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
The down ticket issue may very well be what swings the Superdelegates in favor of Obama. You might notice that Obama and Clinton are about tied in Superdelegates among those who have been elected to office. Hillary's Superdelegate lead comes from politically appointed Superdelegates.
It makes sense that most of those running for office this fall will want Obama's grassroots team and vast voter turnout behind them.
It will come down to those four points again:
1.Obama will turn out large numbers of new Democratic voters that simply won't show up if Hillary is the candidate. This is true across the board, but even more so in districts that have large minority populations and a lot of young people.
2.Obama will appeal to independents and moderate Republicans who are fed up with Bush and want change. The Republicans that vote for Obama during the primaries did so because they actually preferred him. That's different as they voted for Hillary to stop Obama. The Republicans who vote for Obama in the primaries will vote for him in the fall. The Republicans who voted for Hillary in the primaries will vote Republican.
3.Obama will help the down ticket candidates raise more money than Hillary will, and he will also provide the strongest grassroots organization to get those down ticket elected. Obama's grassroots team when added to traditional Democratic organizations can swing elections.
4.The evangelical right is not enamored with McCain, but can't support Obama or Clinton. Many of my evangelical Christian friends will stay home if Barack is the Democratic nominee, but they will turn up to vote for McCain if Hillary heads the ticket. I believe that most evangelicals will find Obama's demeanor much more attractive, especially as they get to know him.
i agree with you. the clintons are anathema and besides obama has shown already that he can raise the money. all shrillary has are convicted chinese con artists and mideast sheiks and rupert murdoch.
wait, that just scared the crap outta me.
as for the endorsements, i'd pick Al Gore over Bill Clinton every single day every single way.
The Clintons are a galvanizing force for Republicans and a source of disillusionment for Democrats who feel the need to defend them. Warranted or not... Robert Creamer reminds us of what we can expect from another Clinton presidency. If even a modicum of all the scandals, shady deals, etc ad nauseum... are even partially true... well you decide.
To truly understand the Clintons, we must first understand the Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way politics and the political strategy of triangulation.
The Clintons represent a faction of the establishment elite and segment of the Washington consensus, who are by and large rich and white but exhibit tolerant tendencies towards minorities and a patronizing paternalism towards the poor and working classes. This group is also pragmatically concerned with the environment and, for the most part, a diplomatic, if imperialistic, approach to foreign policy. Despite these tendencies, they are still frightened by a loss of power and influence and the rising tide of the dispossessed. To this I attribute the strident militancy against Obama, his elevating message of hope and the rise of a new generation of politically effective minority politicians and leaders.
Lets take a gander at the Democratic Leadership Council http://en.
The leadership of the DLC also includes prominent far right activists such as Marshal Whitman http://en.
While a segment of the ruling elite may not be expressly racist, homophobic or anti-environment, they are stridently opposed to losing power and influence and a political uprising by minorities, the working class and those who oppose US imperialism in their names.
Most interesting comment, thank you! It well compliments the blog post, which was a refreshing load of common sense like we haven't seen and despserately need in this primary.
Let's not forget about the governorships.
William Schnieder:
"Number of Democratic governors drops below 20 for the first time since 1970. The 1994 election was just as big a disaster for Democrats at the state level as at the federal level. In 1993 Democratic governors outnumbered Republicans by thirty to eighteen, with two independents. After the 1994 election the numbers flipped: thirty Republicans and nineteen Democrats. The 2001 lineup is virtually the same: twenty-nine Republicans and nineteen Democrats. Eight of the ten largest states now have Republican governors—all but California and Georgia."
http://www
The Clintons have been an absolute DISASTER for the Democratic Party, whereas the Democratic Party has been GREAT for the Clintons, much more than they deserved.
Keep posting this crap, and the few Clinton suypporters who will crossover to Obama will be gone.
Do you think I care? I am an Independent!
