- BIG NEWS:
- Bill Clinton
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Dick Cheney
- |
- Terrorism
- |
Clintonism: A Post-Mortem
Read More:
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton's Influence On Hillary's Popularity, Clintonism, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards,
Politics News
Hillary Clinton, we trust, will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. We can look forward to her return to the Senate, where her intelligence, experience, tenacity, and newfound economic populism can be put to work leading the Democrats in the task of undoing the Bush years. Clintonism, however, is dead.
What was Clintonism? Depending on your perspective, its distinguishing characteristic was either astute centrism or craven triangulation. Yet, at the heart of Clintonism, was a fixed assumption about the nature of the American electorate. Clintonism looked at the trends of voter turnout, a steady decline of voting from the 1960s onward, and saw a citizenry that was tuned out and turned off by politics. The only way for Democrats to win was to narrowcast to the few people who were still listening and whose votes were still up for grabs. Bottom line? Ignore the rest, the millions of nonvoters. The essence of Clintonism was this cynical electoral strategy.
Then, as now, special deference was paid to so-called Reagan Democrats -- white, working-class men. (I'll have more to say about white working-class women on other occasions.) They still voted, and their votes swung between the parties. They had seemed to respond in 1980, 1984, and 1988 to conservative social and cultural appeals. (Often enough -- Reagan's "welfare queen" invention, Bush senior's Willie Horton ad -- these appeals were racially-coded.) The signature gestures of Clinton's 1992 campaign, the Sister Souljah smackdown, his attendance at the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, were played to this audience. To wit, Democrats must take the electorate as it was -- its size, its predilections -- not as it could be. Bill Clinton didn't invent the theory of the mythical swinging middle, but he honed it into the Golden Rule for Democratic victory.
It was hard to argue with Clinton's success in the 1990s. Democrats had lost four out of five presidential contests before Clinton triumphed over an incumbent president and then went on to reelection four years later. For anyone who cared to look -- and it should be noted, many progressive Democrats did -- Clinton's victories were more cause for alarm than occasion for celebration. Voter turnout in the presidential race plummeted from 55% in 1992 to 49% in 1996, its lowest level since 1924.
The practical consequences of Clintonism for the Democratic Party were submerged while the charismatic Southerner Bill Clinton was at the helm. Al Gore ran an essentially Clintonian campaign. Although implored to strike a more populist tone and to display the charm many who knew him well saw every day, Gore ran with caution and moderation. In November, 2000, the U.S. was in a condition of unparalleled peace and prosperity, and every historic indicator pointed to an easy victory for Gore. But only 50.4% of eligible voters showed up to vote, just slightly above the all-time record low hit in 1996. Steered by Clintonism, Gore came up short.
Signs of Clintonism's obsolescence and the possibility of a new politics emerged in the 2004 election. Howard Dean tapped into a hunger for political engagement among those written off by the centrist strategy. John Edwards revived old-school American populism with his 21st century message of two Americas. But after John Kerry's all-too-early primary victory, the Democratic-powers-that-be dismissed the evidence of an awakening electorate. "It's the primary, stupid," they instructed the supposed political naifs, and went back to business as usual. We all know how that worked out.
Perhaps it wasn't surprising that the guardians of Clintonism decided we needed another Clinton to rescue the Democratic Party. For almost a year, Hillary coasted to frontrunner status on the power of the Clinton machine, a message of restoration, and a strategy of electability. To the public, Clinton promised, 'let's bring back the good times.' To insiders, the Clintons warned, 'leave it to us, or welcome to a replay of 2000 and 2004.'
It didn't go as planned. In retrospect, we can thank the long primary campaign for exposing the moral bankruptcy of Clintonism. While John Edwards gambled that Americans had had enough of Clintonian economic centrism, Barack Obama aimed at the soft underbelly of Clintonian cynicism. In his now-famous Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech in November, 2007, Obama proposed an alternative ideal of an active, democratic citizenry, motivated by principle and undaunted by fear:
This party -= the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy -- has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose -- a higher purpose. And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that's the party America needs us to be right now.
