restoring some semblence of value to our discourse.

[hlthe2b]

13. Only one?

:7

[Pepperbelly]

14. that was the part that jumped out at me ...

:D

[hlthe2b]

15. just pulling your chain....

hee, hee hee.......:toast:

[WilliamPitt]

19. .

[kymar57]

16. Damn!

If I was was 1/2 as smart as ya'll, I would post messages like this too. But I ain't, I cain't, so I won't.But thanks for the ammunition as I continue to battle those even dum....er less informed than me.:hi:

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

17. Im not sure if I agree.

Clinton was handed a defeat early-on with the gays in the miltiary dispute, then the defeat of the health care scheme.

The gay commuity was organized to support Clinton on this, but this was a small community int terms of votes and influence compared to the miltiary and thier right-wing supporters. There wasnt much support elsewhere, and I recall the "consensus", at least in the media, was that Clinton shouldn't "squander his political capital" on this issue. So there was that "don't ask/don't tell compromise".

The health-care plan would have probably been his big legacy, and that was a major defeat.

Then came the GOP takeover of Congress. So Clinton really wasn't setting the agenda. It was the GOP Congress that moved him to the right for pretty much the rest of his two terms. He managed to co-opt the right on welfare reform, and his opposition to gay marriage by signing DOMA (which was a pretty good bit of litmus-test legislation on the part of the GOP).

Oddly enough, Clintons big sucess was on the foreign policy front...facilitating the Good Friday Accords in Northern Ireland, the Bosnian intervention and th Dayton Accords, and the Kosovo intervnetion.

I would say in terms of budget issues, Clintons tax increase in his first term helped with the surplus, but the surplus was also due in large part to the boom economy of the mid-to-late 90s. Its really questionable how sustainable the surplus wouldve been (at those levels) in the long term.

[DoktorGreg]

25. Back to the left abandoning Clinton thread...

I remeber watching CSPAN in the 92-96 period. I specifically remember the gay community being absolutely outraged (outraged I say!) over the "Dont ask, Dont Tell" thing. That compromise wasn't good enough for them. They wanted the right to be flaming homosexual soldiers, and anything less than that was total defeat.

Also the health care liberals, felt totally betrayed (and caused its failure) that GASP! They had to pay for Healthcare still under the Clinton plan.

After that, NOW and Patricia Ireland turned on Clinton because he, exercised CHOICE, took advantage of poor Monica Lewinsky. Even worse, for the NOW liberals, Clinton thought abortion should be rare.

And it went on and on like that for eight years. Nothing Clinton Ever did was good enough for the liberal groups. You know who you are! I specifically remember you guys getting all angry and twisted when Clinton had the temerity to save the day in Kosovo.

Yes, there was a right wing echo chamber. Yes they said awful things. But their effect was only amplified by the left who abandoned Clinton every chance they got. The result has been the total destruction of the constitution, and probably long term imperilment of our country.

And here we are again. Kerry has a full blown crisis to deal with, but he isnt addressing your specific liberal cause with the strongest language possible. Not good enough for you, you would rather have Bush.



On Edit, Parent thread this isnt directed at you, its more directed at Liberals in general.

[WilliamPitt]

18. .

[theboss]

20. Too simplistic

It's not a matter of Clinton not having "an army" to support him. The Left has always had an Army. I can't go to dinner in downtown DC these days without running into a hundred thousand kids with puppets protesting God knows what. And - regardless of the cries about the Right-wing media - we still have a large sympathetic press at least on social and economic issues. And we still have an effective grass-roots union organization in place to get out the votes.

The problem is we don't have a philosophy or a network in place to develop a philosophy. The real tragedy of the last ten years is that the Republicans are beating our brains in with "ideas." Terrible ideas. Tragic ideas. But ideas nonetheless.

The Contract with America was awful, but we countered it with nothing. PNAC is an epic disaster, but it's a plan. When Republicans get elected, they know exactly what they want to do, they have the legislation written, they know who needs to lobby for it, how they should be lobbied, and where the editorials need to go.

Clinton had a vague notion for healthcare reform, took 18 months to come up with something, and delivered a system that no one understood. Meanwhile, it took Gingrich about two months to get everything in the Contract with America through committee.

The Republicans spent the late 70s and early 80s getting ready. We are just now getting our own think tanks, internet groups, fundraising groups, etc into place. We are 25 years behind them and it shows.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kaitykaity]

26. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[playahata1]

27. Do you have an axe to grind with Will?

First off, coming from someone who writes professionally and teaches writing, there is NOTHING wrong with incorporating "I" into one's writing. What the "I" has to to say can be universalized to an extent. Some of the best essayists and non-fiction writers out there use a personalized style -- from Mark Twain to Hunter S. Thompson.

If YOU can come up with something as articulate and well thought out and as well researched as what Will has done -- no matter what the perspective -- show us something, instead of just running off at the keyboard. Other than that, I see nothing in this post but playa-hating and sour grapes and green eyes. Peace.

[loudsue]

24. Very thought-provoking article, Will

There are so many elements to the battle progressives are fighting, and it seemed for a while we had a new, charismatic leader or two during the Dem primaries to rally behind.

The primary getting over so early pretty much silenced a lot of the voices, and IMHO, Kerry hasn't been showing as much leadership for our side as I wish he was. A movement, without a leader or two, is too easily dispersed and divided.

It's going to be an interesting next 4 or 5 years.


:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[WilliamPitt]

28. Thanks