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
Bill Clinton is the only Democrat who managed to get elected and stay in office for two terms, in a very long time.The Republican party set out to destroy him, and instead of helping him, and the party, the rest of the Democrats decided to try to survive with their individual PYA stances and- divided they fell. There wasn't an honest to God statesman among them. Both Gore and Kerry lost by the DNC's stupididty of trying to distance themselves from Clinton, and so here we are. Now, once again, the Dems are positioning themselves to lose because they use the Republican compass to guide them, instead of just standing up together for what is right. Is there a Democrat out there who is not disappointed with Nancy Pelosi?Is there a Democrat out there who still does not understand the Republicans that we are up against?This is ridiculous. The Clintons are not, and never have been our enemy. I am just amazed at what the party is peddling here. Thank you Hillary for hanging in there.
Care to exlplain how the Dems lost the governors and states houses too?
Heres another example of Clintons helping democrats. Hillary spent a record 30 million on her NY senate campaign that she could of won by never leaving her house. She could of donated some of that money to other democrats running for congress in 2006 instead of her coronotation in NY.
what you wrote is so true.
and here's the thing - the clinton's are intelligent people. do you think they don't know the things that you pointed out? they know, which only goes to show this is about them and nothing else. why, why do people want this kind of bs again? why are people so naive as to think that somehow it will be different this time, that the vast right wing conspiracy is all of a sudden gonna go away and let hillary do all the "wonderful" things she wants? it will be more fighting and more obstruction. IF she can beat mccain, which is extremely unlikely anyway. they're in denial about that, too.
That's a stupid comment about the Clintons only caring about themselves.
Liberal blogs like the Huffington Post are contributing to the fragmentation of the Democratic party.
Democrats always had heated arguments, but always came together in the end.
There will be no coming together this time. Don't expect it, it won't happen.
You can't read this vitriol every day, and expect people to forget.
You may win the argument but you will lose the war.
So liberal blogs like the Huffington Post are now the enemy?
If they are - who or what does that make you?
Clinton supporters - always adept at the art of unintentionally making the other guy's point - in this case, mine.
If there's no coming together this time, it's a path you're paving for yourselves, and further illustration of why we're in such dire need of RENEWAL.
I won't be missing Ferraro much myself - but you're welcome to her company in the pasture of the formerly relevant.
Yeah, liberals are the enemy, if the Democratic party wants to succeed, we should all be conservitives. If we did everything Rush Limpbrain wants and vote for Hillary we will win the elections and be able to promote a conservitive agenda successfully. Conservitive Democrats Unite, crush the liberal and moderate Democrats under your heals.
Superb Analysis! I'm sure most elected officials have connected the dots like you. I just don't understand why the superdelegates are not endorsing Obama right now and stopping the bleeding of the party by Hillary and her gang of desperados.
STOP THE NONSENSE AND ENDORSE OBAMA NOW!
"I just don't understand why the superdelegates are not endorsing Obama right now and stopping the bleeding of the party by Hillary and her gang of desperados."
-------------------------------
I don't understand it either. we keep hearing about how the role of the superdelegates is to prevent the party from making a mistake. seems pretty obvious they are not living up to their role; their refusal to commit (at this point) is enabling this thing drag on which is only going to hurt the general election.
why would any of these uncommitted superdelegates at this point go for clinton when she has made it clear that a republican would be a better president than her democratic opponent? why? you would think that the mccain comment would have a huge wake up call. the party should really scrap this whole superdelegate thing - it's obviously causing more harm to the party than anything else. the intended purpose is not how it's playing out.
The answer is: Political expediency.
I'm with you two. I really cannot understand why people are waiting to come forward. In some other article it said that about 1/2 of the remaining uncommited (but mostly already decided) super-delegates were waiting for the next 10 primaries before announcing their decisions...WHY?! a) if you already know who you are going to choose, why wait? and b) she cannot catch up, so it's not as if they are thinking "well if Hillary catches up then I will support her" ...she cannot overtake Barack at this point so WTH are they waiting for?!?!
Its become pretty apparent that the Clintons main interest is themselves, not the Party, not the Country. Their lack of real support of Kerry was telling. Now Hillary makes it clear she wants the nomination so bad that, if she doens't get it, she is willing to destroy Obama's chances in November. Part of her strategy is to make Obama a less viable candidate against McCain and polling data suggests that is working.
So if she isn't the nominee now, she will have set up a situation that makes it more likely that McCain wins and she can try once again in 2012. Its time the superdelegates stepped up and put an end to the Clinton years -- the party deserves better and the country deserves better.
Will someone ask Hillary this question "If Obama is the nominee, will you support and campaign aggressively for him in November?"
Bill Clinton is the only Democrat who managed to get elected and stay in office for two terms, in a very long time.
