Helping to Elect Other Democrats Has Never Been a Clinton Strong Suit
In the end, the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is about whether Democrats want to go back to the nineties, or forward into the future.
For Democrats interested in building a strong, progressive party throughout America, it's useful to remember what the 1990's were like.
When Bill Clinton entered office in 1992, Democrats held a one-hundred-vote majority in the House of Representatives, 267 to 167. After his first two years, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time since 1954, and did not regain a majority until 2006 -- long after he'd left office.
In 1992, Democrats also had control of the Senate, but lost control in 1994 and did not regain it throughout the Clinton term.
When the Clintons entered the White House, Democrats controlled both legislative bodies in 29 states. The parties had split control in 14 states, and Republicans controlled both chambers in only six states. Democratic control gradually eroded throughout the 1990's. By 1998, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 21 states. Republicans had gained control of both houses in 17 states, and 11 had one chamber controlled by each party.
Just as telling, at the beginning of Clinton's term only 40% of state legislative seats were held by Republicans. By the time he left office over 50% were held by Republicans. The GOP picked up a whopping 472 legislative seats across the country in 1994 alone.
Let's recall that while the Democratic Party across the country atrophied, Clinton himself won re-election in 1996 by an Electoral College vote of 379 to 159. In the popular vote, he beat Bob Dole by almost nine percentage points.
What accounted for the precipitous decline in the fortunes of other Democratic office holders during the Clinton years?
Four factors are particularly relevant as Democrats evaluate whether they should send the Clintons back to the White House.
1) The failure of Hillary Clinton's 1993 healthcare initiative was a disaster for down-ballot Democrats. Of course the Clintons should be commended for having tried to create a universal health care system. But the way they went about it doomed it from the start. Their proposal was a Rube Goldberg contraption meant to allow the insurance industry to "buy-in" to the deal. But the insurance types didn't really want government-sponsored universal health care in the first place. So after they had gotten all they could in the way of concessions, they savaged the proposal with their famous "Harry and Louise" nationwide media campaign. To win on an issue as big as universal health care, the President needed to mobilize average Americans to demand that their Member of Congress deliver on health care reform or face the prospect of not being sent back to Washington. There was no nationwide mobilization, and the Clinton universal healthcare proposal collapsed.
2) After the failure of universal health care and the Democratic loss of both houses of Congress in 1994, the Clintons decided on a new strategy of triangulation. Instead of creating one, unified Democratic team, the Clintons positioned themselves as a third force in dealing with Capitol Hill. They calculated that this was their best bet to get something (although generally small things) out of a Republican Congress. But that hurt other Democrats in three big ways:
• First, it set many Congressional Democrats politically adrift.
• Second, it led to the tacit acceptance that the dominant conservative value frame defined the political center. Instead of taking on the Republicans with respect to big issues, and drawing sharp distinctions between progressive and conservative values, conservative values simply went unchallenged. Conservative assumptions about the economy and the role of government were allowed to become the de facto benchmarks against which political positions were measured. The result was that Democrats spent years in a defensive crouch. When you're on the defensive, you're losing.
• Third, triangulation required that the Administration restrict itself to making small, tinkering proposals to Congress (the State Children's Health Care Plan was the only notable exception). The only big ideas for fundamentally changing the country came from the conservatives.
3) The Lewinsky scandal cost down-ballot Democrats big time, particularly in swing rural areas. It sapped the party's political energy and put the Administration on the defensive for a good portion of its second term. Once again, when you're on the defensive, you're losing.
4) Finally, there was indeed a massive right-wing conspiracy to attack and vilify the Clintons. The Conservative Movement and its various organs did an effective job at raising the negatives of both Bill and Hillary. In fact, in many ways Hillary got the worst of it. Bill's personable, "I may be a rascal, but I'm likable" persona defused some of the right's withering assault. Hillary's cooler personality did not. As a result, down-ballot Democrats were forced to run with the heavy burden of big Clinton negatives.
There are a lot of Members of Congress from swing districts and other super delegates who don't want to go "back to the future." They saw what happened to down-ballot Democrats with the Clintons in the White House once. They don't want to try it again.
One such Member of Congress told me the other night that whether it was fair or not, Hillary Clinton was like "acid rain" in his district. He said he'd have a hard time getting his own mother to support her -- that Hillary would weigh on his chances for re-election like an albatross around the neck.
If we want to build strong, progressive, Democratic majorities in Congress and in state legislatures -- if we want to pass legislation that fundamentally improves people's lives -- then we need to heed the words of another swing district Democrat. He told me that while Bill and Hillary Clinton may have been the bridge to the 21st Century, Barack Obama is the 21st Century. He says we can't risk going back to the 1990's, we have to go forward, to the future.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
Loading comments…
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
Yet another article revealing that the Clinton's care about one thing only: themselves.
