Open Letter to Senator Obama: What Exactly in the Clinton-Era Nineties Did You Not Like?

Dear Senator Obama:

I admire your campaign theme that aims to look to the future, dedicated to real change, and to rising above partisan politics. The reason I am supporting Senator Clinton is that I believe she stands for all those things too -- but is more experienced than you and ready to be president from day one. Though I have doubts that you are as ready as she is, I certainly believe you are more ready than any Republican running.

But one thing you keep saying confuses me. As you campaign on the theme of change and looking to the future, I have heard you frequently say that you don't want the country to go "back to the nineties."

So my question is: What exactly about Bill Clinton's presidency in the nineties do you not want to go back to? Could you please be specific?

-- Do you not want to go back to the days when Bill Clinton took billions of dollars of inherited deficits and converted them to one trillion dollars of surplus?

-- Or not want to return to the creation of 23 million new jobs and the most extended period of growth and prosperity in many many years?

-- Or not return to a time when America's relationships with the rest of the world were positive and inspiring -- leading to peace in Ireland, the end of genocide in Bosnia, and inspiration to the third world for American values of human rights and democracy?

-- Or not see the first Democratic president reelected to a second term since FDR; who had finally positioned the Democratic Party as competitive to win the presidency, winning over his two elections such "red states" as Georgia, Colorado, Montana, Tennessee, Arizona, New Mexico, and Kentucky; and who brought the Democratic Party from a party that had lost five-out-of-six presidential elections mostly by landslide parties to a mainstream party of the middle class who could compete for the presidency once again?

Most Democrats would love the next Democratic president to be as successful as Bill Clinton was. Do you agree? President Clinton's job approval rating when he left office in January 2001 was about 65%--one of the highest approval ratings for a second term president since modern polling was invented. Is that what you don't want to go back to if you were elected as the next Democratic president?

I know you are referring to the "divisions" of the nineties that you don't want to re-live, and there certainly were plenty of them. But do you blame Bill Clinton for the hyper-partisanship of the Gingrich-DeLay Congress? For the tens of millions of dollars spent by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigating a 20-year year-old land deal, in which even Mr. Starr finally concluded after all that money and all those innuendo headlines that the Clintons were not responsible for any wrongdoing?

I hope you are not blaming the Clintons for the virtually entirely partisan House impeachment vote, resulting in Mr. Clinton's acquittal in the Senate -- where even a Republican-majority controlled Senate could not muster a majority vote for conviction.

Yes, there were serious hyper-partisanship in the congress in the nineties -- mostly, from the Republicans. But I assume you are not giving credence or blaming the Clintons, or specifically, Senator Hillary Clinton, for that divisiveness? Or are you? If so, many Democrats would be disappointed to hear you say that explicitly.

I'm not saying all was perfect during the Clinton years. Senator Clinton is the first to say many mistakes were made -- for example, as she often says, she learned from her mistakes in the way she handled the national health insurance proposal. But Senator Clinton understands and is committed to a campaign looking to the future, with the experience to make real change happen.

By the way, I was proud to be a Democrat seeing you, John Edwards and Senator Clinton last night on the MSNBC Las Vegas debate. That high level debate focused on the issues. This is what Democrats want. We also believe accurate information about each of your past records, statements, votes -- and non-votes -- is neither "negative" campaigning nor personal attacks.

They help voters make more informed decisions about each of you. Better now to air all facts about your records than let the Republicans use their attack and "swift boat" innuendo machine in the fall with just a few months till the general election.

Sincerely,
Lanny J. Davis

Originally posted at The Hill's Pundits Blog

Comments

[DietrichMoody]

Everyone questions the past, its part of evolving, progression, and growth.and you are attempting to Turn Obama's reflection into negative. Very progressive for the Clinton MACHINE?

[foreffectivegovernment]

Mr. Lanny Davis:

You succeeded in expressing the exact views I have been trying, in my clumsy way, to impart to everyone on this blog. I thank you!