The Republican party set out to destroy him, and instead of helping him, and the party, the rest of the Democrats decided to try to survive with their individual PYA stances and- divided they fell. There wasn't an honest to God statesman among them.
Both Gore and Kerry lost by the DNC's stupididty of trying to distance themselves from Clinton, and so here we are.
Now, once again, the Dems are positioning themselves to lose because they use the Republican compass to guide them, instead of just standing up together for what is right.
Is there a Democrat out there who is not disappointed with Nancy Pelosi?
Is there a Democrat out there who still does not understand the Republicans that we are up against?
This is ridiculous. The Clintons are not, and never have been our enemy. I am just amazed at what the party is peddling here. Thank you Hillary for hanging in there.
Robert Creamer, you're my favorite blogger at HuffPo. You consistently keep it real for Democrats. I have said in my posts here that the Clintons have not been good for Democrats.
Hillary praising McSame in a Primary contest is one of the more outrageous instances of her lack of familiarity with the core values and concerns of the Democrats. Refusing to release their tax information, stonewalling access to their papers from their time in the White House, and denying transparency regarding the Clinton Presidential Library, the Clintons remind me of Bush/ Cheney. Let's not forget that Bill relied heavily on Dick Morris when he was in the White House building a bridge that turned out to go toward ignominy. And I suspect Al Gore has quite an opinion on how Bill and Hillary are not good for the country or the Party.
personally, I began losing a lot of respect for Bill Clinton in '04 when he did not do all in his power to help John Kerry as he was being swiftboated.
coincidentally, that is the exact time I began looking at Obama as a great future for America.
"Clinton leaves hospital after surgery"
"Former president home recovering from quadruple bypass"
"No campaigning, yet"
Clinton had planned to campaign for Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president, but the recovery from surgery will stall his activities with just eight weeks left until the election. It was not immediately clear how soon he could return to the campaign trail.
It is “too soon to know what will be possible,” said Kennedy earlier this week. “As the doctors said, it will be two to three months before he is 100 percent recovered.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906976/
Where was Hillary and Chelsea?
A good article. Too bad the average American's historical memory is shorter than a fly's.
This is a good article. If hillary is the nominee we are gonna lose the congress. Democrats need control of congress to get anything done. She has too much baggage. I can't believe all these feminist are supporting her. She should have divorced Bill after the Monica fling. The reason she didn't is she knew she couldn't get elected president without him.
Yup. And Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Hart, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry had such long coattails. Enough with the Clinton bashing. Real Democrats know that being the only twice-elected president since FDR counts for something. It's great to right, but you have to be elected first.
Without Ross Perot, Bill Clinton is simply the ex governor of Arkansas while GHWB enjoys a second term. Get real. He wouldn't have beat Dole without Perot as well. Bill Clinton was a DLC democrat who did more to hurt progressive politics than he did to help. Real democrats know that governing like a republican isn't the way to truly change this country.
Tell that to Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
Sorry, but Mr. Creamer is correct that the Clintons never helped to get other Dems elected, especially John Kerry. Did they really come out strong by campaigning tirelessly for him. LOL!
They did everything in their power to ensure that he was not going to be elected, because they wanted Hillary to run in 2008, which is exactly what is happening. If they really wanted to help the Democratic party, they would be doing all they could to make sure that Obama, who is clearly ahead, is going to win. Guess what? Will never happen.
You know it is kind of hard to unite the group of special interests that comprise the Democrat party. First of all there is no loyalty at all . Bill Clinton got off his death bed after quadruple bypass surgery to cpaign for Kerry. So when Kerry endorses Obama does he do it gracefully ? NO ! Isn't that an attempt to elect a Democrat? The koolaid drinkers are crazy if they think their guy can bring people together. OHIO INDEPENDENT FOR HILLARY
Copme on! What are you talking about? Bill Clinton is the precise reason why John Kerry and Al Gore were not elected. Bill's scandals chipped away at so many of the votes that Al and John could have received. I truly hope that Barack will not embrace the Clintons during the general election. Any sign of that would be a sure invitation to defeat. We must move on into the future! Why are people struggling to embrace change like this? If you keep sending the same people to Washington that you've always sent there you'll never get different results. Seriously, people! We need to grow up!
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Al Gore was his own worst enemy in 2000. The fact that Kerry is a pompous clown is what did him in. Barack will lose big in the fall mark my words.
What are all of these superdelegates waiting for? If they are going to support Obama do it NOW so we can stop all of this negativity and attacks. The Clinton supporters will recover when Obama picks a VP that they can latch on to (Richardson perhaps?). I just can't take 3 more months of this petty bickering.