...
That's why I'm asking you to stand with me, that's why I'm asking you to caucus for me, that's why I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept. In this election -- in this moment -- let us reach for what we know is possible.
In the last months of this campaign, Hillary's best qualities have been least on display. She has frequently resorted to the old Clintonian zero-sum calculus to support her unconvincing claim that she was more electable than Obama. She may have won a few primaries by the tactic, but the voters, as a whole, were not pleased. Her wildly fluctuating popularity rating closely tracked her campaign swings. Her ratings fell in tandem with her backward-facing gestures -- the racially charged insinuations, the 3 AM ad, bittergate, Osama, and the kitchen sink.
Hillary was at her best in this campaign when she transcended Clintonism and learned from her able opponents. Edwards came at her from the left, so she issued stellar health care and climate change plans. Obama inspired Americans to believe and to vote, so she began to speak movingly of her historic candidacy and all the women activated by her campaign. Her popularity ratings rose nationally when she was most like Edwards and Obama: hopeful, progressive, and encouraging new voters to vote.
With the brutal campaign battle over, there is no reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot finally rid herself of the old baggage of Clintonism. If Obama proves true to his expansive vision of democracy, and more importantly, all the new voters stay in the game, we just might get the change we've been hoping for.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
b%2F07pnqL9vIQgy98UjW8EjTlPcR8D1QENB83SAUeB0cwkpi41C6y5O8umcxlwSGNuznIHiAtOZENc%2BlgX%2F4AAA%3D%3D
ewd0bS2xfllFvOxk5TbgBnjzKhHb%2FQsW8NpMMrrnzXNiVBiHYH5TZfMgyAPePI%2B5NfUxZwS%2BI6QpRVObKxvmeA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
lGalTQX%2FW%2BYo%2BVzkhe4JnT9RxkUDPOI8
rp9ykyUYbbG8tsjFRRh4M63V7elYoKoW
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
GRACIOUS???? Not a chance! ---- Hilliary doesn't have a gracious bone in her body. Greedy and self centered are much better words to describe her. "Gone For Good" would be even better.
I'm going to open my best bottle of wine to celebrate this absolutely fabulous occasion!
Obama rules! Dem 08!
Ms. Cohen can say it any way she wants, but the bottom line is unmistakable. Hillary Clinton is a phony.
And a soar loser!
Er... That would be 'sore' loser.
'Soar' gives a decidedly different connotation, or was that your intention?
Ok, here is the simple truth people. I know you Obamabots won't believe it, cause you are happy in your little bubble... but come November when the bubble bursts, you can always come back here and re-read it.
The truth is that the members of the Obama movement are the ones acting spoiled. They are the new ones on the scene trying to act like they belong, like they have been there all along, like they are in the know. They are trying to portray Hillary's people as stupid or irrational
But the truth is that Hillary's people are the backbone of the party. These are the people who have been working hard for the party for years. These are the experience, wise people who are looking at a group of newcomers and shaking their heads.
But the Obamabots persist. They persist in persecuting the Hillary people, and most of her people have reached a limit. We have tried to teach you nicely, but you will not listen. So now we are going to let you experience the harsh reality on your own. That is why you will not have any support from her people, cause you haven't earned it.
"These are the experience, wise people who are looking at a group of newcomers and shaking their heads."
Why are they shaking their heads? Yes, your base has a big role in the Dem base, but sooner or later there will be a a new BASE of voters. That is the way things roll, hopefully. We should be glad that there is a new group of voters coming into our party. Yeah, they might be a little raw and uncouth, but we should also welcome them and their efforts. Hillary's base won't be around forever.
And people don't strike out for no reason...t
Obamabots. Nice. Hillary Clinton supporters continue to bash. Hillary Clinton has not been persecuted, neither have her supporters. You have your ideas and believes (in whatever parallel universe you live in) and Obama supporters have OUR beliefs. Either way, Hillary Clinton was not well-received by the American people as a whole. By all estimates and advantages she should have sailed through the primaries. She lost because she is a disgraceful candidate with no moral background and she tried OLD tactics in a year of CHANGE.
