courtesy of Sam Graham-Felsen at the Obama blog we learn that Ethel Kennedy has now endorsed Obama (does mom trump 3 kids?):  

   Over these past few years, I've watched Senator Obama inspire Americans from all walks of life to believe in real change and a new sense of hope and possibility. He's a magnetic force, drawing the nation together for the common good and galvanizing us all to help shape our country's future.

   Barack is so like Bobby, who struggled for the rights of the poor in the Mississippi Delta and Appalachia, traveled to California to stand in solidarity with Cesar Chavez and farm workers, and fought to end another war that cost so many lives.

   Today, we crave a leader with vision who can help us regain our lost humanity and rekindle our inherent generosity. With courage, caring, and charisma, Senator Obama is leading us toward a kinder, gentler world.

   Senator Obama's candidacy sends out 'ripples of hope' that can build a 'current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'  I am proud to support Barack Obama, and look forward to him leading this country toward a brighter, more hopeful future.

Also, courtesy of Sam is Obama's reaction:

"I was humbled to read Mrs. Kennedy's statement," said Senator Obama. "Few people hold such a cherished place in the hearts of Americans, and it's an extraordinary honor to have her support."

What an incredible honor to have her endorsement.  Reading that gave me goosebumps.

I was reluctant to make this argument because we should put the interests of the country first, but I do believe that there is a convergence.

If you just consider the campaign Obama has conducted and the organization he has built, it should be obvious that he will do great things for the Democratic Party.  He is the best possible President to follow  the Party leadership of Money Bags McAuliffe and Grassroots hero Gov. Howard Dean.  Party stalwarts  should be for Obama because he clearly understands the crucial role of Party infrastructure and how to build it.

Fired Up.  Ready To Go

Unless they have proof that
a. BILL Clinton was directly responsible for these losses
and, more importantly
b. HILLLARY Clinton had a lot to do with it
this is hitting completely below the belt.  Given the socio-political dynamics of the 12 years before Clinton and the 8 under Clinton, it's a preposterous stretch to lay blame at Hillary Clinton's feet.  Are the Clintons blameless?  Of course not.  But to make people think it's all their fault???

Look, I'm an Obama supporter like the majority of RK readers and I hope he does get the nomination.  I'll be voting for him in a week and half.  But I don't want him winning based on utterly misleading allegations and dirty tricks - this is the kind of crap I expect from Republicans.  

Though I do think the mailer is very negative, I agree that it makes a very good point.  Democrats did NOT prosper under Bill.  In fact, we floundered.  Bill was able to do good by himself, but the fact that both he and Hillary were very divisive figures is definitely a contributing factor in how Democrats started to collapse.

Bill was more concerned about himself than about the party -  pace Dick Morris

The Clintons were responsible for a lot of the "socio-political dynamics" of the '90s and beyond.  So, yes, it is appropriate to hold them responsible for the loss in Democratic seats.

Example: where do you think the idea of "values voters" came from?  Is the entire Democratic party really obligated to defend Bill's personal proclivities in perpetuity, or can we finally move on to a more honorable person?

This trend had already begun before the Clinton's entered office, and it resulted from a lot of factors wholly unrelated to the Clintons, among them GOP mastery over talk radio. Are you suggesting that but for Bill Clinton, there would have been no Rush Limbaugh.

The real question would be whether the Clinton presidency exacerbated the trend. I submit that's an unknown.

I suspect any democrat elected in 1992 would have had the Republican slime machine turned on them. Maybe Clinton gave them more to work with (maybe not), but he sure fought 'em toe-to-toe.

 

That Bill's inability to avoid scandal/tell the truth were devestating to the party's image.

the short answer your question is yes. And no.

I think most of the scandals against the Clintons were manufactured out of whole cloth. Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, even the cattle futures stuff -- these things were somehow made to be unseemly, but every fair, non-partisan investigation has found nothing there. It just that it simple to hurl an accusation, and often complex to explain.

