Barack Needs Bill

Imagine the scene at the Democratic National Convention. A triumphant Barack Obama stands onstage. To his left stands John Kerry, to his right Al Gore. Next to Gore stands Jimmy Carter. Ted Kennedy stands next to John Kerry.

There is a lot of hope for an Obama-fueled "new Democratic majority" that can ignore the great unwashed--the dwindling number of white working class voters they used to call "Reagan Democrats." The suggestion that Democrats cannot win without them is ridiculed as "inside the beltway" nonsense. However, a Brookings Institution paper by Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz reiterates this group's significance to winning an electoral college majority in 2008:

During this year's Democratic primary season, Hillary Clinton has generally run far ahead of Barack Obama among white working class voters (though there are signs this may be changing). But due to the structure of the Democratic primary electorate, with its heavy minority and college-educated representation, this has not translated into electoral dominance and her campaign is now in serious trouble.

The story will be different in the November general election however. Here the voting proclivities of the white working class will make a huge difference and could well determine who the next president will be.

In a later interview, Teixeira makes clear that Obama can still make up a winning coalition, but the Obama camp is obviously, wisely, taking no chances. They're now working hard to win this group. The lapel pin has reappeared, and the candidate has developed a sudden penchant for bowling. Demonstrating how much stock they place in this demographic, the opposition is trying to keep it out of reach. They're attacking Obama as "not one of us," which is a none-too-subtle fix of their addiction to racism and tagging Democrats as elitist and out-of-touch with "real Americans." As we all know, real Americans are white, working-class Americans.

This is going to be a tough race and Obama needs every state he can get if he's to collect 270 electoral votes. Now, let's return to that convention scene:

Republicans, with a generous hand from the media, successfully painted John Kerry as elitist and out-of-touch. In 2004, he lost the white working-class vote to George Bush by 23 points. He ran an embarrassing presidential campaign, and since, has not distinguished himself as a spokesperson for Democratic or progressive ideals. In short, when it came to national office, he lost--badly.

Al Gore's post-political career has been extraordinary, culminating in a Nobel Prize. However, as a candidate he was also (with a generous hand from the press) labeled elitist and out-of-touch. Let's face it. He was a sitting vice president who lost a campaign that was his to lose.

Jimmy Carter also boasts an admirable post-presidential career with a Nobel of his own. However, he was an unpopular, ineffectual one-term president whose stewardship is considered a failure.

Ted Kennedy represents the last of the Kennedy political dynasty. He has been an extraordinarily effective senator. However, he remains representative of presidential promise unfulfilled. The Kennedy legacy, to which he has anointed Obama something of a successor, is a legacy of great national promise--tragically unfulfilled.

On that stage, Obama would be surrounded by a group of men, each extraordinary in his own right, but each of whom failed to connect emotionally with a politically significant swath of the American public and whom the opposition successfully belittled and bested (with big helping hands from the press). That picture would speak one thousand words. It would paint Obama as their candidate successor.

Think what you will of him, there is only one living Democratic presidential politician who connected emotionally (and maintained that connection) with broad swaths of the American electorate--across all racial and class lines. He won the presidency--twice--and did it during the apex of the Republican ascendancy. He even eked out a victory among the white working class, despite Ross Perot's third party appeal to this group.

Now that we're talking realignment, it's progressively fashionable to pooh pooh his presidency for relying on center-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) policies. In doing so, the logic goes, he failed to lay the groundwork for a new progressive majority. Obama himself suggested as much in saying, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

Maybe the DLC way was the only way to win at the time. Maybe it wasn't. That doesn't matter anymore. What does matter is ensuring that the Obama camp not help McCain paint him as the ineffectual Kerry-ite successor to feckless McGovern-ism.

Despite his sometimes, ahem... eccentric electioneering this season, Bill Clinton still casts the winner's long, deep shadow. He can still connect with important constituencies like the elderly and the white working class. He can still appeal to the latter group, and every other, by speaking to expanding economic opportunity in something other than the abstract--because he accomplished it.

A Bill Clinton in the distant background will only highlight the recent Democratic history of failed, "weak" and "elite" Democratic presidential contenders and cast Obama as yet another. It will cast him as successor to a legacy tragically unfulfilled. Bill in the foreground paints him as a successor to prosperity and success. Bill in the foreground helps highlight the post-presidential accomplishments of a Carter and a Gore, instead of highlighting campaign and high office failures simply through the lack of any countervailing electoral narratives onstage.

Symbols matter. Elections are as much about perceptions as issues. Yes, there's bad blood between Obama and the Clintons, and judging from his initial attempts to secure the Edwards endorsement, Obama does not grovel well. But once Hillary Clinton is securely put away, Obama will need Bill, so I suggest he improve his groveling. Hell, he secured that lapel pin and got that bowling ball down the lane, didn't he? When the prize is as big as the presidency, you don't leave any assets on the table.