Reality is that millions of Americans REJECTED the Clintons by either voting FOR Obama or AGAINST Hillary Clinton. Either way, that says she has some work to do if she ever wants to be president. I don't think she has it in her to be humble and behave like the American people want her to. So she will not be president in 2008, 2012, 2016 or 2020.
And America has already moved beyond the Clintons. We will move beyond her supporters as well.
Even if Barack loses, he will run again. Meanwhile Hillary will be blamed and her political career will be over.
From my experience, and I am a near 50 year old lifetime democrat voter, you are seeing enemies where they hardly exist. There are many HRC detractors, many who feel she has "grown up" in a political world they want to see come to an end. A world of triangulation and politics for it's own sake. They (we) are hopeful that Obama represents the change back to politics for the sake of advancing the people condition. We wont know until he is elected but he represents our best hope. I have seen only a few who demonize HRC supporters for their support, a similar number to HRC supporters who will fault Obama supporters. If a few anonymous posters in the blogosphere are the guides to your Presidential selection then you will always be disappointed with the outcome...
It is understandable that you are dissapointed that your candidate lost but Iimplore you not to let that drive you to use a few idiots in the blogosphere to drive you to use your vote for revenge instead of progress.
It isn't about your "feelings" or theirs, it's about your values and what actions on your part advance those values. If voting for McCain or staying home does that then so be it.
typical CLinton supporter.
Must be that inclusiveness thing. When Obama can get 52% of the vote AND beat Alan Keyes of course he's inevitable. I can understand why his supporters are so arrogant.
Heidfeld
I was born and have lived in this country since 1949. I served this country in Viet Nam. As a tradesman, I have contributed sweat and effort to building this country. I have voted in every national and most local elections since I cast my first vote for Lyndon Johnson. I have paid taxes, volunteered my services to political campaigns. What else do you feel I have do in order to stop "acting" like I belong and actually belong?
"Hillary Clinton, we trust, will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama."
You almost lost me from the first line. I think that last night proves that Senator Clinton does not have it in her to graciously do anything.
Hillary Clinton true to herself showed no class last night and instead it was all about her. She is insincere and still trying to bring him down. The horror film continues.
More class than Obama and his wife ever did
Hillary Clinton "gracious"? After last night? That's where you lost me.
Only the arrogance, ignorance and naivete of an Obama could make sense of not giving the position on the ticket to the person who won 18 million votes, as if he has votes to spare and has no need of any further help.
It is not only about winning the election it is about governing once that happens. and of course one has to win but I don't think it possible with MRS Clinton on the ticket. the party loyal will vote for the nominee no matter whom they voted for in the primary. MRS Clinton in essence, is threatening to divide the party if Obama does not give in to her demands. Yet MRS Clinton on the ticket will unite the Republicans in a way that no Republican has been able to do. John McCain will not have a problem fund raising against an Obama/Clinton ticket. A recent survey in the Sacramento Bee indicates that some Clinton supporters are having voter's remorse.
In a May 16-27 survey of Democratic voters, Obama was preferred over Clinton by 51 percent to 38 percent – nearly the reverse of Clinton's 51.5 percent to Obama's 43.2 percent in the California primary.
She really has no cards to play and her bluff should be called.
You are right. If Hillary does not fully support Obama and work to unite the party, the Democratic party(and miliions 0f Obama supporters) will never forgive her. Her political career will be over and her husband's legacy will be forever damaged.
Not just support Obama and work to unite the party, but do it from the back seat. She has forfeited a leadership position within the administration. Back to the Senate, and try to be a better Senator.
She "won 18 million voters" ? Really? And still claims she won the popular vote? A good portion of those votes are Republican crossovers that Rush Limbaugh rallied to get her as a beatable opponent to McCain. She still fails to acknowledge all our votes here in Michigan for Obama in her popular vote total. Despite the fact that Obama was awarded delegates from Michigan, his popular vote total here is zero. Kinda tips the playing field, doesn't it? And throw in the caucus states, too, which Hillary fails to acknowledge.