Then along came Monica Lewinsky, and, well, it served to confirm many people's undeserved perception of Clinton, but any defense of those other things was hopeless after that.

Quite a bit of myopia going on where Bill is concerned. The 2002 losses were the culmination of an entrenched and corrupt Democratic majority...with things like Jim Wrights resignation and the check kiting scandal providing the final coda on what was a long time coming.

Working on two posts at the same time

Reagan is by most accounts the leader of the modern conservative era.  Not Bill Clinton.  To place blame on Clinton is to say that Reagan, Bush I, Newt, conservative talk radio, and a host of others don't deserve much credit.  I don't believe that - those people/factors deserve a great deal of the credit (blame in my book) for what happened.

Certainly Bill Clinton's actions gave them ammunition to work with.  So he's not blameless.  And you can also argue that he could have done more for the party.  But a lot of very determined and dirty Republicans worked very hard at knocking down the Democrats - and they succeeded much more than Clinton failed.

And how much of the Clinton blame lies with Hillary?  Half?  Three quarters?  Certainly not more than that - Bill was President after all.

So a portion of a very modest amount of blame should be directed at Hillary.  But, to my original point, the cited stats imply that she is blame.  And that is misleading.

Dems picked up seats in House and Senate in 1992

got clobbered in 1994

again, I note the events of the fist year-two of the Clinton presidency and posit that had great deal to do with it.

And for all his recognizable political gifts, after the losses of 1994 Bill Clinton showed a remarkable unwillingness to spend political capital unless forced to.

Please note -  other than the mishandling of health care I would not hold Hillary Clinton at all responsible, but for that she bears a big chunk of the responsibility for 1994.

And if the Clinton campaign wants people to look backwards at the 1990s, then I think it is fair to raise the entire picture, and from the standpoint of the Democratic party, until the Republicans overreached with impeachment it was not a pretty sight.

I am having a hard time following this argument.  What evidence is there that the failure of the health care plan was the primary cause of the Republican Revolution in 1994?  I am assuming that big chunk means primarily responsible.  Is there some exit poll data that suggest this?

Traditionally, the party that controls the presidency loses seats in midterm elections.  On top of that the conservative movement has been building institutions and an infrastructure for over 30 years.  And then they added the power of talk radio to their arsenal.  Newt Gingrich came up with a brilliant and simple message to craft a successful national campaign: The Contract with America.  Their years of preparation provided them with skilled wordsmiths and marketers to alter the debate.

I was in Texas in 1994.  We had a popular Democratic Governor, Ann Richards.  Bill and Hillary Clinton and any of their policies were not a topic of the campaign.  Rove made it appear as though Governor Richards was "soft" on crime.  And President Bush did not make the same mistakes as Clayton Williams.  I don't know about every other gubernatorial race in the country in 1994, but I would venture to say the Clintons had little to nothing to do with the outcome of those races.  Why?  Because state politics are a world of their own.

failure of doing that opened the door for atacks on other issues

and for the contract on American, which is what it should have been called

I thought Bill Clinton won on the economy as we were recovering from a recession at the time.  He also had the benefit of Ross Perot siphoning off Republican votes.  Not to mention President George H. W. Bush put out that image of a very New England, blue-blood, old-establishment, out-of-touch man in contrast to Bill Clinton's everyman image.  

There was not a majority or super majority (i.e. mandate) that elected Bill Clinton to put in place government managed universal health care.  Bill Clinton won with a plurality, not some sweeping mandate.  So, the argument that he squandered a Democratic majority in the electorate seems a pretty weak argument to me as the 1992 election doesn't support that there was a Democratic majority.

I may be missing something, but I do not see a case that he or Hillary Clinton was a prime mover in the Republican Revolution of 1994.