Did I misread the statement "Eight of the ten largest states now have Republican governors all but California and Georgia."?
Both California and Georgia have Republican governors, The Terminator and Sonny Perdue respectively.
No, the date of the article was Feb. 2001.
Looking at the damage Hillary and Bill Clinton have done to the democratic party in this campaign, I am astounded that the "party elders" have not stepped in. The Clinton policy could best be called either "scorched earth" or McCain's road map to the presidency.
Over the past couple of weeks I have talked to friends and family who are Obama supporters. At this point, and this is a new, only one would vote for Hillary Clinton should she become the nominee. Most of us would not reward Hillary's treason with our vote. None of us would vote for McCain either.
Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi -- why have you not spoken out against the Clinton race baiting and Rovian agenda. It really is disgusting.
I concur with your post except the names you used in the last paragraph. Reid and Pelosi have to rank up there with among the worst leaders in the history of both the Senate and the House (OK, they're not quite up to the level of Frist or Gingrich, but they're close). My big question is where are Edwards, Richardson and Biden? Only Dodd, who I've come to have a great admiration for since the start of the election, has come out with an endorsement. For shame on the other three, and I would have been happy if any one of them would have become the eventual nominee.
edward, richardson and biden have dropped the ball big time. it seems to me like they're waiting around to jump on the winner's bandwagon rather than exercising their responsibility to the party. so much for their "leadershi
Once again I read a posting by an Obama supporter that is terribly wrong-minded and horribly short on the facts.
There has been no race baiting by the Clintons, that is a falsehood started by the Obama campaign. Nothing Bill or Hillary has said comes close to race-baiting or to racism. The only racism I have seen by a candidate or a candidate's spouse has come from the Obama camp.
If either side is using the tactics found in the Rove playbook it would be Obama. He is the one who called Ms. Clinton a liar concerning truthful remarks she made concerning her health care plan. And Obama did so in order to cover the lies he had told about the number of people covered by his own health care plan. This sort of attack comes straight from Karl Rove.
Obama has used the scare tactics on Social Security developed in a right wing think tank and the talking points developed for George W. Bush in his failed attempt to privatize SS. Obama has not voiced support for privatization of SS, as far as I know.
And the Obama folks are quick to complain Ms. Clinton is giving McCain a load of negative ads should Obama win the nomination. But the hypocrites fail to recognize much of what Obama has said will be used against Ms. Clinton should she win the nomination.
And this particualr Obama supporter sticks to the script with the if our guy doesn't win we'll stay home. Sounds a lot like the kids on the playground at my daughter's elementary school.
sounds like the kids at your daughter's elementary school make more sense than you do.
This post beautifully illustrates the Clinton's technique of, 'blame your opponent for something that you have done'. It is a technique perfected by the Bush administration to great effect. It is really quite simple. All you have to do is say something inflammatory or inappropriate about your opponent, like "he is only winning because he's black", wait for him to defend himself as he must, and then accuse him of raising the issue in an attempt to play the victim. This is so deliciously twisted it makes my toes curl. With this technique wrong becomes right, lies become the truth, and you the aggressor are suddenly the long suffering victim of your mild mannered opponent. Ta Da! The villain become the hero in a puff of smoke and a little misdirection.
Here is on example of Clintons race baiting :
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
Now if thats nor race baiting then I don't know what is!!
Hillary Clinton started with the negative attacks. Remember she employed a kitchen-sink strategy to stop Obama's momentum after 11 straight wins. Obama had barely attacked her before that. The strategy worked for Clinton. The negative ads that ran in Texas and Ohio, the constant questioning of his character and trustworthiness, the questioning of his readiness to be commander-in-chief. The negative campaigning gave her an 11th hour boost. This is a fact. Google "clinton kitchen sink strategy". Every expert has pointed to their aggressive negative campaigning as key to her wins.The negative campaigning was part of their political strategy. This is not a secret. They announced to the press that were "going negative". They saw that they could no longer win by just comparing and contrasting issues, since their policies and stances are almost all the same. The "inevitability" strategy that Hillary Clinton had pursued early on wasn't going to work anymore. Polls showed people saw him as being more likeable and trustworthy than Clinton. Clinton couldn't win on the issues, so they decided to win by tearing his character down. I'm not just making this up, this was well thought out calculated strategy. Political strategy analysis is everywhere on the net. Just google it.