Who Obama chooses as his running mate is HIS decision. It sickens me to see Hillary try to strong arm her way into the #2 spot. The lady is staying at the party TOO LONG. With her assassination comments, it makes me way too nervous to even think about having her as VP. Time to go home, Hillary.
Unfortunately, she is a sore loser. A quality for young Americans to emulate.
Thank you so much for writing this article Nancy. I really appreciate it. You have done an excellent job of summing up the arrogance and ignorance that is this Obama "movement".
The man has won exactly nothing. By some counts he has received less votes than Hillary, and at best you can call it a draw. He has certainly not won the presidency.
The Clinton's have been the only recent democrats to sucessfully fight the Republicans. How are your people Pelosi, Reid and Dean doing? Rather, what are they doing?
Please, you want to write off the Clinton's when your boy hasn't even won yet. He is being handed the nomination by the liberal left and you want to call this some new winning strategy?
Wake up. In 2000 and 2004, the american electorate can be stupid. They will vote against their own best interests, and voted in an idiot. The Clinton's understand that these people need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and told what to do.
And what was result of the Clinton's taking charge? A balanced budget that was on course to pay off the national debt by 2010. Yes, PAY OFF the national debt. For the first time in our history, and as the first modern country to do so. And so what, that would only have freed up money for healthcare and wellfare and lots of other things to benefit the average american who didn't vote for them in the first place.
what are you talking about?!?
did you even read the article?
"The man has won exactly nothing...
Except his party's nomination for President, and a historic one at that.
Seriously, what article did you just read? And what world do you live in? This was not a draw. Barack Obama WON the nomination. No one handed it to him. He won. And he won the nomination by doing what Democrats traditionally do: he showed broad populist appeal.
I, for one, have lost all respect for the Clintons. They've proven themselves to be outright liars and have tried to undermine Obama's campaign from the get-go, with the strategy to win at any cost. It's Hillary and Bill first, above all else. Their arrogance is sickening.
No one is discounting the progress made during the Clinton administration, but the people just don't trust them anymore. How they've conducted their personal lives, how they've conducted this campaign, and how they continue to ignore the voice of the people and bow out gracefully from a race they've lost only makes us even madder.
Stop the strong-arming Hillary and go home.
The Clinton's are liars? And what, Obama does not, has not lied? He lied about his energy policies, he lied about the meeting with the Canadian ambasador, he lied about Right.... He is just as bad. Why can't you people see this? You are simply and plainly delusional. You are no capable of seeing reality. I'm not sure if you should be allowed to vote in this state.
The Clinton's arogance is sickening? WHAT? Are they the ones who ASSumed that their opponents supporters would automatically support them? Are they the ones who said vote for us now, or we will never run again? Please, again, you show ZERO grasp of reality.
The people showed their distrust and disapproval of the Clinton's personal lives, and how she handled her campaign? Really? Would those be the people of PA, or WV, or KY where she DESTROYED him by huge margins late in the race when it was "already decided"? Again, reality.
Honestly, you people are living out some sick dream... and in the process you are ailenating half of the party. The results will not be pretty, so please don't point the finger anywhere else.
WTF??? DId we read the same article? This was a condemnation of Clinton tactics, not a rousing show of support. Talk about delusional and bitter.
This paragraph just shows how uniformed and flat out gullible a good chunk of the Clinton support is (believing she won the popular vote?).
"And what was result of the Clinton's taking charge? A balanced budget that was on course to pay off the national debt by 2010. Yes, PAY OFF the national debt. For the first time in our history, and as the first modern country to do so. And so what, that would only have freed up money for healthcare and wellfare and lots of other things to benefit the average american who didn't vote for them in the first place."
First, I will assume the 2010 is a typo, even though it would make an easy target and get to the meat. Clinton did NOT pay off the national debt. He eliminated the deficit and was able to pay down a small chunk of the debt (there's a massive difference you know). Unfortunately, because of the size of the national debt, interest increased the total size of the debt on Bill Clinton's watch. The numbers are on record, and they are undeniable. Undeniable, except to the rubes that Clinton managed to sucker into supporting her.