That was the mantra in the War Room, not health care reform.  You've got a good memory tx2vadem.

where as I remember the top or one of top two issues was healthcare

and that was also because of Carville, who had used the issue to get Harris Wofford elected to senate over Dick Thornburgh

Of course, Newt Gingrich, who cheated on one wife and asked her for a divorce while she was still in the recovery room after surgery for breast cancer, and who was cheating on his second wife the entire time he was leading the effort to smear Bill Clinton, had nothing at all to do with it.  BTW, Gingrich asked his second wife for a divorce the day she discovered she had MS and later married the congressional aid with whom he had been having that clandestine affair while leading the charge against Clinton.  But he had absolutely nothing to do with socio-political dynamics of the time.

Neither did Henry Hyde, Mr. Family Values himself, who was accused by a disgruntled husband of breaking up that man's marriage while Hyde was himself still married.  Hyde didn't deny it but excused himself because it was "a youthful indiscretion."  At 42 years old (his age at the time of his affair), it seemed more like Hyde, an adult who should have known better, was having a middle aged fling.  Hyde consistently voted against a woman's right to choose, by the way.

Then there was former Rep. Bob Livingston, Speaker-designate, who had to step down before ever getting to serve because he was discovered to be having affairs (yes, multiple), one of which was with a a lobbyist, which created an official conflict of interest.  And then there was Miss Guns 'n Values, Helen Chenowith, who also cheated with a married man, though she was single at the time.

Those were the leaders of the impeachment effort.  Those where the champions of family values.  But, no Spotter is right, those GOP hypocrites actually had nothing to do with it.  Bill just did it all to himself.  No other married man in America ever cheated, ever had a blow job given by somebody other than his wife.  So let's relive it again.

I wouldn't vote for them, and I won't vote for the Clintons, either.  We have better choices.  I expect better of Democrats.

The Clintons - Hillary or Bill - are not my first choice either Spotter.  But if that's who the base picks in the primaries, and if Hillary is the nominee, yes, I'll vote for her.  Because to do nothing is to choose a Republican.  And this country cannot afford that.

No Clinton will turn the Supreme Court over to the John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito, and Clarence Thomas wing of the court.  These are people who serve for life and some of them are young.  We will have a rightward tilt that will impact our country past my lifetime, at least (I don't know your age but they will be there wreaking harm and threatening a woman's right to choose, civil rights legislation, workers rights and all kinds of other decisions long after I'm gone).

No Clinton would do the economic and environmental harm of the Republicans or demogogue the immigration issue, or invade a country that has not threatened us. No Clinton would do that.  No Democrat would.

To Do Nothing Is To Choose - its' to choose a Republican and I don't think that's what Obama would want from us either.

I can support him best by pointing out his positives not by tearing down another Democrat. And by the way, that's how I convinced three people in my office yesterday - all staunch Democrats - to vote for him in the primary on Feb. 12.

in any way is to choose more of the same.  I'm just not going along with it, no matter what.  Been there, done that.  If the Democrats have the sense to nominate an honorable person, they will get my vote.  Otherwise, they won't.  

with you Eric. I am looking at ELECTIBILITY. These are both Democrats so now we're going to begin behaving like the rethugs? I'm not getting why everyone is blaming Hilliary for Bill's problems while he was in office? Because she stood by him instead of divorcing him? The bottom line is the Democratic base wants Hilliary, not Obama.
We'll see Tues. Neither of these candidates is perfect. But either of them would be a better president than McCain or Romney. That's what we need to keep in mind instead of continually slandering the candidate Raising Kaine doesn't like.

Or is it that Senator Clinton is only responsible for all the good stuff her husband did the last "35 years"?  That seems to be the case she -- and her supporters -- are making.

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.  

and are directly related to the mishandling of a number of issues, including health care, in which Hillary was directly involved.  So how is that dirty?

in March, 1993, to conduct nation building.   This Clinton initiative was followed by the Black Hawk down disaster just six months later, in October, 1993, after he had personally denied armor for the troops he had ordered into Somalia.  Then of course he pulled out the troops he had ordered in.

Bush, Sr. sent the American troops into Somalia in Dec 1992.

You're correct in that U.S. ground troops were sent ashore in the last month of Bush senior's presidency.

