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
I think one of the best moments that illustrate Hillary's persona came with her recent discussion of the Ferraro race flap. As she discussed it, she wore a smile that wouldn't quit. Even as she was conceding the effect of the comments, she was obviously pleased by the effect. This woman has always unnerved me. I don't see much in Obama to like, but I sure as Hell see something in Hillary I don't like. Now I know Hillary's supporters will bang on how Hillary is a strong woman that some men can't handle. You take the amount of people who can't handle her, and tell me how coattails will work with her. I see nothing but trouble.
The article which I thought was excellent, was wrong on the issue of health care. Hillary was
responsible for killing it through a combination of arrogance and stupidity. Go to nytimes.co
click on opinion, then click on David Brooks, then click on page 2, and read the article on
The Cooper Concerns. Then ask yourself, if you want this lady anywhere near the White House.
I wouldn't take Brooks as gospel, but a little research with google, might convince you.
Thank you so much for this post. Am sending it to everyone I know. Howard Dean and Pelosi of course lived through all this but it's as if they've forgotten. Will send them a copy as well if you don't mind.
dean and pelosi and the other "uncommitted" superdelegates are, i think, simply giving the Clintonista regime a chance to thoroughly ensnare itself in its own net.
there is a lot of diversity in the DemParty, and that has to be allowed for in all of this. there is a serious shift going on in the US, period - much like blood cleans a wound, we are holding forth on some of the most divisive issues of our time, whether we all agree on everything or not.
and we, Americans, are winning.
letting Shrillary completely exhaust herself on the negatives strengthens Obama for the GE and exhausts the rest of us on the Clintons..
i wouldn't be surprised if the clintons kinda went off and started another party. they've already got Rupert Murdoch and Fox News...wha
at any rate, i wonder if there'll be an Obama-Gore Dream ticket. that's the kind of thing that would be the endorsement of the establishment that Obama needs. and of course Gore with his forward thinking style could team up with Obama's thorough knowledge of Consitutional law to undo some of this FISA, torture, gerrymandering, and environmental stuff....o
i personally am very very eager to see the Democratic Party get back to who they were when my Black grandparents (of course they were 'Colored' at that time and subject to random bombings, lynchings and police dog/firehose attacks) were finally given the right to vote and selected the Dems over "the party of Abraham Lincoln".
we need more women in the spotlight like Pelosi and less men-in-yel
OBAMA-GORE '08
Haven't the Clintonistas ensnared themselves yet? The superdelegates have to act quickly.
How long, O Lord, how long?
You state what I believe is the biggest problem if Hillary steals the nomination and is elected. She will have no pull for the rest of the Democratic Party. Hillary will practice her big state politics and ignore many states like VA, MO and CO who are on the verge of being more Democratic. Not even to mention that she is seen a divisive figure in general. We need a candidate who can fulfill Dean's 50 state strategy.
Excellent piece. I was there. I remember what theClintons did. Those numbers tell the story and your analysis is dead on.
But numbers are almost always deceiving. Whether we had a democratic majority in congress in 1992 or not, we lived in a republican country, and it had been that way since 1980. In '86 we did not have the balls to indict Bush senior for his role in Iran-Contra.
Those 1986 dems were wobbly because they were scared of looking blood thirsty before a national election. Sound familiar?
I believe since then we have been the party without conviction. Should Hillary steal the nomination I think the trend will continue.
With the Clintons, campaigns and power is all about the Clintons, their legacy and that of a few friends who have benefited from them actions as political benefactors (i.e a case of pay -to-play politics).
Arent' you suprised that many in the Democratic Party choose a short-term view of supporting one family (the Clintons) rather the long-term benefit of their party - talk about always managing to shoot the DNC in the foot
Ah, but this whole thing IS Hillary Clinton's strategy.
She's not stupid. This whole thing is about her becoming a President and NOTHING else. If it means smearing Obama and helping John McCain become a 1 termer (considering that the economy is just going to get worse, that he won't be able to continue the Iraq occupation but will be too afraid to be known as a "cut n runner", and that he's practically got one foot in the grave right now...no chance for re-election in 2012 even if he could beat Obama), then that gives Hillary Clinton one last shot at the Presidency. After that, she'd be basically counted out as a result of her age.
She knows Obama is ahead and she knows he'll beat her. But if he wins, there's a chance the guy could be a 2 termer. By ending the Iraq occupation, reforming the government, getting people health care, he could easily win in a second term. Hillary wants to be president, and she'll stop at nothing to get it. That's all it is.
I agree. It becomes more and more obvious that she would rather see McCain win than Obama. She would then have a chance to run again in 2012. If Obama wins, he'd probably get a second term and she wouldn't have a chance to run until 2016, when she'd be pushing 70.
And the Clintons keep up their poison for Dems record, because both Bill and Hillary are clearly waging a scorched earth campaign now. The only ways they can win are to be as dirty as Rove ever got against Obama and win against him in the primary and come ahead with the popular and delegate votes at the end. But as that looks highly unlikely, they are either going to try and overthrow the process and have the Superdelegates overturn the will of the people, which will result in chaos and in the general election, surpress Democratic voter turn-out. Or they will have succeeded in destroying Obama enough in the primary, that they can then say 'told you so' and go for 2012.