It is called sarcasim. Have you heard of it?
And which part of, "on course to pay of the national debt by 2010" was not clear? On course means, that when Clinton left office, he had a budget in place that would have allowed this to happen. Had the next president continued with Clinton's fiscal policy/budget, that is what was projected (in reality, it was projected to happen sooner, but I gave it extra time for the unforseen events of 2001... to be fair).
So yeah, he balanced the budget and was on course to pay down the debt. Money can't buy people you hapiness, but when it comes to the Gov't, it pretty much can. Healthcare, social security..
Shouldn't you be better informed if you are going to hate someone? Or do you just prefer blind hatred? I guess it goes hand in hand with following the herd.
"Hillary Clinton, we trust, will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama."
I've seen nothing whatsoever that would lead me to have such "trust". In fact, quite the contrary, thus far.
Amazing. Even winning won't make you all stop. That is why i won't ever join you guys. You never know when enough is enough. No one likes a sore winner.
Let's relax. Barack Obama has won but Hillary has not conceded. They will both need the support of the other. The dust needs to settle and reason must rule. There is too much at stake to make decisions in the midst of a snit. A snit that some people on both sides of the argument seem to be having. Let's, all of us, not vote out of fear. It's what the Republicans depend on.
I don't think that Barack Obama needs Hillary. He beat her and he needs to seal that deal. He needs to assert his victory forcefully. He needs to do this to counter the perception that he is overly conciliatory. He should not reconcile with Hillary.
why doesn't your candidate acknowledge the win? Have you seen anything that would indicate she will be gracious about anything? She better get into line before her bluff is called. check out the following survey from the Sacramento Bee:
In a May 16-27 survey of Democratic voters, Obama was preferred over Clinton by 51 percent to 38 percent – nearly the reverse of Clinton's 51.5 percent to Obama's 43.2 percent in the California primary.
So it looks as though many of the voters who supported her would not do so again.
Well perhaps his opponent would be gracious and mature enough to acknowledge the victory, it would be easier for his supporters to gracious as well.
Hillary is the sore loser here. Enough is enough! Hillary needs to pack up her bags and go home.
I'm not 100% sure I was in the right place, but I checked HRC's site where she posted her most recent letter and asked for feedback.
There were only about 140 responses.
I don’t believe it. Bill Clinton, the first democrat in fifty years to succeed at winning two terms in office is being reinvented as a loser and the strategy that got him there, the only oasis of success in the modern Democratic Party is being--to borrow from Kipling-- twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools intent upon pulling down the Clinton legacy faster than a Saddam Hussein statue.
If anyone should be praised for the ground swell in the Democratic Party, it’s President George W. Bush, whose atrocious and unending war combined with failed policies foreign and domestic and the unmitigated gall of his second term in office has galvanized the population in a way that nothing else could. The voter turnout for all its excitement and acrimony is nothing more than the product of a overwhelming frustration, fear and determination for a change of course.
Democrats, for the sake of the future, stop eating your own.
Bill Clinton won the Presidency, both times with less than 50% of the vote. That is true enough. But is triangulation policies were disastrous for the Democratic Party itself.
Running against the base insured that even when there was an election victory, the Democrats had no mandate to do anything. Before Clinton was elected, the Democrats had large Congressional majorities, and an overwhelming majority of state legislators. All that crashed under Clintonism.
The Clintons did what was good for the Clintons, not the Party and not for liberal values or progressive parties.
The end of Clintonian triangulation is something for all of us who favor a more progressive America to celebrate.
It means that at least one major political party will stand for something other than corporate-friendly conservatism.
Beginning with Howard Dean in 2004 and culminating with Obama is 2008, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party has risen from the ashes of the DLC and American Democracy will be the better for it.
Amen, and well said BTW.