I doubt they will recover. Many of the Clinton supporters I talk to will vote for Nader, write in a candidate or not vote. Most are older people, old line democrats and moderates who cannot stomach Obama. I personally will write in Edwards. That is really Obama's big problem-electablility. The superdelegates are well aware of that problem and that is why they won't commit. Obama's problem is that he will not be able to win the general election any more than McGovern did. Same coalition as McGovern, same people nominating him as McGovern and its gonna be the same outcome as McGovern.
I disagree. I really believe that Obama has teh motivational and inspirational skills to reach out to people during the general election. I believe that he has a game plan for enfranchising more and more people into the process. He needs a chance. We already gave bill and Hillary a chance and we saw the results in the '90s. I don't want to go back to those days of divisiveness and partisanship. We are one country. We are one people. Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Let's unite behind a new cause for the 21st Century. Let's begin a new day of unity, of love and of peace. We are all brothers and sisters as Barack endeavors to inspire us. We must come together and restore America to it's place of dignity in the world.
Its going to happen to an even bigger extent if Hillary is the nominee so I guess we should all just throw in the towel now cause it is obvious that so many people are so stubborn that there is no way to get a Democrat in office. Its these people that tick me off. I hope everyone is happy on either side when we get McCain in office. People should get off their high horses and think about the good of the party and the country but obviously people are too self-involved that they can't do that.
No, the Clinton supporters will nor recover. You are in dreamland.
After reading the vitriol on here about Clinton, what makes you think her supporters will forgive and forget?
The only Democrat that Obama helped get elected was Joseph Lieberman.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf." Barack Obama, March 30, 2006,
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman//
Senator Obama endorsed the lone Democrat running for Danny Hastert's seat , which Hastert held for decades, in a rigidly conservative Republican district in Illinois. The Republican opponent is a well known, well respected (among Republicans) and successful businessman who was considered, much like Senator Clinton, the "inevitable nominee." However, to the surprise of many and against all conventional wisdom, the virtually unknown Democrat candidate who was endorsed by Senator Obama WON. This happened only a week or so ago, in the midst of this primary season, and everyone credits Senator Obama's endorsement for this unlikely victory. Stay tuned for more Democrats to be elected to Congress on the coattails of Senator Barack Obama.
You do know that later Obama did support Lamont. Some people were fooled by Lieberman, not just Obama. But then they did get behind Lamont to get elected.
Oh and Obama did help Foster get elected just last week to Hasert's old seat. And he has a long history of going to fund raisers and giving those speeches, to raise money for other Dems in their election/re-election fights. The NYT even acknowledged this in their recent hit piece of theirs.
Obama has stated on a number of occasions about his mentor in the US Senate, Joe Lieberman. It is Joe Lieberman helping Obama with his senate career.
i live in minnesota, and, if hillary is the nominee of the democratic party, al franken is never going to take down norm coleman in the senate race this fall. franken needs to run up huge majorities in the twin cities, and, suburbs to off set coleman's strength in more conservative rural minnesota, and, he will not do it unless obama is on the ballot.
It's the usual.
All the reasons not to vote for Hillary, rumors and innuendos.
Nothing here about the horrors of the Bush administration.
Just more Clinton bashing disguised as a theory about blaming him for '94.
I saw him speak at a Tom Allen rally in Augusta Maine.
When he walked into the auditorium the crowd exploded. It was louder than any Red Sox world series game I'd ever been to.
Allen was re-elected with help from Clinton, and Bill gave a brilliant speech about how the opposition create the perceptions that falsely portray a candidate's true assets as negative.
Sound familiar? I'll take the certainty of the nineties, thank you!
Sounds like what they are doing to Obama with his eloquence and appeal to Independent voters.
If you like the Clintons record of the 90's, where they pretty much caved to Republicans and then took credit for a lot of their bills, like the Defense of Marriage Act and NAFTA, then great. It is definitely your right to vote for Hillary Clinton. But Bill should stop talking about himself. I've heard his speeches, too, and he is more passionate about defending his record than anything else.
Encapsulating the Clinton administration with these two bills is a stretch.
I remember America's mutual affection in the workl community.
I remember businesses being unable to hire enough people to fill all the jobs needed to feed the most prosperous economy in the history of the world.
I remember a president that had the guts to stand up to a republican hawk congress, including John McCain, and say no to American troops on the ground in Kosovo. He saved that country without spilling one drop of precious USA blood.
I remember a time of an unprecedented advance of minority agendas and people, the surge of internet importance, the encouragement of military hi tech, paying down Reagan's huge deficit and overstuffed state and municipal surpluses.
And I remember how good it felt to be alive. Then came Bush.
Regarding Democrab, been to both and the Red Sox have it hands down - try peddling your fantasies somewhere else.
"I'll take the certainties of the nineties, thank you!"
You'd like another administration crippled by a sex scandal?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