Comments

[hrayovac]

You wrote, "Hell, he secured that lapel pin and got that bowling ball down the lane, didn't he?.. " which displays the cynical attitude prevalent for a long time in this country. Hell indeed. Gaiter, people are now sick of conceit. This is why Obama has been successful. People respond to that genuine person up there. When he has to bridge the differnces with the Clintons he will not be groveling he will be straight up about what he needs from them and why. It seems obvious from your comments that there is resentment against Obama and maybe any politician who has the altruism. To you, succes is achieved by manipulation. To me, Obama's success is based on inclusion for a greater cause.

[walk0nwalls]

Thing is old chap, Bill lost it. We really don't give a damn about him anymore. Hell even Hillary would be better. The only one coming out of this fight looking worse than Hillary has been old Billy Boy himself. I want nothing to do with the man.

[shelobo]

When Bill ran ,both times he ran against candidates of the SAME race as him.IF there would have been a black candidate ,history today WOULD be different .Just as IF Hillary was running against a white woman ,this election would be far different .Bill pandered to the blacks ,just as Hillary has pandered to them and the hispanics,now the Native Americans are her newest targets for pandering.Bill Clintons impact on Indian affairs while in office was slight ,VERY slight. Days before Clinton left office. Two Clinton aides quietly reversed the findings of an Interior Department Committee, giving Indian tribal status to three separate groups, effectively allowing them to open their own casinos.Those same the two officials immediately stepped into high-dollar positions representing tribes and their casino operations, after leaving office. Another point to consider is whether Clinton might have done this as a means of propagating a Democratic party agenda: Indian tribes that operated casinos were huge contributors to Clinton"s campaign funds throughout the years.And still are major donors to the Clintons.Pandering has always been how the Clintons got what they wanted .In short I DISAGREE with the articles author that ANYONE running for office needs Bill Clinton ..Bill Clinton cast a long shadow of SHAME on this country ,it wasn't what he did ,it was WHERE he did it ,and the fact he lied to Americans.

[naschkatze]

Having the Clintons on stage at the convention, giving them an ovation and a chance to steal Obama's moment of glory, would be hypocrisy in its purest form. Their most fervent wish was and continues to be to destroy Obama's chances. You would be giving them a chance to play up to their most diehard supporters and reward them for their vile behavior. One hopes the Clintons would not want to be there because of their bitterness, but on the other hand, they couldn't pass up the things I written above and would have no sense of shame going there. Of course, Obama will take the high road and the party will go along to create the illusion that they are united and the Clintons have done so much for the party blah blah blah. I spit on the idea.

[TheKnownTruth]

I think he'll fore go the real thing (Bill) and adopt Chelsea. That way he'll have a lot less baggage.

[ClintC]

I'm no fan of the DLC, which I call Democrats Losing Concentration. But the author has a good point. The Democrats must be unified for the General Election. What better way to show unity at the convention than to have Bill (and, at another time, Hillary) on stage? And what better way to show lack of unity and generosity than to exclude them?

[PixelMarx]

It's time to get beyond Bill. No one NEEDS Bill, even Hillary can vouch for how poor of an endorsement he makes. It's time to move on.

[Kencleanersystem]

To hell with Bill and Hillary. They are as relevant moving forward from this point as Michael Dukakis. They are losers who, thanks to Ross Perot, won. Bring in The New. Flush down the old.

[PhDiva]

I don't think Obama needs Bill. I think Obama could benefit from Bill. But I don't think Bill will ever really help him, and Hillary certainly will not.

[ohmercy]

wing nut.
never thought i'd say that about another Dem.
But there you have it.

[sanywhere]

it is easy to call names but harder to argue. we don't need bill. he has been exposed. it would be a contradiction to the ideals we are fighting for. we don't need lies, racist attacks, or made up metrics. we need change, hope and a new future that bill was unable to start the path for. need i remind you all that gore actually won? bill did not cost him that election, it was the court system that stopped the counting.

[ccrnjr]

When Obama came to my city, Houston, Texas--he got the help he needed. Obama got help from people that prayed for him and voted for him. Bill Clinton is not God! He has only one vote, just like you and me. When I saw Ted Kennedy standing outside the polls in Maine in the snow, I was touched. John Kerry was with him. They were actually there to help Obama. Did Bill Clinton do that for Al Gore? Of course not.

Bill Clinton has really helped Hillary. David Axelrod has helped Obama. Guess who came out on top.

