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

[BaltoAman]

"Bill Clinton took billions of dollars of inherited deficits and converted them to one trillion dollars of surplus"

Wow, Bill did all that? He must be like the second coming of Jeezus.

We could sure use some of that magic now.

[vsign]

Obama is not the real agent of change. Men need to give power to the other half of the equation. Now that would be change!

The fact that Obama challenged Hillary at all for the democratic nomination is worrisome. Obama's candidancy is worrisome!

Obama says his judgement is superior to Hillarys'. Where's the evidence?
Obama says his leadership will bring people together. Where's the evidence?

His candidancy is splitting the party apart. Why did he challenge Hillary?

Obama and the personality cult he is developing around him is very worrisome to me. His large amount of money for his candidancy comes from the sports, entertainment and media world. And from the young.

A vote for Kucinich is a vote for Obama. He has already indicated his delegates vote for O. A vote for Edwards might also be a vote for O. If there is a brokered convention, the boys will likely gang up against Hillary.

A vote for Obama is a vote to join a "personality cult". It is not based on the time it takes to form relationships. He is a man who saw the opportunity to challenge the woman and win. He does not give details on what he will do once he has power. It is a vote for rhetoric over reality. It is a vote against experience and AGE. It is a vote against moderation.

Hillary's votes are based on people who feel she will be the best person for the job, the party regulars, the relationships she has built over time. And women

Obama said yesterday in an interview that he wants to be like Reagon and take the country in a whole new "trajectory". No moderation for him. Sounds a little egomanic to me.

Bill Clinton always made me "think" about choices. He never encouraged a personality cult. He never encouraged anything coming close to religious fervor.

I am very suspicious of Obama and the "means" he is using to gain the Democratic nomination.

[bobh]

The Clinton Years: unparalleled power, prestige, and prosperity for the United States. How to get it back: vote for the other Clinton.

[RevMetheus]

I'd rather go back to the 90s than the 80s, when Reagan and Bush had a war going against unions, the middle class, and the poor. When the scandals that really mattered (and no one f'n remembers) were going on (Iran-Contra, S&L.) When we were all supposed to be paralyzed with fear over the Commies, and Stalone and Shwartzenegger were going to save us all from both commie russian and commie vietnam. When the War on Drugs got patently absurd. When Reagan started the illegal immigration ball rolling with his pardon of illegals. When we were arming Saddam and bin Laden. When the CIA was running drugs for the government to arm the aforementioned. When we went from almost no deficit to one that we cant seem to control. When the religious right and the conservative movement got together to screw the country.

People have a very short political memory in this country, so now Reagan is our greatest president and Clinton is vile.

I would like to go back to the 90s, when my paycheck actually bought stuff, when gas was $0.89/gall­on, when our government cared about bringing technology to us (even if the DMCA is a bit wrong headed.) The future is $4.00/gal gas and a dollar that is worse than Canada's and dropping all the time.

Everything since has been fear, greed, and hypocracy.

[sanglug]

"Better now to air all facts about your records than let the Republicans use their attack and 'swift boat' innuendo machine in the fall"

Another flavor of Clintonian fear. Something for everyone!

Why not air the facts about Obama’s alleged weak record on abortion. You know, that thing where abortion rights advocates and Democratic allies asked Obama for present votes instead of no votes in Illinois? Yes, thanks to the Clintons, the next guy will force his colleagues to vote on bad bills, weakening the cause of choice and losing Democratic seats to anti-choice Republicans.

I guess thanks to the Clintons, Republicans can no longer argue that Obama is not liberal enough. Whew!

I would add, just because we know the facts about the Clintons does not mean they are being aired in this contest or would not be by Republicans. In fact, it sounds to me like you are saying they should be aired now. Yikes for you!

[fariqabdulaziz]

What I didn't like about the Clinton Era:
The Iraq sanctions that mostly targeted infant and elderly Iraqis, NAFTA, globalization, kowtowing to Wall Street, weakening workers and empowering corporations, dismantling the manufacturing structure of America, Wagging the Dog repeatedly to distract from the many personal scandals (while targeting more innocent civilians across the world), the many personal scandals that demonstrated lack of morals and character, lying about said scandals repeatedly, the health care fiasco, the shady ties to China, renting of the Lincoln Bedroom, the absolute weakness in standing up to the Pentagon and the military industrial complex, the government shutdown, the abandonment of civil rights for gays, the general lack of foreign policy understanding, the foul retchy taste that was left in everyone's mouth at the end leading directly to a weak and impotent Al Gore and election of the Bush Administration.
The bottom line is, as a liberal I dislike most of Hillary's stated policies on their own merits, but even if we had common ground I would still firmly believe that Bill Clinton should not be allowed anywhere near the White House ever again because his flaws and defects far outweigh his ability to smooth talk BS.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"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?"