Unlike some of the younger voters, I lived through these times and remember them fondly. I was able to attain upper middle class status during those times, through education and hard work.

My peers said I should vote for George W. Bush but, living in Texas, and knowing the real George W. Bush I knew that he was not the person described during the election process of 2000, so I declined.

I retired in 2000 and am now watching the stock market where I put my IRA plunge every day.

I mistakenly thought that he could not screw that up, but he did. Lucky for me I have Social Security to fall back on and I am thankful the Democrats kept him from screwing that up too.

I must admit, I am not willing to wait patiently for George W. Bush's term to end. I know that he and Dick Cheney have commited offenses bordering on treason and think that Congress should hold them accountable for crimes they have comitted, especially the outing of Valere Plame Wilson.

Thanks again for your fine post. I hope you will listen to mine.

[NABNYC]

Okay, let's pretend we don't understand what Obama is saying. Let's have the former Clinton employee go out in public and attack Obama. Good. Was Bob Mei-Lai Kerre busy?

What Obama means is that while Bill Clinton was in office, there was a complete paralysis in our government. In fact, I think Congress was taken by the Republicans within 2 years of Clinton's arrival. And for whatever reasons, there was non-stop fighting after that. I happen to believe it's because the Republican party was taken over by fascists, but whatever the reasons, that's what we all know Obama meant.

But I'll add a few things. We don't want the national and international discourse to again focus on Bill Clinton screwing around. Unless someone can guarantee he's given up that hobby, let's keep the Clintons out of the white house.

We also don't want yet another bubble in the stock market to fool Americans until the bubble bursts, and people lose 40-50% of their money, which is exactly what happened when Bill Clinton was in the white house.

We don't want more "interventions" in other countries like Bosnia, and Chesnia. We don't want further hacking and slashing of those few benefits that remain for poor people, such as what happened under the Clinton administration. And we don't want Bill sending millions more of our jobs to China, like he did with his Nafta programs.

Is that a good enough list? I've got more if you want them.

[bumpersticker]

So Hillary is a way back to the Clinton 90's? Doesn't that fall under term limits with Hillary just being the loophole? Gosh, George Wallace was a visionary when he ran Lurleen so Alabama could get back to the Wallace Days.

Sure, you can't compare Hillary to Lurleen, but you can sure compare the games being played.

[TommyMcCarthy]

To answer the question posed in the headline.....

What Sen. Obama doesn't like is that his current opponent was at the very center of a presidency that,..... despite some mistakes.... (you know the kind of thing you LEARN from),..... and a mountain of trash heaped upon it....was overall, highly successful, and benifitted woking men and women substantially........and everybody in this country and around the world knows it......THAT'S what he doesn't like...........................tm

[cheforacle]

The Nineties were a great period but our country should always be a forward-leaning nation always attempting to form a more, perfect union. Yes it was peaceful, a testament to the end of the Cold War something upon which Clinton had little impact. Economically, the nineties were excellent, the result of wise policies by the Clinton administration and the fertile growth of world-leading IT companies. However, the notion that only a Clinton can usher in a better economy now is arrogant. I support Obama's stated policy of encouraging the growth of new energy companies to develop renewable energy sources.

One of the main problems with the nineties, however, is it was a time of missed opportunities. While you are correct Mr. Davis that Clinton should never have been impeached it is also unequivocal that Clinton gave his enemies the rope to hang him. When Clinton was elected in 1992 it was expected that he would not reprise any Gennifer Flowers-like infidelities. He breached his compact with the American people in an environment in which he knew his opponents would not let it go. This irresponsiblity is too great a risk. The country needs to stay away from the risk of some similar scandal which the MSM, in their obsession with the salacious, would no doubt highlight to the exclusion of news more important to the country. I have no problem with private individuals doing what they want in their sex lives. But when it brings a country to a halt it ceases to be just about a man and his wife but affects our ability to address major challenges. One area we did not adequately address in the nineties was global warming. We cannot afford another Clinton soap opera to divert us from the nation's business.