[ohmercy]

It's funny how people love to twist the meme to suit their current agenda.
During the Gore campaign there was lots of hectoring and criticism of HIS distancing HIMSELF from Clinton, from not using him and not bringing him out on the campaign trail.
After the "loss" there was so much condemnation and hate rhetoric against Gore for the same reasons.
"Why didn't he use Clinton? they screamed?
Why? Clinton could have won it for us! was the battle cry.

But now?
Clinton, both Clinton's are castigated, blamed, condemned for everything under the sun. It is disgusting how you are treating him/them because you support someone else.

Why is that?
What kind of new politics is this?

[sanywhere]

it is because we saw bill with the mask off. we saw the shooting from the hip bill that seemed neither intelligent nor charming. we saw liars, spinning the truth and doing anything to regain that seat of power. don't act like it is our fault we are casting these two out. you reap what you sow. they have sown contempt. if you can not see that i don't know what will help you. it isn't funny how "people" twist....it is sad that we had to find out bill was a person that the repubs. said he was a long time ago.

[ghostwriter5]

I find that memories run very short here. Clinton was very popular at the end of his term, and last time I checked he was the only two term Dem since FDR.

[duze]

People should stop trying to use the Clinton's name and association for everything that's good and powerful in this country as if we need their help or blessing to make it happen. It's already happened for Obama and at the same time Bill was standing in the back of a red pick up.

Paul v. Clinton
htto://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp Casew # BC304174

The Clinton's former pastor Reverend William Procanick, has been convicted of 1st degree Child Molestation. How's that for guilt by association.
http;//www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

[ohmercy]

oh please with the Paul vs Clinton BS. That guy has been discredited over and over by others who were his "friends."

The articly you posted about the pastor gives no references to where he was their pastor, how long he was their pastor and what kind of relationship, if any they have had with him.
I go to a church where I shakke the hand of the pastor when I leave. That's it.
so unless you can provide some actual facts about their relationship I don't really think you should be talking pastor issues do you?

You know I have defended Obama with the Wright BS, defended Wright for that matter though I personally wouldn't have gone to his church more than a couple of times. I like that kind of preaching but the content would have eventually made me uncomfortable.

I defended him about bittergate, again, condeming the media's over reaction and crazyness about it... of course they were being fed by the blogosphere, particularly HuffPo's over the top commenting.
I defended him about the flag pin crap too and the stupidity of the questioning of the debate. I have yet to see Obama supporters being fair toward Hillary. All I see is invective, hate mongering, insults.

I have condemned people from bringing up Larry Sinclair against Obama but for Obama supporters nothing is too venal to use against the Clinton's.
You could teach the neocon's a few things.

[jsarets]

Clinton supporters need Obama just as much as Obama needs Clinton supporters. They don't want to live in McCain's vision of America any more than Obama supporters do. They don't want to jeopardize a woman's right to choose. They don't want their children and grandchildren sent to fight wars on behalf of Wall Street. They don't want to let our education, transportation, energy, and communication infrastructure crumble in neglect. They don't want sick people declined healthcare coverage and uninsured people forced into bankruptcy by medical bills. They don't want their country to be seen as an ignorant super-bully that refuses to cooperate with other world powers on peace, hunger, and the environment. They don't want to watch helplessly as our Constitution is tossed aside and our civil liberties are taken away from us.

When Clinton supporters realize what is at stake, when they are confronted with two starkly contrasting visions for the future of America, then they will realize that Obama wants to lead America in the same direction as the Clintons do. They just have different plans for achieving the political climate under which those policy changes can succeed. Clinton wants to sell progressive policy ala carte. Obama wants to build an enduring progressive movement. For those of us who have already accepted progressive policy on its merits, there is no difference, but for the rest, particularly those who don't spend much time thinking about politics, a movement provides a ready-made political identity.

[joeyp404]

Oh come on, what's another 4 years more or less?

[Moto53]

My thoughts exactly.

[ohmercy]

Obama want's to lead the country in the same direction as the clinton's do?

Then can someone tell me why he and his campaign did so much to marginalize and neutralize the Clinton Presidency with patronization, condescension and disrespect?

Sounds to me that Obama thinks the Clinton Presidency wasn't leading anywhere and didn't do anything for the country, not like Reagan did.

Sounds to me that according to Obama the Clinton's were responsible for all the "fights and divisions of the past" that "its time to leave behind."

The fact that the neocons were the ones who were causing that crap seems to be forgotten, particularly since their tactics and talking points came in so handy for axelrod and Obama and Zgib. (by the way I'd do a little more research on old Zbiggy. He is the one who brought carter to the White House and whose foreign policy sunk the Carter Presidency. Yeah, might wanna check him and his agenda out a little more thoroughly. Skull and Bones, one world order and all that. Oh wait, that only matters if it can be used to condemn "the enemy."