I am so tired of hearing about them!
Turn the page, people!
After the so called Dem superdelegates make their decision as to who the Dem nominee for President will be for the General 08 election "We the peon voters" Indies, Newbies & Crossover voters will have a chance to have our say. But NOT until after these superdelegates vote as their rules dictate. ... for anyone and for any reason they decide... thats the rules so nothing more to be said about it. If you are inclined to keep the Republican Right from completely dominating and continuing the Bush legacy; I strongly suggest that you vote FOR your states DEM nominees Senators, Congressman etc during this primary.
Lets look forward to the General election. For those of us who are not card carrying Democratic party member (Indies,newbies & crossover voters). If you are inclined to thwart the continued Bush/Cheney policies in 2009 what do you do? I would urge you to vote FOR your States Dem nominees for Senate & Congressional seats in this primary. Whether or not the Dems can unify their party before the General is up to them alone.
1 In the General vote FOR your states entire Dem Senate and Congressional seats.
2 Decide to vote AGAINST the Dem nominee by leaving the Presidential slot BLANK in Nov 08
3 Vote with your feet by not showing up to vote in Nov 08
4 Vote for the Dem Presidential nominee just because thats the only choice you have been given.
5 Most importantly vote FOR the Presidential candidate because this candidate is YOUR choice.
I am NOT a follow my party right or wrong voter..I'm not even a member. However I do wish to thwart any more of the Bush/Cheney policies of the present.Therefore I will vote FOR my states Dem Senate & Congressional seats that are in play during this election. It will be interesting to see how many Indies and newbie & crossover voters feel the same way.
I am not a member of any organized party--I am a Democrat. Author: Will Rogers
If I cant be the Dem nominee for Commander in Chief.... I say that Republican Sen McCain passes the test... Author: A fool who will say and do anything to win the Dem nomination...
Clinton has focused so much of her campaign mocking not only Obama but, even more, the judgment and intelligence of his "cult" following (aka "other Democrats who she will need to vote for her in the fall.")
Coattails? She's stirred up enmity among a huge number of DEMOCRATS. If she manages to eke out a "win" at the convention, the entire party will go down in the flames of anti-Clinton(s) apathy.
The superdelegates need to wake up and prevent a John "100 Years of War" McCain presidency. They shouldn't wait till June.
The Democratic leadership and the super Delegates are in a bind. On the one hand, they must let the process play itself out. That includes going through the remaining states and run a re-vote in MI and FL. While Senator Clinton has, mathematically, no way of catching up, I can't blame her for trying. On the other hand, there is a risk that divisions between supporters of both camps, may become irreversible. The two candidates must start directing their energy towards McCain. They must start the healing process now and act as responsible democrates. It won't matter much who wins the nomination if, in the end, McCain gets elected. Think about that for a moment. 4 more years of fear mongering, a worsening economy, Permanent tax breaks for the top 1%, wiretaps and 100 years of Iraq occupation. If we continue to be too pre-occupied with the candidates negatives, we will be missing the true goal which is to win the WH and get a majority in the house and senate.
Excellent post...
Clinton is really a pain in the ass (both of them). The Clintons have played defense their whole political careers. I'm tired of that garbage, tired of the triangulation, tired of short term politcal gain.
I really liked when Obama correctly pointed out how bad Bill (and Hillary by assocation) Clinton is for the Democratic party as a whole.
Great article. I hope that everyone who knows how to link does so - especially every NYT Caucus blog!
Last reprise:
This story has been buried, with the exception of a piece on Countdown last night (Thu., 3/13)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
See: Clinton strategizing to win
Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23620941#23620941
Select: "possible re-do in MI and FL"
The focus on Hillary's pledge re: MI and FL has been on her agreement not to campaign. The BIG STORY, however, is that she also agreed not to even "PARTICIPATE." Thus, her current argument that they were "fair and should be honored" is...BS.
- Hillary agreed not to "campaign or participate" in MI and FL
- Hillary did not object to the pledge
- Hillary admitted that the votes would not count when they were cast
- Hillary's current claim that the votes in MI and FL were fair, legal and should be counted is outrageous, because they weren't and her shallow motive is clear based on her previous actions and remarks.
- in order to uphold the rules, the MI and FL primaries cannot count.
- revotes would drain precious contributions needed for the general election
- revotes would be incredibly expensive relative the number of delegages that might go to one candidate or the other (if OH and TX are any indication, $2-$3 million dollars each)
- as a compromise, in order to seat delegates, they should be split 50-50 (the Dodd compromise)
- Hillary, the state representatives who ignored the rules and the voters should be happy to have their delegates seated at all, based on the fact that the rules were well known.