Senator Obama,
You are welcome to use any of these:

(1) The creation of optimum conditions via NAFTA and the Tax Code (26 U.S.C.) so that corporate executives and and corporate owners could benefit by transferring American manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.
(2) The continued raid on the Social Security trust fund so that Social Security taxes (a special type of income tax that only falls upon the remaining U.S. employers and employees) could be utilized to finance general expenditures. Of course, no "lock box" was ever created and the borrowing has continued.
(3) The utilization of bogus statistics to under report unemployment and underemployment. This continues today.
(4) The failure to actively investigate and protect against the type of accounting fraud that led to the inflated stock at Enron and other companies. Enron, as one example, collapsed after the fraud was in place and ongoing.
(5) The failure to protect our borders with the result that Mexico's overpopulated poor have invaded, and continue to invade, the U.S. to displace U.S. workers.
(6) The Clinton stamp-of-approval given to James Carville, Paul Begala, and other talking heads who would collaborate with so-called "news shows" and displace air-time that could be used for genuine news with meaningless, mean-spirited, hate-filled rants.
(7) Fund-raising via the renting of the Lincoln bedroom.
(8) Fund-raising via the granting of pardons to those such as financier Mark Rich who was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud.
(9) The failure to help more Democrats get elected to the House and the Senate.

Do you need more? Or is this sufficient?

[Anastasia]

Re: "Nothing was removed from the White House." That's absolutely true. The problem is, at that point, more people than not, were willing to believe it. Certainly the Mark Rich pardon, helped give that nonsense some legs. There was also the issue of the "gift registry" so that the Clintons could furnish their new home.

Whether the Clintons were treated fairly by the media is somewhat beside the point. The question is, what is going to happen, if she gets the nomination? Is it going to be, "deja vu, all over again"? Does anyone really want that?

[loislane88]

Who isn't ready to lead on day one? (Excluding, of course, W.) Do you really think any of the candidates aren't going to be ready when they take office?

[gooch]

I will agree that Bill did a lot of great things for the country, but Hill is not Bill to begin. After Bill screwed Monica, he screwed the country by putting Hillary incharge of healthcare. She dropped the ball on that and, along with Bill's misconduct, caused the country to want "Change". (Enter George W.) They only care about themselves and the Dem Elite. Not to mention, Bill under financed millitary and intelligence agencies which is partly to blame for 9/11. We need change from the status quo.

[hlhicks]

I'm confused again. Exactly who is running for office Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton? There are many of us who supported Bill Clinton through the myriad scandals and disappointments of his administration. However, it is no longer 1992 and the world is different, we need a President who understands that. Does no one in the administration remember all of the promises that Bill made when he got into office and how few of them were actually accomplished? Every issue was a battle because of the bitter partisanship on both sides. The buzzards are once again circling and if we elect her, we can look forward to (at least) another four years of fighting, finger pointing and plausible deniability, the signature of the Clintons.

[BlakeforRichardson]

At least most of this article is a point for the electorate to consider, and not another Bush/Rove ploy that has been pouring out of camp Clinton since the defeat in the Iowa caucuses.

Of course the problem is that Bill Clinton is not running for President and it will not be his administration. So we will not be going back to the 90s by electing Hillary Clinton.

And Bush41 made the argument about Bill Clinton that Lanny seeks to make about Obama now -- that he’s an empty suit not ready to be President.

In addition, his next-to-last paragraph has become difficult for me to swallow. As a Richardson supporter who had favorable views of both candidates at the beginning of the year, the idea that Lanny believes in “accurate information” about Obama’s votes and statements has become difficult for me to accept.

[xcrunner77]

WhitewaterGate.
TravelGate.
Monica.
Gingrich shutting down the govt.
Dont Ask Dont Tell.
Defense of Marriage Act.
NAFTA.
The blue dress.
Bill lying under oath.
Mark Rich's pardon.
Ken Star.
Impeachment.
WACO.
Ilian Gonzalez.
Bill Clinton disbarred.
Hillary's failed healthcare "plan".

Those are what I can think of without trying real hard. Yes, those were the days.

[ecotopian]

NAFTA, Telecommunications Bill, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Welfare Reform, are a few. Gazing back longingly at the ninties is a futile exercise. We need to look forward rather than back. No matter how good we think they were, those times are gone.

It should also remembered that Hillary isn't Bill. Just because she shares his name doesn't mean that those seemingly golden days will return. Unless of course she is president in name only and the real power is Bill. Even then, if they could get away with that, he might not be able to replicate what he did in the ninties now.

[Rockerbabe]

Thank you so much for your words of enlightenment. I did well in the 1990's with Bill Clinton as our leader and hopefully Hillary will be our next national leader. She has the experience, the track record, the horse-trading skills to get the job done and more importantly, the strength of conviction to bring the financial situation under control. I know a lot of the boys are backing Obama, but I will not, no matter what. If Hilliary doesn't get the nomination, I will write-in Al Gore for President. I really don't think many of the white boys will vote for Obama and many may not vote for Hilliary, but as a women, I will take my chances with a women of the stature of Hilliary, because when it comes to change, she enbodies change and not just empty words.