The difference between the Clinton and Obama campaign strategy is that Obama's is a bottom-up strategy and Clinton's is a top down strategy. Meaning, Obama relies on a grassroots movement of millions of people spreading the word, educating each other, and participating . Clinton relies heavily on her government connections, her establishment support, and her lobbyist funding. Clinton has received most of her money from large donations from lobbyists and large companies. She has recieved more lobbyist money that any candidate in either parties. So when she says she's going to take back Washington from the control of the special interests, don't believe her. She is awash in special interest money. That's a fact. Obama has a bottom-up strategy of raising money. Most of his donations are an average of $100. But he receives them from so many people. That is what makes him a fundraising machine. Millions of people donating small amounts = large amount of money.
After Hillary Clinton went negative on Obama and was successful, Obama had no choice but to go negative on her. Are you saying he should've just taken her attacks on his character doing nothing? So, he is not a hypocrite, he is simply staying competitive. His negative statements have been truthful. She has not released her tax returns, her list of library donors, she did have contradictory messages about him not being able to be commander-in-chief yet being ready to be VP. He had run a very clean campaign before Hillary decided to go full out negative, so now he has to retaliate.
The Clinton small pathway to the nomination now is only through the superdelegates. It is virtually mathematically impossible for them to catch up in the pledged delegates, and they are unlikely to win the popular vote. So Clinton's only hope is to completely destroy Barack Obama, raise his negatives, so much as to make the case to the superdelegates that he is unelectable. This way she can present her case to the superdelegates that they can't possibly nominate Barack Obama, because he is unelectable and would not be able to beat John McCain. It's political strategy for a desperate candidate.
To summarize: the only plausible way she can win the nomination now is through the superdelegates, the only way she can convince those superdelegates is by making Obama unelectable.
Personally, this kind of politics is what I hate about politics. It's about spinning the media narrative, exploiting the misinformed voters, and being manipulative and deceitful in general. This is no longer about the issues, as Hillary Clinton may suggest. It is about tearing Barack Obama down.
Obama has many strengths as a candidate, but the Clinton campaign has perceived his two greatest weaknesses as lack of experience (or at least perceived lack of experience, because if Clinton can says that she has 35 years of public service experience, than Obama can say he has 20 years of public service experience. Look this up on politifact
Give me one concrete piece of evidence supporting the contention that Obama represents the future. Please don't tell me it’s because he is black; after all of the hoopla, we are taking race and gender out of the equation. It’s not because he espouses hope and change, because that is what all politicians, past and present, run on.
There is not one piece of policy/platform Obama is promoting or eschewing that makes him any different from anybody else in any major way. People may not like the Clintons but that is not reason enough to support Obama. Worse of all, we might even get what we wish for.
I strongly disagree that all politicians espouse hope. Clinton & McCain (and their supporters) continually denounce Obama's message of hope and imply that his supporters are just being duped by his eloquence. Obama's multicultural background, relative youth (compared to Clinton & McCain), and legislative record that indicates a strong history of bi-partisan support (in the US & Illinois senates). He's also been able to raise $55,000,000 in Feb almost exclusively from individual contributions (less than 1% other) makes me think there are a lot of people in this country who stand as evidence that Obama represents our future in this country.
