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

[kamenwati]

The Clinton legacy was eight years of George Bush.

[Vanzetti]

What I didn't like about Clinton's era were the quiet but incessant bombing and killing of innocent civilians in Iraq, Africa and Afghanistan. Nor did I like his personal and political lies. I didn't like his steady build-up of the military, and I didn't like his obsequious kow-towing to military mind-sets. I didn't like the way he used women. And Hilary is more of the same.
How's that for a start?

[lboucher]

Monica Lewinsky: the world’s most famous intern

Monica Lewinsky was 21 when, as a White House intern, she delivered pizza to the President, flirted with him, flashed her thong and began an 18-month relationship that involved oral sex, phone sex, an infamous incident with a cigar, a great deal of soul-searching about what he really felt for her and then increasing fear and panic as it became clear that the relationship could become public.

[funny0guy]

There is a lot not to like about the Clinton years: The failure to realize the peace dividend on the collapse of the Soviet Union [instead, Clinton gave the Pentagon more money than they it requested]; the Crime Bill which added more death penalties to federal crimes than in all of American history and set up double-standards for crimes by blacks [crack] and whites [cocaine]; the Welfare bill which was the most punitive welfare bill in modern times; signing the bill calling for "regime change" in Iraq, which became the predicate for the Iraq War; the Salvage Rider bill which opened Forest Service lands to wholesale cutting; the mishandling of healthcare reform; a gutting of the Party in favor of raising megabucks from special interests; NAFTA and globalization, which is hollowing out the middle class and leading to historic disparities of wealth in America; the total lack of judgment in screwing around with a 22-year old intern, behavior which never had a chance of remaining private and which cost the Democrats the 2000 election. Thank Bill Clinton for making George Bush possible. I could go on, but you get the idea. The Clinton years, at best, were a wasted opportunity, and, at worst, were a collapse of Democratic Party principles.

Yes, Lanny, wealthy, connected guys like you did OK with Clinton policies; its just the rest of the Democratic coalition which has struggled.

[Anastasia]

Even if we were to go with the assumption that the Clinton Administration was as great as Lanny Davis claims, it's the scandals, honey!

Regardless of whether they were either wholly generated by the right wing, or were largely the responsibility of the Clinton's themselves, there's a lot grist for the Republican mill, should they choose to run on it.

Since no one knows, what the right wing noise machine will do if Hillary gets the nomination, it seems possible that another Clinton presidency, would be "roll of the dice".

[dbredes]

Here's what my Dad an Ohio Independent who voted Clinton in twice and GW in twice

I'd consider voting for Barack..I'­m not a republican you know - I voted for Cinton twice...

Bill Clinton had a gift..He had charisma and the ability to really make you trust him...and then he went to the presidency and Threw It All Away for his p@@@is..(I­'m not kidding my Dad Said This)

He disgraced the presidency and the country

I'll never vote for the Clinton's again...I'­ll never vote for Hillary...

True story...ha­ppened yesterday.­..He hasn't forgot...

[BobLargomarsino]

Back in the 90s grunge music was big and one connected to the Internet through a dial-up connection. Netflix didn't exist and Starbucks was only in Seattle. I think what Obama is saying is that times change and we shouldn't try to relive the past. Plus Bill's triangulation thing was a little annoying.

Hillary's campaign reminds me of an old band that broke up years ago and is trying to get back together again for a reunion tour. The band members might have put on some weight and lost some hair but they want to relive past glory. While I am sure there are a lot of people who would pay to see Fleetwood Mac perform "Don't Stop", I think quite a few people would prefer to listen to something a little more modern.

[bluesjones63]

I REMAIN confused. Who is seeking the Democratic Party's nomination: Bill Clinton or his wife, Hillary? Lanny Davis' premise is that if Americans ONLY remembered how GREAT life was under Bill Clinton, there is ONLY one choice=Bill Clinton's wife. I DO NOT get the connection.