[clevelandchick]

Well I don't know what Obama didn't like about The Clinton 90s but I really hated those screw the poor and middle-class trade deals like NAFTA and China that destroyed the manufacturing economy in my state.

I also really hated The Clinton 90s because NAFTA corn subsidies for American farmers destroyed Mexico's agricultrural industry and put 1.7 million Mexican farmers out of work. Then free trade with China drew american companies over there for even cheaper labor. Now we've got millions entering our country illegally to find work.

What else was there not to like about The Clinton 90s? Oh yeah, the fact that the T-com Act of 1996 that Billy Clinton signed is responsible for Clear Channel owning every freaking radio station in America.

Oooo! This is fun! I have another thing I hate about The Clinton 90s! How about utility deregulation that put California in bankruptcy and has me paying four times what I used to for electricity and natural gas! That whole screw the poor and middle-class gambit started under the Clinton 90s.

Please Lanny. There is a whole lot for Americans let alone Obama to hate about The Clinton 90s. That's why I'm against The Clinton Millenium.

[Roose]

NAFTA, Tele-Communications Act 1996, Monica Lewinski, Ken Starr, Katherine Willie, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Marc Rich, Juanita Broderikk, 1994 losing majorities in the House and Senate........Lies and scandals.

[GH]

Oh Lanny, come on now?

- created a $trillon of surplus? OK, so for a couple of years we had a couple of Billion in surplus -- all added together. But the bubble crash in March reversed all of that. It resulted in $982 Billion (almost a trillion) in lost tax revenues by the end of 2003 (tax cuts, rebates and the Iraq War not included in that number).

And let me held Obama out here, Lanny:

- Did not like that Clinton did not tear down the wall between law enforcement and intelligence, as was loudly called for after the botched FBI sting with the terrorists in the 1993 WTC bombing that intended to kill 250,000 folks in NY.

- Didn't like the way Somalia ended up.

- Didn't like the way Rwanda ended up.

- Didn't like the way the DR Congo ended up, or Sierra Leaone, or the Ivory Coast.

- Did not like the way Afghanistan ended up.

- Did not like the way the Carter/Clinton deal with N. Korea ended up - got them nuclear bombs -- of course so did India and Pakistan.

- Didn't like that Clinton ignored the developing HIV/Aids Pandemic in Africa for 8 years. Why? David Corn wrote that it didn't poll well. Yes, Clinton did apologize and like, Bush's lead, he's jumped on the bandwagon here.

-Didn't like NAFA

- Didn't like CA energy crisis - and all that assistance that he gave Enron.

- Didn't like all that campaign finance fraud and corruption amongst all of his old friends from AK who came and hung out in the wh - yea, you know them, Lanny. Well, at least Raidy got that historic conviction and a record $8.6million fine from Reno.

Well, that's my top ten off the top of my head.

[PhDcommonsense]

The precious time the country lost while Bill was having an affair with Monica Lewensky, while he was trying to fend off the Republican Impeachment and a golden opportunity to actually push through some meaningful legislation. Social Security being one of them.
The worst Divide the country has ever seen in terms of our Congress people working with each for the good of the country. It gave rise to a Bush Administration that has been the worst 8 years, that our children in the Armed Services are paying for in the needless Iraq War and that I our children will have to pay for for Decades to come. We lost the Congressional Senators and Representatives , thanks to the more than 50% of publics total dislike of the Clintons. Need I go on. I am sure there is more.

So to answer your question Mr. Davis. Because of Bill, a young African American candidate, like Obama, with a vision of what America can be is what the country needs at this time in history, Not Hillary and Bill again. Their time has passed.

[BobLargomarsino]

Mr. Davis, I was a big supporter of the Clinton's in the 90s. I even lost a few friends standing up for Bill. That is why it is very disturbing to see the ex-president speak out in favor of a lawsuit meant to disenfranchise voters. And his claims to not be behind the lawsuit are laughable considering the Clinton campaign was OK with the arrangement until the Culinary union endorsed Obama.