Obama is the candidate who has vowed to work closely with the Republicans, not Ms. Clinton. Obama has used the scare tactics generated in right wing think tanks for George W. Bush and his failed attempt to privatize Social Security. It was Obama who declared over the past ten years the GOP has been the party of ideas. This would mean Obama is endorsing the ideas of the W presidency. The fact of the matter is clear, it is Obama who has embraced the thinking and ideologies of the GOP, used talking points developed for W, and has vowed to wrok in partnership with the GOP. Despite the declarations of his supporters, it is Obama who is much closer to the GOP. And that is why he and his supporters have attempted to paint Ms. Clinton as a Republican, employing the Rove tactic of blaming your opponent for something you are doing yourself.
Here's a concrete piece of evidence for you: Obama is 46 and he's already achieved more than Hillary has in her 62 years. Senator Obama has taught constitutional law at Harvard. He also has MORE legislative experience than Hillary, who never held elective office before 2001!
McCain is over 70, so this should be a generational election -- a passing of the torch, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy. Unless, that is, we Dems foolishly nominate that boring old curmudgeon, retirement-aged Hillary Clinton. If you doubt that Obama represents the future then you've obviously never seen one of his rallies. He generates far more excitement than Gore or Kerry ever did. Meanwhile, Hillary's speeches are a sure cure for insomnia.
She's 60 not 62. He was a lecturer at University of Chicago Law School not Harvard. And really, your remark is gratuitously sexist and agist. I'm an Obama fan but some of these posts make me wince.
First, Sen. Obama specialized in constitutional law. He's taught that course, and apparently, taught it well. The idea of a president who understands and respects the document upon which this country was founded, is enough to get my vote.
Many people claim that Sen. Clinton's plans and Sen. Obama's plans are nearly identical, and differ only in slight, meaningless ways, but if you look closely, there is a basic, philosophical difference that makes all the difference.
There is an old saying, "Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime".
Hillary Clinton wants to give everyone a standard, government-approved fish. Even if you don't like seafood, the government bought a ton of fish, and you're going to get one, because fish are good for you, and the government knows best.
Barack Obama is handing out fishing poles, and teaching classes on weekends.
It shows in every policy and proposal he's made-- Make the tools available to the people, help them to use them, but in the end, the responsibility is on the individual.
Excellent reasoning! This comment proves that there is sometimes a high degree of intelligence on this blog! Well said!
This is so funny. I like to think of this point as: Hillary is going to make you eat carrot sticks because they are good for you (see video take off of the Sopranos' ending). Obama is saying "If we all work hard together, we will figure out a way to make carrots taste good."
Alee21,
I beg to differ with you on your statement that all candidates run on hope. Hillary thinks that hope and inspiration are not so important. Here's a link to a video where she states as much (in case you missed it):
http://www
As for concrete evidence of what Barack Obama will or will not do in the future, can't help you with that one. Noone can. None of us are seers.
As for me, I am not voting policy and platform. I am voting principle and character. That is a judgment call that I make for myself and that each adult of voting age who participates in the electoral process will likewise do. If at some point in the future that vote proves to have been miscast, then so be it. Such is the price of democracy. There is nothing in the U.S Constitution that requires any citizen of this country to justify their vote to another.
Obama 08
Check out the footnotes in Wikipedia's entry on Obama, especially those about his leadership methods at Harvard Law Review and about his years in the Illinois Senate. The thing that makes Obama different is not his policy/platform, it is how to get there.
Health care might be a good example. Clinton keeps talking about how important it is to have universal coverage but tries to dodge the implications of mandated coverage. She is absolutely right about universal health care. The problem is, how does she ever think her plan will get through Congress? She has put herself into a corner with these mandates. If she becomes president, she will either have to back down or Congress will torpedo the whole thing. Given her track record on backing down, bye bye any kind of health care plan. Perhaps Obama's plan is not as ideal as Clinton's but he hasn't cornered himself and the chances of getting something are merely slim not impossible.
A big part of Obama's plan is that if he gets elected he will ask the GOP to vote present.