I used to admire both Clinton's tremendously and was one of those people who voted for Bill twice and defended them countless times, but no more.
If Hillary somehow fairly gets the Democratic nomination, while running a non-Rove-ian campaign, I will support her and vote for her in the general election. But I will find it hard to do anything, but close my eyes and repeat back SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS, plug my nose and vote for her if she does anything else. But I don't know how long it will be before I respect either Clinton again. It may be never.
Their selfishness at this point is hurting the Democratic party and the people it is in their platform to help.
It is truly amazing. Anything Ms. Clinton does is bad for the Democratic Party. But Obama can do the very same thing and its OK. This is beyond absurd.
Well, I do have to say I like one - Republican, I think - poster's characterization of the Clinton vs Obama debates on here. Earplugs (Clinton) vs Kool-Aide (Obama)
Oh well, I find it funny. Especially since there's so many conversations that can basically be boiled down to:
1) Obama Just Fell Off The Turnip Truck, We Know Nothing About Him VS There's Tons Of Information Out There About Him, If You'd Only Read It (Earplugs)
or
2) I Believe In Obama VS You Belive In A Cult (Kool-Aide)
Alright, let the Earplug versus Kool-Aide derby continue.
I ll take my chances with the kool aid rather than any more "romantic" incursions in the Middle East, lets start a national peace campaign to bring our brothers, fathers, sons, daughters, mothers home from Iraq and Afghanista
And a drum roll please.
Here is Obama's supposed crazy "unkle" and the video doesn't lie. Time for Obama's new "hope" filled future to be exposed.
How much love can you show your country.
The video speaks for itself.
http://www
Guilt by association.
How typical. Your response to reasoned political analysis is to post a link to a moronic you tube video. How hip/moronic. Even better you have to count on BillO to do your dirty work for you. Just one more enemy of the first amendment. The lowest form of response in debate is to question the veracity of your opponent thus changing the subject to avoid losing. The Clintons are bad for the progressive movement in this country. Their record speaks for itself. You can change the subject all you want but the subject of this post is Bill and Hillary Clinton. It doesnt matter if she was running against Edwards, Dodd, or Gravel the stench is still there. Her candidacy is bad for the Democratic Party. Numbers dont lie and pretending she is much beloved is delusional. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. As a political activist in the 90s I saw the damage their politics did to the left. Political centrism is defined as favoring the status quo. If you think this country is going in the right direction you are in a small minority. I do not and all the FOX News clips in the world wont convince me.
Hmm...oddl
There's another article on the Post about this video. It quotes Charlie Black on how McCain isn't going to attack anyone on the basis of what someone outside their control has said.
Democrats, democrats - you are letting Charlie Black and John McCain take the moral high ground? Oh, please, you've all got to stop it. And, if you're white, try to imagine what it must have been like to have a black skin and grow up with Jim Crow. And how that might have influenced how you feel about your country.
Your right, Hillary should help Obama and his minister get into the white house. Check out the nice video showing all you folks the love you been waiting for.
More with the guilt by association. Why don't you address the meat of this blog? The Clintons don't care about anybody but themselves. They are ruining our party.
Biggest disaster that ever happened to the party till W.
Now let's see if we can top W!
I agree that neither Clinton has any coattails. They are not much good about anything but, self promotion and only care about themselves. As such, other always suffer at their hands.
Keep spewing this anti-Clinton crap. You alienate half the party.
After seeing her conduct during this campaign season, all I can say is Hillary had it coming. The vast right-wing conspiracy was right about her. She's as bad as they accused her of being and worse.
Don't watch any TV at all for 1 year and then tell me if you would be comfortable with Clinton.
I don't watch TV, haven't for about 9 years, and I am not comfortable with Clinton. It is not the media that reveals her; her actions reveal her to have no moral compass. Read the blogs, watch the speeches on the internet, the more informed you are the more you know the reality of who she is and what she has done.
WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO INTO THE FUTURE.
That is unless you've discovered some kinda time travel device.
Seriously, the debate is not as simple as into the future with Obama, or back to the past with Clinton.
If you look at the issues, they're both offering some very progressive ideas that will take us along quite well.
I'm totally comfortable going into the future with Clinton.
You can go into the future with Clinton just be prepared to go without a Democratic majority in the senate. Did you miss the point of the post? She can claim all the policy positions she wants but none of it will happen if the GOP controls the senate. Imagine all the points you can score by voting against Hillary in your conservative state? Even if the proposals you torpedo benefit the majority of your constituents. Thats what a Clinton presidency would look like. Do you think that she will go up to the hill and twist the GOPs arms into giving her national Health Care? Dream on. Almost half of people polled dont like HER. Not her policies, not her positions, not her voting record, HER. With every day that goes by in this campaign that number grows. Imagine the first female president making W look like a uniter. One more time. Its not about her proposals its about her.
Every man/woman for him/herself is how politics work now. Think about it...Obama knocks Clinton for saying McCain is more prepared than he is...all while Obama accuses Clinton of starting the war. Everyone's out for themself.
I like the scorched earth approach..
Propose a better way and I will consider it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