- Hillary should be thankful she isn't fined for campaigning.
- she ought to be threatened with a hefty fine if she makes a big stink of the party rules/decision.
Contact www.hillaryclinton.com and the DNC at democrats.org to let them know you're aware. While you're at it, contact the network and cable news folks, too. Give e'm a kick in the pants.
And since MI and FL agreed not to count, it means that 3,737 delegates will be seated instead of 4,050. By my math, 1,869 delegates clinches the nomination and Obama has more than 1,600.
There are 353 undeclared superdelegates. Obama needs about 260 more delegates to clinch, from either superdelegates or the 685 pledge delegates in the remaining primaries. Think he can get 275 out of 1,038?? I do. Or on the other hand, can Hillary get 663? Nah.
Is there any benefit to the Democratic Party to continue the primaries? Obama will go to the convention with more pledge delegates. Does anyone but Hillary benefit from continuing? (And does Hillary benefit from continuing, when you think about 2012?)
The math has spoken. Superdelegates, do your duty and select the best candidate for the party because of their insurmountable delegate lead and popular vote lead. NOW. Save the $30M that new caucuses in FL and MI would cost, heal the wounds, and go after McCain!! Hillary, be a gracious loser - your future depends on it (but not as VP).
Full Chat - the 4050 number is the number WITHOUT Michigan and Florida.
You forgot to mention:
5. George W. Bush won the White House in 2000.
There were some good things that happened in the 1990s, but what good is anything a Democratic President does if a radical Republican comes in afterwards and erases it all?
The Clintons have republican coattails, maybe thats why Hillary is endorsing McCain.
It is nothing more than a lie to claim Ms. Clinton endorsed McCain. Typical of Obama supporters.
The endorsement came in the form of a statement that Obama does not have national security credentials while McCain does. Very bad of her to say this about the Democrat who lead in the pledged delegates and popular vote.
Somebody needs to talk about the stupidity of these superdelegates. It's not that hard to predict who and by how much people are going to win the remaining states. Contrary to the momentum arguments, much of the difference between them is just regional differences. At this point, people care a lot about whether they pick Clinton or Obama.
Each passing week, each side just gets more entrenched and bitter. If they were at useful, they'd have picked one...either one...by now.
They're mere existence is the biggest threat to the democratic party.
If you want a current example about how the Clintons are not helping the Democratic Party, look no further than the Pennsylvania Primary. Right now, the Obama forces are focused entirely on a voter registration drive which promises to expand the Party roles by hundreds of thousands. The Clinton campaign, satisfied with its lead in the polls and its support from Rendell and other top officials, is avoiding new registrations like the plague.
Obama is appealing to those who could be the future of the Democratic Party. Clinton, in contrast, is focused on older voters, who are not inclined to vote for either change or an African American candidate.
So everyone will lose their minds, and be stupid enough to buy Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" all over again? If people were to be idiotic and gullible enough to buy that GOP crap again, then they would probably vote them in regardless of who is president. This Article is eligible for "The Chicken Little Award". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Little
The Clintons only care about themselves, not their party or their fellow Democrats. They didn't campaign for Kerry and we all know why. Cause they wanted to him lose and keep 2008 open for Hillary. Now they stab Obama in the back with stuff that McCain can use against him. They are willing to let down-ticket Democrats lose as well. I wonder how happy Democrats will be if they managed to get a Democratic president but lost control of Congress again.
I'm glad someone else remembers their not helping Kerry either, in order to help them win in 2008. Yes, the Clintons have a long, solid history of being about and for one thing only: the Clintons.
Ah yes, that quadruple-bypass surgery was all a sham for TV. Were Clinton to have dropped dead campaigning for Kerry, only then would we know he was not a witch, er, sorry, Republican.
It's more important for the Democrats to get veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress than to elect a Democratic POTUS. That won't happen if The Clintons are the nominees.
Creamer shoots - HE SCORES!
Outstanding insight and detailed analysis that encapsulates what my feelings have been since early on in this campaign. This article explains in detail the overlooked reasons why it is time to leave behind the 90's, and all the mixed blessings associated with the Clintons. As we've seen more and more lately - when the Clintons feel cornered, the negativeness come out for all to see, which reflects badly on all democrats, and weakens our standing across the board. We expect this approach from our conservative opposition, which unfortunately, is what the Clinton campaign has morphed into.They're stuck in the past, mired in the mud, and content to let the chips fall where they may after scorching the earth.
Our choice is clear in this election, and it's the politics of the past - represented by McCain AND Clinton - versus the opportunity to invigorate our nation and our party while building a lasting majority, lead by a man who is perfectly situated for the task.
Move on. Be progressive. Turn the page.
Elect Barack.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