Great blog! I couldn't agree with you more. Enough with the Clintons! I live in Pennsylvania, and can't wait to cast my vote for Obama.
Great post.
I completely agree.
Thank you,
Have the Clintons ever been for anything or anyone other than themselves? Hilary wants to be president because she thinks she deserves it. She doesn't.
I think she wants to be president for the same reason Obama does. She's motivated, determined, and thinks she can change things for the better.
Why do Obama supporters attribute all these negative characteristics to Hillary, and then hold Obama up to some messianic light. He's a senator running for President. He isn't the second coming of Christ.
The difference is that Clinton is insisting on staying on in this race, even though it is mathematically impossible for her to win through pledged delegates. Managing to win through super-delegates means overturning the will of the people. This will be extremely harmful to the democratic party. Obama has more of the young and independent voters, and they are much more likely to owe allegiance, not to the democratic party, but to Obama personally.
The difference is that Obama has never resorted to negative tactics. If he was behind in pledged delegates and there was no mathematical possibility of him to overtake Hillary on pledged delegates, and if Obama was to refuse to step down as a candidate, the employ the kitchen sink tactics, then i personally would be terribly disappointed with him.
It's a matter of character. Hillary is doesn't care that her actions are extremely harmful to the party.
It's essential to keep that Messiah/cult meme going because it stampedes certain voter blocks away from Obama.
We don't attribute things to Hillary, we point to her doing them. Clinton has praised McCain's background over Obama's when she herself has measurably less experience. And the experience she's trying to claim, as the record laid out in this diary, was devastating to the party.
Any respect I had for Bill Clinton is gone. I am soooo over the Clinton's. To me, she is Bush in a pantsuit. Her tactics have been Rovian and I will not vote for her under any circumstances. It is her sense of entitlement that I have come to resent.
Hillary, go back to the senate where you belong.
The problem with your weak posting is you have no idea about the tactics Obama has used or you'd understand the flaw in what you have written. Obama is so close to the GOP in ideology and philosophy it is appalling. Look at the record, not just on HuffPo.
Back to the Futures an apt depiction of what faces the party if Rove/Clinton is either the nominee or, god help us, elected president. No wonder the conservatives want her in either role. Rove/Clinton is their best bet of regaining the Senate and the House. Why are the super delegates so afraid of telling her that she's political poison as far as the larger Democratic Party is concerned?
We don't want four more or, god forbid, eight more years of the Clinton Escapades. The Party doesn't need it and the country doesn't deserve it. I fear we are in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory due to the self indulgent posturing of this couple.
The last time a Bush was replaced in the White House by a Clinton, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Two years later we got Newt Gingrinch. If we Dems are foolish enough to replace the current President Bush with another President Clinton we can expect the same results.
But there's little danger of Hillary getting elected president. If Hillary somehow manages to steal the nomination from Obama she'll destroy the Democratic party -- and lose in November by an even bigger margin than Mondale/Ferraro did in '84 (if that's possible).
If this is the best you can offer you ought to try harder.
That's for telling the truth. For all the happy memories of the Clinton Presidency there were terrible downsides for the Democratic Party during those years and a feeling that Clinton failed to live up to the promise of his obvious political talent. I have no interest in reliving the psychodrama that is the Clinton's. Let's all move on. Being a Senator is accomplishment enough Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Creamer:
You are very correct. As for your observation of how Hillary bore the brunt of the "vast right wing conspiracy," those attacks were harsh but, they stem from the manner in which Sen. Clinton treats people. As you have surmised from the presidential campaign that Sen. Clinton has run there are lots of stalwart democrats who have become turned off of Sen. Clinton for the reasons that the republicans hate her.
It is unfortunate that the Clintons have made this election about their political avarice.
Sen. Obama has supported numerous candidates and the result has been nearly 92% success rate. Sen. Clinton's track record has not been as successful.
I couldn't agree more - Hillary is the past - please leave her there.
Barack is the future of our party.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