Yup, gonna leave those fights of the past behind
Pretty ironic for all the divisiveness he and his campaign and his supporters have caused.

They're gonna change the direction of politics and they are not gonna care who we alienate or marginalize doing it. no sirree.

[fungeezer]

I would expect as much help for Obama from the Clintons as they gave Al Gore and John Kerry. Do you remember any help given to them? No, I didn't think so.

[overit62]

Don't blame Bubba for that one. Al and John didn't want Bills help. They distanced themselves from that stained dress. Democrats will lose once again.

[ohmercy]

Gore did, Kerry did not and they had a close relationship of sorts and Clinton DID campaign for him... in between fricking heart surgery.
Christ almighty. what people won't stoop to in trying to destroy the Clintons.
Its a fricking sin.

[ohmercy]

oh how quickly they forget.

Gore chose to distance himself from Clinton and did not want him to campaign.

When Gore "lost" the Presidency how the shouting and condemnation against him and his campaign rang through the nation. Why didn't he use Clinton?
That's why he lost.
Why did he side line Clinton? Why did he distance himself from Clinton.
Clinton would have given him the margin.
Oh, on and on and on it went.

Kerry?
You people are so low.
The neocons have nothing on you.
You will stoop to saying anything, lying means nothing to you.
The new politics... yeah, a new low.
"Clinton heads to New Mexico and his home state of Arkansas this weekend, hoping to generate some momentum for Kerry in the last days before the Nov. 2 election. The former president, ***who is recovering from a Sept. 6 quadruple heart bypass surgery,*** came off the political sidelines earlier this week to campaign for Kerry in the hotly contested states of Pennsylvania and Florida."

"Calling himself a foot-soldier for Kerry, "

"In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is **awaiting heart surgery,** told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said."

[naschkatze]

Gore was in a very tricky situation. Be practical. Not every person in the United States that time was not willing to defend unto death the right of a US president to have a blow job in the White House. And as a matter of fact, the Clintons did shaft Gore in spite of their act of supporting him. They diverted monies which should have gone to the presidential campaign to Hillary's senatorial run, and they also even plugged issues which favored her, not Gore. Go check out Vanity Fair, November 2007, Sally Bedall Smith's article on the trouble between Gore and the Clintons.

[GunnyJ]

I don't think Obama needs the Clintons. Why? Because the Clintons represent what was and Obama is what will be......... Obama has completely changed the strategy of running for President and with that the "old guard" is no longer needed. This is mistake McCain is making. How can you distance yourself from somebody you need to help raise money? Is the McCain campaign not creative or strategic enough to raise money. It makes you wonder who is really ready to lead America going forward......

[ohmercy]

yeah, it sure does.

out with the old, in with the new.
We don't need no stinking old guys.
We got new guys to consume that we can throw under the bus in another 10 or 20 years.

Dammit this is a consumer nation and we are gonna consume. And we are gonna consume who the media tells us is the new best thing.
And we are gonna tell everything the media tells us about the new big thing to anybody who will listen.
And we're gonna throw out the old things cause we gotta sell this new product for the sponsers so we can keep having this new reality show the "media" puts on for us.
'cause we gotta sell product.
And this product is a can't lose... this is not even new and improved, this is straight out, brand new, nothing like anyone has ever seen before.
YUP.
Don't look behind the curtain though, there's a bunch of old guard guy's standing there collecting money and Axelrod, more old guard, "shaping public perception." But hey, thats what I mean about brand new,

[claylandg]

Old guard? What is new about Obama suppportors Kerry? Kennedy? edwards?? Richardson?? all old politics as usual but all losers!!!! At least Bill is old guard but a Winner!!! If you asked me i rather have 1 winner than 10 losers. How many losers does it take to win a presidency???LOL Think for a change.

[westminster]

The only thing that will help Barack if he gets the nomination - and he will - is for both Bill and Hillary to get a good dose of laryngitis.

[MSaldana]

From your lips to God's ears... and then, we can wait for Senator Clinton's 2012 run, after this year's Obama trainwreck!

-MS

[ohmercy]

HA!
ove it.
That is a good one.
Except that they will do the same thing to her again. Unless a few respected historians, social/political scientists and other intellectuals (NOT PUNDITS) write books outlining this debacle. Maybe the media will discuss it for those who don't have the objectivity to actually perceive the ins and outs, the games and politics being played. Or maybe Jon Stewart will interview them for 5 minutes and get them interested.

Nah, that would require taking some responsibility.

Oh... the new way but behind the curtain are the same old players.
What a joke.
And Axelrod the king of the shapers of reality.
Damn I wish Hillary would have hired him.
Seriously.
He really is a stinking master at astroturfing, the dirty bastard.
LOL

not funny, but damn, ya gotta laugh at the complete absurdity now and then.