Let us hope what you say in paragraphs four and five occurs. Especially paragraph five. Good, succinct analysis in first three paragraphs. Last paragraph seems a bit rosy, but it seems the opportunity to make some changes may be afoot.
Nobody is calling Bill Clinton a loser. People are saying that his strategies are outdated and many worked only for him.
There's a new victory, in case you hadn't noticed. Barack Obama's victory in the primary.
Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992. This is 2008. We've had a spirited contest and Hillary came in second. Now it's time for all of us to commend her for a gallant effort and get behind the candidate who came in first.
"it"s President George W. Bush, whose atrocious and unending war"
...which Senator Clinton supported.
Thank you, Nancy, for this because i had problem understanding how can H. Clinton can go complaining about voters disenfranchise and make it on the stump when she signed a pledge to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan (with Obama but at least he understood the problem and try to solve instead of making out it a way to make some more votes) and with her "Super Tuesday - February 5th Strategy". She, in fact, discounted all the voters after February 5th. SHE THOUGHT SHE WOULD NOT NEED THEM. So all her talk of 50 States/not 48 States to nominate the candidate is bogus. As in Clinton fashion, she talked about them only when she needed them. And nobody challenged her on this.
I will look forward to Hillary being gracious in the face of all the villification she got from the Obamaniacs. And you have certainly missed the mark if Hillary doesn't accept the VP position. She will be perfectly positioned to run in 2012. Obama cannot win without her. That means Clintonism is alive and well.
When has she ever been gracious? She has never congratulated Obama for a single race? She would not even congratulate Obama for getting the required number of delegates? She is clearly campaigning for 2012. Her so-called commitment to unifying the party is not holding water.
This has been a hard fight, and both sides have said things that they should regret; several of the posts I'm reading on this page fall into that category.
If Barack can't bring Hillary's supporters on board, he's doomed - he needs the white female vote. Unfortunately, a lot of his 'change' message has failed to respect the fact that his candidacy wouldn't be possible without some degree of those 'same old politics' he derides. He really is standing on the shoulders of giants.
If she runs as an independent, she's just as doomed; there would be no possibility of a do-over in 2012 - she needs the african american vote. The clinton campaign has already made several missteps that have cost them much of their once solid support; this would be something she'd never be forgiven for. The youth vote that Obama turns out will only be bigger and madder in four years - are they going to support the person that tanked the candidate that sparked their interest in politics.
Four years of McSame isn't worth the cost to our soldiers, our economy, and our environment. I would have voted for him in 2000, but eight years later, he's a very different man, promising to remake the Supreme court, make tax cuts he once derided permanent, and walking away from campaign reform laws he wrote. It's really sad.
Unless we work this out, we all lose. Please stop shouting and start talking. It's the only way to win.
I second that!
How about a positive step for Hillary supporters ... a write-in campaign. That way McCain doesn't get the votes, Obama still gets his supporter votes, and Hillary gets hers. What a fair election that would be. There's always that blank write-in space on every ballot I've ever seen in case none of the printed candidates suit your fancy.
Yes, women who supported H C should vote for the firmly anti-choice candidate of the party that has never done squat to promote the welfare of women??????? The party that has in fact done everything to thwart equality for women? Hello???
You would have voted for McCain in 2000? Kindly state your motives.
If Barack can't bring Hillary's supporters on board, he's doomed - he needs the white female vote.
Obama can't "Bring" Hillary's supporters on board like they're cattle or sheep. Hillary's supporters have to come on their own. If you mean he has to kiss various parts of their collective anatomy in order to win in November, I'd rather see him lose to McCain and digest the selfish self-destruction of the Democratic party once and for all. And after 4 more years of war, unemployment, fat cat entitlements and racisim, I think the next generation of voters will be ready for the kind of governmental "CHANGE" that is necessary.
Silly monkey. The lady in the pantsuit lost. And she's poison at the polls outside the Democratic Party. Did you notice how much better Obama did in MT's open primary? That's because his appeal, unlike hers, is not limited to a subset of one party.
She will be perfectly positioned to clean the toilets in an Obama White House after her delegates abandon her this week.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