Furthermore, why am I being asked to select between "love" for Bill Clinton's administration and my visions and thoughts about how America moves forward NOW, in the 21st century? Why am I constantly subjected to false choices?

[dbredes]

Juanita Broaddrick (Rape victim)-google the open letter from Juanita when Hillary ran for Congress
Kathleen Willey
Paula Jones
Gennifer Flowers
Monica Lewinsky

The Contract ON America - we're still recovering from the backlash having lost both the house and the senate during his presidency­...

The Democrat agenda down the tubes...so we could all focus on Clinton Sex Scandals..­.and the country could return to War Mongering and Trickle Down Economics

Welfare Reform...L­et's see Hillary apologize instead of pandering to the homeless that her husband helped to create with this one..

Give Me a Break...
Democrats couldn't hold their heads up in public with all the scandal...

I Don't want to return to that...Lan­ny

[hawkjt]

Lanny; you are a strong advocate for your friend Hillary Clinton and a fair man. But can you really say that Bill Clinton did not hurt the progressive movement as he watched the democrats lose the congress for the first time in decades under his watch?

What Senator Obama is admiring about Reagan is his skill at mobilizing the masses to foment for conservative change in america. Now Senator Obama wants to bring the same grass roots movement to bear on the democratic side. You must acknowledge the divisiveness that the Clintons represent in America today. Do you want the Clintons to win at the expense of downticket democrats throut the country? Please implore Hillary to step aside, she is a smart and good senator who could do much to further the progressive legislation that a President Obama would be putting forth to congress. Please implore her to do it for the good of the party and the country. I respect her. But she is not the answer for the democrats in 08. Thanks in advance for your assistance in forwarding the progressive agenda we all embrace.

[SILLYME]

Remember back in 1999 the Camp David Peace accords between the U.S., Palestinians and Isreal when we were so close and it never happened. The entire world was counting on President Clinton's leadership now look what we have.

[RedRooster]

Many Democrats blame Al Gore's loss on his attempt to "run away" from the Clinton legacy.

Is Obama making the same mistake?

[TommyMcCarthy]

Nice job Lanny.....­facts is facts, ain't they......­....tm

[TAHARQA]

GENOCIDE..­. AND IT STILL IS. Why would we believe anything the clintons say. She is running on the accomplishmnets of an IMPEACHED PRESIDENT.­. He was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH. PROOF the Clintons will do or say anything to get elected.

[ss1834]

Lanny -- your blog post was so biased I initially wasn't sure whether to justify it with a response. But I couldn't ultimately resist clarifying some of your points:

* US Economic Boom in the 90s: Clinton resided over a unique period in history that frankly, had almost NOTHING to do with him. Without him, great companies like Yahoo, Google, Amazon, and eBay were being created and creating unprecedented wealth in this country. In case you've have forgotten, this was typically referred to as the "Internet Bubble". One more thing, check your history. This country was already coming out of its recession during George H.W. Bush's presidency in his final year.

* Clinton didn't cause polarization: The whole point the Barack is making when he says let's not go back to the 90s, is that there is a better way. We as a country do not need to settle for mediocrity and politicizing issues for our success. This may result in near term wins, but as we have seen in the last 8 years, does not set a foundation for long term greatness. The fundamental mentality of Washington has to chance.

* Clinton created a well-respected America: Uhh -- this is the biggest farce. Again, let's recall the Lewinsky scandal. One of the greatest embarrassments in U.S. political history. I don't understand, how you can imply under ANY circumstances, the potential impeachment of one of our presidents improves our standing in the world.

* All that happened in the 90s translates into Hillary being a good president -- As others have pointed out here, this is perhaps the most subtle, and flawed part of your argument. Any who remembers Hillary in the 90s, remembers that even back them, she was an extremely polarizing figure and largely because of this, failed to get several of her initiatives done. Furthermore, why do people keep referring to this as "experience" for her?

That's all -- the bottom line for me here is: I'm sick and tired of accepting the line that we as a country need to accept mediocrity and things they used to be.