However, the 'mission creep' that expanded their role from securing food aid facilities to aggressive 'nation building' was solely the call of the Clinton administration in March 1993.

As the Clinton initiative pushed U.S. troops into harm's way, U.S. commanders on the ground urgently requested U.S. armor -- apc's and tanks.  This request was personally denied by Bill Clinton, whose expressed concern was that U.S. troops in full combat mode would no longer appear to be the peacekeepers he intended them to be.

Net result:  Black Hawk down in October, 1993.

Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, took the fall.

Net net:  Clinton order U.S. troops out of Somalia and they were all gone by March 1994.

The "mission creep" as Operation Restore Hope transitioned into Operation Gothic Serpent was the consequence of an ambush in Mogadishu, in which 24 Pakistani troops deployed as part of the UN Peacekeeping force were butchered by forces under Mohammed Farah Aidid--AFTER Aidid had called for a ceasefire and disarmament talks.  Immediately thereafter, the permanent members of the security council passed a resolution to bring the killers to justice.  President Clinton felt that it was important for our relationship with our UN allies and the Pakistanis to take an active role in the mission.

Quick non-sequitir, who thinks it was important to have solid diplomatic relationships with Pakistan in the post-9/11 world when we counterattacked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Show of hands.

Anyway, my point is that events did get beyond control, but it's dishonest to say it's Clinton's fault.  Clinton didn't kill the Pakistani troops sent to by our ally to participate in a UN-sanctioned peacekeeping/humanitarian mission.  Sometimes you actually do have to respond when people try and kill you or your friends, believe it or not.

and that military disaster could hardly be laid at his feet.

But that said, I'm not as veteran, and on this particular issue

I would defer to those of you are, not as a historical matter, but as a military and emotional one.

I just caught part of that movie a few hours ago on tv.

I was in the Pentagon on the Army Staff during the entire operation.

Bush ordered troops into Somalia in December 92 as a peacekeeping mission under a UN Security Council resolution to ensure the safe distribution of relief supplies to the countryside beyond Mogadishu.  The Clinton Transition Team was fully briefed on the mission.  Along with American forces, troops from numerous other UN member nations were sent it with the same mission.  Within a few months they became targets of the warloads as one of the sources of the warloads' income, blackmarketing hijacked relief supplies, dried up.  In one particular clash in June 93, over 80 Pakistani troops were killed or wounded when their checkpoint was attacked by warload forces.

Clinton issued new orders and the mission changed to combat operations against the warlords, principally Mohammed Farrah Aideed.  The episode depicted in Blackhawk Down was an attempt in October 93 to capture Aideed and his top lieutenants.

BTW, the decision to deny LTG Tom Montgomery's request for an armored reaction force was made by Les Aspin.  I have no knowledge whether or not he discussed it with Clinton, but I highly suspect that he did.

although the film Black Hawk Down put the number of Packistanis killed at 27, not 80. Wikipedia says 33. Not that it makes a difference.

Thank you for the info.

This post is very true to the point but does not go far enough. Even during the escalation resulting in multi-national forces in country, Clinton policy advisors hamstrung units of the US Military with very stringent rules of engagement. This was briefly seen in the movie where US Forces were unable to help and secure food being hijacked by Aidid militia and the slaughter of unarmed, starving civilians. This was the policy, highly unhumanitarian. The US military reported countless killings by the militia but were unable to assist the non-combatants.
If you were in the military during this time there was something else you have to recognize. Clinton standing was diminishing. He was beginning to downsize the military, myself included, following the First Gulf War and upon taking office made it clear of his intent to do so, he laso had to deal with his "do not ask do not tell" policy but a direct result of Somolia was the lack of confidence in him as Commnader in Chief when our troops were dragged thorough the streets and policy remained more in line with the UN than swiftly responding. Frankly the military had sought the right gunships for such a mission and were denied by the administration. This reminds me how Hillary Clinton referenced BUsh and not supplying the right amount of armour in Iraq....had Obama been playing her tactics he could have easily referenced right back at her Somolia and the failure to authorize the requested equipment required to fulfill the mission. Semper Fi.

and is an unfair attack.  The mess in Mogadishu is a direct outcome of a policy started by Bush 41 and inherited by Clinton.   There is much in CLinton's foreign policy at which one can pick, but he inherited a mess in Somalia and the ultimate disaster was almost unavoidable once our troops were there, unless we made no attempt at stopping the anarchy.

