I wonder if Clinton had gone thru this in '94 when we lost congress and his approval rating

[WI_DEM]

was in the 30's? You know with people saying he "looks worn out" and "he won't run again" and "he's burned out by his job" all that shit?

Then what happens--he runs again and wins by ten-points.

Obama will do the same.

[villager]

1. Of course, he was saddled with a GOP congress for most of that

...and could only pursue a corporatist agenda...

[WI_DEM]

2. No his first two years in office he had a democratic congress as Obama does

Yes, he lost congress but in the midterm election. I'm talking about similar points in presidencies.

[villager]

4. well, you also mentioned his re-election, at which point, the saddling was well underway

but yes, there was the similar squandering of a Democratic congress, as well...

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. As opposed to Obama who is saddled with a DLC/Blue Dog congress

and can only pursue a corporatist agenda.

[karynnj]

11. Not before 1994 - which is what the op speaks of

That may be a good reason to fight to prevent a repeat.

[Enrique]

3. losing Congress was more important than Clinton's approval numbers

and the 2010 election is more important now than Obama's numbers.

[leveymg]

6. Obama is losing Congress for exactly the same reasons: too much triangulation, not enough

real reform. Both were elected by progressive majorities. Both lost them along the way when their progressive compass failed.

A personal sense of loss and betrayal for me, as I worked like hell to get both elected, particularly Obama.

[ProSense]

7. Disagree.

The economic climate, specifically jobs, has more to do with it the upcoming elections than anything else.

Also, it's doubtful that the Dems will lose nine Senate seats as they did in 1994.

[leveymg]

9. Elections don't really repeat themselves, but American politics is cyclical, and does follow pattern

One pattern is that when the base is alientated, that Party does not win the next few election cycles. For the Democrats, the key years when the Progressive base was alientated and the Democratic Party lost significant power were 1948 (Cold War purge of the Henry Wallace Progressive Left), 1968 (Vietnam and the split into Eugene McCarthy/Hubert Humphrey wings), 1994 (aftermath of Clinton's HCR debacle and Welfare Reform alliance with the GOP), and now 2010 (HCR again, Afghanistan War continues, perception that Obama and Dem. Senate are Wall St. captives.)

The repeating pattern here is the Dem base (which is way Left of the most of the leaders and establishment) gets disillusioned, don't knock on doors. GOP takes over one or more houses of Congress and often the Presidency. I see this pattern repeating again, don't you? The one smart thing the GOP has done is to keep its base energized.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. From what I can remember

With the exception of maybe NAFTA, Clinton pursued a pretty progressive agenda during his first two years in office. He got his more progressive economic plan (barely) adopted and got the first significant gun control legislation enacted (Brady Bill, Assault Weapon) ban, and he TRIED to lift the ban on gay and lesbian service members although it was unsuccessful and had to settle for DADT- which, for those who remember- prevented Congress from writing the military ban outright into law. His signature proposal- universal health care- was his most ambitious but ultimately crushing and debilitating failure during those first two years in office. At any rate, I don't remember that progressives were necessarily all that unhappy with him during those first two years in office. Progressives seemed to mostly sour on him after the Republicans re-took Congress and he spent the rest of his Presidency triangulating and signing off on some unpleasant and/or shitty pieces of legislation like DOMA, Welfare Reform, Telecom de-regulation (though in some cases the legislation ended up being *better* with him having input in them than they would've been without it IMHO).
The 1994 election was, from my recollection, the confluence of Democratic "scandals" in Congress, voter discontent with entrenched incumbency, Republicans ginning up fear and anger over Bill & Hillary Clinton, "angry white men" ginning up fear and anger about gun control, and the religious right ginning up fear and anger about social issues like abortion, equal rights, and "secularism". I'm not sure that progressives (or lack of support thereof) had much to do about that election but I could be wrong.

As for Obama, I don't know for sure what the breakdown in terms of the voting was exactly so I can't tell if he was elected by a "progressive majority" or not but Obama got votes from a lot of different quarters, including a lot of right-leaning independents and some disaffected Republicans, mostly because they (rightly) viewed him as the more sensible/rational choice over McCain and THAT was mostly because of his VP pick. Had McCain nominated somebody like, oh, say, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, or even Kay Bailey Hutchinson for VP, Obama might've still won but probably by a lower margin.

[leveymg]

12. I largely agree with your take on that. By 1994, there was already widespread

disillusionment among Liberals (there were few self-described Progressives, and even fewer open Leftists - that's one area where there has been real political progess made - the Left is much less marginalized as a group within the Party and more generally acceptable as an ideology the further we get from the end of the Cold War. Nothing boosted the relative stature of the Left more than Bush-Cheney.

I read the first two years of Clinton as mostly a legislative failure. Gay rights in the military that morphed into DADT, along with the assault weapons ban, were a real rallying cry for the Right-wing and both highly successful wedge issues that energized the '94 GOP backlash. Gingrich also emerged as an engaging personality and was an able foil for the Everyone Likes Bill (and More or Less Hates Hillary) Show.

By '96, the Clinton Presidency had moved so far to the Right that Social Security was almost partially-privatized, and Monica Lewinsky may have been the biggest body thrown in the gears of that machine. It's back.

As for Obama, I agree that a lot of disaffected GOP voted for him. But, those were mainly disaffected Democrats who had gotten sucked out of the party by the vast vacuum in leadership in the 1980s as much as the charms of the "Great Communicator," who was mostly a creation of the TV Networks and other corporate media and PR. McCain was a terrible candidate, and his choice of running mate a specimen of off-the-scale Right-wing weirdness.

What people really want is fundamental reform. They aren't getting what they voted for.

[Beacool]

8. Clinton, and his wife too, went through far worse.

From day one they were never given a break. The right wing kooks and the media were relentless (so too was the left). They had a special prosecutor up their backside for 5 years. They owed more than 2.5 million dollars in legal fees by the time they left the WH.

:(

[CakeGrrl]

13. Your opinion.

I doubt the Clintons had nutjobs wanting to off them because of the color of the skin. I'd bet money that wasn't really an issue for them. I'm sure the Secret Service has all the ugly details.

And with people like you who can't stand Obama, how can you say the Clintons are going through worse? Think about how much you dislike our current President!

:evilgrin:

[Beacool]

15. I said that the Clintons went through worse, past tense.

As far as death threats, all presidents get them, their spouses too. Hillary had so many that she had to wear a bullet proof vest on some occasions at the request of the SS. I'm not minimizing the threats against Obama, I hope that he and his family are always kept safe. I may not be a big fan of the man, but I sure as hell don't want him injured or worse.

[CakeGrrl]

14. It would've been interesting to have a site like this pre-impeachment

or as was suggested elsewhere, during the Carter presidency.

Would the Progressives/Dems have been as disgruntled/angry? Who's to say? Hard to tell. But interesting to think about.