The spin on the whole race thing also looks bad to me. After Donna Brazile and James Clyburn, two neutral spectators to the campaign, stepped in to ask the Clintons to tone down their rhetoric, Andrew Cuomo "shucks and jives" and Bob Johnson compares Obama to Sidney Pontier in "Guess Who's Coming for Dinner." This whole thing seemed like an attempt to goad Obama into playing the race card. Obama was too smart to do such a thing but many people not associated with his campaign took the bait. Obama was slimed by the association.

These are tactics that the Clintons say were used against them during the 90s. Maybe this is an example of the cycle of child abuse where an abused child grows up to be an abuser. Or maybe the Clintons weren't nearly the innocent victims that they portrayed themselves to be. Either way, I am seriously rethinking my views of the administration that you were a part of. If you want to keep your legacy intact I strongly suggest you tell your old boss to get out of the gutter and start acting in a dignified way like ex-presidents are supposed to.

[liberalgeezer]

The Clinton years were certainly better than the Bush years. That doesn't mean we want to go there again. The biggest failure of the Clinton Administration, was buying into an economic policy that was based on a Wall Street view of the system. (If the Investment Bankers are making money, everything is great) The continuation and acceleration of deregulation was the prime contributor to our current economic problemsI would like to forget:
NAFTA
Banking deregulation
Energy deregulation
Greater media concentration resulting from FCC rule making.

[fitCTmom]

Hi Lanny,

Since Obama probably won't be answering you personally I thought I could help him out...
1. Nafta
2. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
3. Losing the congress to the Republicans in 1994
4. The Lincoln Bedroom as Fundraiser
5. Neglecting to retaliate for The USS Cole
6. Neglecting to retaliate for WTC Bombing Part One
7. Neglecting to retaliate for The African Embassey Bombings
8. Neglecting to intervene in Rwanda
I could go on but, really I think others on the post should have some of the fun, too.
OBAMA '08

[BigBen]

The things people disliked about the Clinton era never effected their pocket book.They got a balanced budget, a budget surplus,a booming economy, job security,a world that welcomed us. Contrary to the spin doctors there was no scandal at Whitewater,yet people were put in jail without cause by a special prosecutor(S.McDougal).$45 million wasted in a witch hunt.There was no furniture taken from the White House at the end of Clinton's administration.
Yes Clinton had an affair and yes like all Presidents he had guests sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. My understanding is that whatever people do in private should stay private,ask Dick Chaney if you don't think that is so.
So just admit that for some irrational reason you don't like Bill and Hillary but give up on the hypocrisy and go on to something else.Like Bush's pardon of his personal friends,for instance.It might help you all get a more balanced attitude.

[DietrichMoody]

Lanis Davis, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE FUTURE YOU DON'T EXACTLY LIKE. I take it this is all Clinton strategizing sir, getting people to argue about the 1990's fights. Lani Davis, you are a brilliant lawyer, but Obama should throw this open letter in the trash and if he ever were to receive it and answer it, than he is not too bright First this is a trick question. As a Democrat, and a minority what is going to say? NO. There were good social aspects of the Clinton administration and I assume for a young black male. Also, by answering this, you are forcing him to get back to arguing 1990's fights, you know what Barney Frank and what the Clintons are good at. Good campaigning bad policy for the Country, real bad. Are you promising me the nineties, and if I don't get it? what happens?
However, this is where your open letter fails miserably on its face. This letter reminds me of a man, let's say my dad, not you sir, that is going through a mid life crisis and wants to relive the past because it was so good. So he gets a face lift, colors his hair, wears tight jeans, buys a car like he drove in college, etc. But the man, now 50, is no longer 25 and his experiences have changed - life, death, etc. America is not America of the 1990's and you can not guarantee that things will look the same. This requires hope, you know that stupid word your Candidate, Senator Clinton, pooh poohs. But going back to change: THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT NEED A FACELIFT, I reckon the changes must be more than looking like you once did.