And from a military standpoint, Blackhawk down cost several dozen American lives, but the losses to the Somali attackers were, as I recall, approaching 1,000 because our guys fought so fiercely.

And he doesn't blame Clinton, so I don't think it's fair to do so.  That said, the Clintons have to answer for a more immediate failing: their support for the disastrous war in Iraq.

but this is a thread you began by attributing election losses to flaws of the Clinton presidency.

The Clinton presidency was a mixed bag of accomplishments and mistakes.

The debacle in Somalia is a telling example of Clintonian weakness at the intersection of projecting military might and the conduct of foreign affairs.

Yes, there was his (and her?) indubitable achievement in the former Yugoslavia, which remains a model of successful American-led intervention in failing states.

On the other hand, his interventionist initiative in Somalia was a debacle -- the result, some might say, of his (and Hillary's?) naive idealism compounded by his utter lack of ability as commander-in-chief of this country's armed forces.   That, compounded with the abortive attempt to compel military culture to accept openly gay service members, further crippled the efficacy of his presidency and, yes, may have been one of the issues that led to 'strong-on-defense-issues' GOP gains.

His response to al-Qaeda was, in retrospect, and at best, weak willed and counterproductive.  And much of the blame for Bill Clinton's queasiness when it came to expending American blood to get Osama bin Laden can be laid to his experience in Somalia.

Senator Clinton's membership on the Armed Services Committee, her overt kissing up to the military and, more destructive to this country, to the out-of-control defense industry, has been part of her long range plan to beef up Clintonian policy weakness, to macho herself up, in preparation for running for the presidency.  Her unapologetic vote for preemptive war is only the most singular in a long list of betrayals of her own youthful idealism and progressivism.

There is nothing 'unfair' or 'off' in pointing out that the '35 years' of experience she is claiming -- most of which were as the spouse of a governor and president -- contain many troubling items which could lead one to conclude, as I have, that a second Clinton presidency could prove to be a disaster.
 

and it is on that point people are criticizing the use of Blackhawk down.

Read all the comments on the thread.

Also, I did not, in posting the picture of the Obama mailer, blame all the losses solely on the Clintons.   But HRC wants to claim 35 years of experience, of which 8 occurred during her husband's presidency, so it becomes legitimate to examine the results of that presidency.  And at least a good chunk of those losses occurred in 1994, which was a direct result of the missteps of the Clinton administration - including those of HRC on on healthcare - in the fist two years of the Clinton administration.  

It is fair to say that in light of everything else that in the public eye Clinton received a good chunk of blame for Blackhawk down, even thought that was unfair.  But the mess was not of his creation.

'Inheriting a mess' is the Bushies' argument in attempting to shift responsibility for 9/11 and Osama bin Laden onto the Bush administration.

As President, with the singular exception of the former Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton's strengths did not extend to matters military.  In that regard, he was a naif.

Senator Clinton has expended considerable energy attempting to reinforce Clintonian vulnerability on the use of force in American foreign policy.

Her much discussed and now notorious vote for preemptive war, despite her lawyerly attempts to parse it otherwise, has actually deflected closer investigations of her eager buying of the bill of goods, which is that American military might can alter the flow of history.  

It's not necessarily misogynist to point out that as a woman with ideological roots in the antiwar Sixties and as spouse of a president weak on 'defense' issues, her attempts can be seen as overcompensation.  This suggests that a Hillary Clinton presidency may not have the backbone to stand up to the immense institutional and cultural power of the American war making machinery and would prove to be extremely vulnerable, as was her husband, to the generals' seductive dangling of high tech, sanitized, stand-off weaponry solutions to the messy and bloody challenges that will likely confront our next president.

It's a profoundly disquieting dynamic that has been little discussed on Raising Kaine.  

that should read "onto the Clinton administration"

it may not be misogyny, but it is a form of armchair psychoanalysis that has little validity, IMHO.

I mean, I suppose anyone could develop a construct under which any non-military person would be unduly influenced by Generals in the Pentagon.

Also, if reports are to be believed, it is not the generals that dangled the high tech weaponry and got us involved in an ill-advised war, but our chickenhawk leaders who think "24" is reality.

I meant "With all due respect J"

Your point is that whoever is serving as president is immune to human foible?

Like Bill?  Like Bush junior?  And, of all people, Bill Clinton's wife?

We are all subject to human foible. But you make an assertion that she is overcompensating for some earlier experience in her life, an all I'm saying, only her psychoanalyst can know for sure.

Even if you were a trained professional, I'd still question it, the same I thought Krauthammer's "diagnosis" of Al Gore sometime back was absurd.

Any assertion of overcompensation is on multiple levels.  In her case specifically, because she is not just a woman running for president in a time of war, but also as the wife of Bill Clinton, the psychological and political contexts of her overcompensation may be one and the same.

Deny it at your own peril, but, then again, you're a fan of hers.

   

I'm simply saying that you, or I, or anyone else other than a mental health professional who is treating her has a sufficient combination of expertise and first-hand knowledge to make a valid diagnosis of her.

Mental health professional?  Say what?

You're denying that her senatorial interest in things military is not an overt political attempt to fill in a perceived vulnerability on the Clinton resume?  

that she is "overcompensating" combined with your speculation that, as a result, she may lack the backbone to stand up to generals struck me a a form of psychological diagnosis.

As for filling a perceived vulnerability, perhaps. Perhaps she wanted to be better prepared and more knowledgeable about military matters so that when she ran for president, she could do a better job? Perhaps it was about practicality and improving herself, rather than some psychological need to compensate for some perceived inadequacy.

in a hostile environment, I'll grant you that.

But as to Senator Clinton trying to acquire macho ...

At best, that's how she thought of it -- being prepared and knowledgeable.  More 'experience' on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Kinda like the high schoolers collecting presidencies of the math club and honor society so it will look better on their college applications.

But you're being disingenuous if you're trying to convince any of the political junkies here that Hillary did not have a long range plan to run for president in 2008.  

Senator Clinton is cold and calculating and her asking to be the first senator from New York in fifty (?) years on the Armed Services Committee was coldly calculated, as was her notorious vote for war.

As to 'experience', barring some first hand knowledge out at the dirty end of American force projection, I'd much prefer a woman candidate for president who had been a Division 1 athlete in a contact sport.

Look, obviously every successful politician is concerned about and tries to manage appearances, so better than others.

And I do think she got on there 90% because she planned to run for president. But also, 10% because of military bases in NY (I believe she saved Ft. Drum from closure).

"And I do think she got on there 90% because she planned to run for president."

Thank you.  But take that to the next logical step and you're immediately in the thick of the implications of Bill Clinton's much abused spouse possibly finding herself president in the midst of a highly complex violent struggle with an amorphous (and overtly misogynist) enemy.

And you think her psychologically driven ambition and the psychologically fueled dynamics of a woman attempting to make her way into a heretofore masculine enclave has nothing to with us weighing her suitability as president in a time of war?

I'm just going to take your 2nd graf and make it Obama to make a point, not because I believe this:

And you think [his] psychologically driven ambition and the psychologically fueled dynamics of a [African American] attempting to make [his] way into a heretofore [white] enclave [with one notable exception] has nothing to with us weighing [his] suitability as president in a time of war?

I just think that kind of argument is too facile. Yes, as voters we all need to take the measure of candidates and answer questions like this. How will they exercise judgment? Do we trust them?

Obviously, I think it perfectly fine to conclude, as you do, that Hillary is not up to snuff for whatever reasons you want. I think she has proven herself to be tough and to be a fighter, not to mention damn smart. And I'm sorry, J, but I refuse to let her gender trump this.

I want to go to pains to let you know I'm not suggesting your position is appropriate -- I think you make your arguments in good faith and free of sexism.

that's INappropriate in the last sentence there

It should read:

I want to go to pains to let you know I'm not suggesting your position is inappropriate -- I think you make your arguments in good faith and free of sexism.

Senator Obama, if he does become the nominee vs. McCain, will be called out on his lack of experience and/or interest in the penultimately macho, super-masculine, warrior's way.

He, as opposed to Senator Clinton, has one unassailable talisman to ward off the attacks -- his unequivocal opposition to invading Iraq, the exact wording of which deserves to be quoted here in full and frequently.  A judgment call that your candidate failed.

As to your "tough and a fighter" comment, nothing about this particular woman's life, to this point, suggests she is in any way qualified, psychologically or experientially, to take on the challenges of a war leader in an age of violent asymmetrical warfare on the one hand and subduing the cancer of the 'military industrial complex' on the other.

Given the world we live in, in my opinion, she is a danger both to the Republic and to the progressive forces trying to turn the ship of state.

If she does manage to make it into the White House and prove to have some of the characteristics of a Boadicia or Margaret Thatcher, literally or even metaphorically, well, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

My take on Hillary is that she is much more controlling than Bill. I think she is also more Hawish. Remember she was a Goldwater girl.

She channels Eleanor Roosevelt.

You may be able to make the argument about the "mess" being carried over from Bush but it was the Clintons cowering policies to the United Nations that rings loud and clear throughout his Presidency. This policy and placing the UN and its interests higher the the US is the kind of thing that results in events like Somolia. We have since learned our lesson in matters such as these but there are those who wish to take us back to the UN for such matters. I just hope that these politicians do not the mistake of mistaking "diplomacy" for UN mandated policy. Our interests are oftem at opposite ends.

She did mishandle it.  But one could argue that she learned from her mistakes too.  It is, after all, 15 years later.  But her failures are fair game.

The question is whether "triangulation" worked politically for the Democrats generally, not just for Bill Clinton.  I'd argue that it didn't.  

whether a different strategy would have been more effective?

As I recall, Democrats were getting bashed for being "liberals" everywhere, and it worked. I saw triangulation as a means to fight that narrative and essentially fight a rear-guard action.

Also, the Democratic Party is a much more liberal party than in the early 90s, when there were still quite a few Yellow Dog Democrats, like, uh, Zell Miller, and many moderates.

So I'm not sure how splintering the party would have helped matters.

Or what's best for the country?  President Clinton managed to work with an opposition Congress to find middle ground (that place which was "triangulated" upon) to accomplish some good.

Unless you thought his purpose was to be an obstructionist like Bush so that America didn't get anything done over the course of six years, I don't think triangulation was actually as bad as people seem to remember.  I mean, Gov. Warner found common ground with Senate Republicans to make progress on education, and we love him for it.  Why are we so two-faced on bipartisanship?

from Obama's pledge to be bipartisan and work with Republicans to find common ground?

Indeed, it was Obama's moderate stance that made me stay with Edwards until the end of his campaign.  I wanted a fighter. But it seems unfair to criticize Bill Clinton for doing what Obama is essentially pledging to do.  And that is to be a moderate and find some common ground to move the country forward.

Those who disagree with me will say that this is precisely Obama's strong point.  He is inspirational and offers hope. The change he pledges to bring is mostly to govern in a fair, hopeful and bipartisan fashion, to find common ground with moderate Republicans and to compromise.

I remain a skeptic about that.  But the truth is that was Clinton's initial hope.  He too ran as a different kind of Democrat, a moderate who could work with the other side.  

The problem is you can't do that unilaterally.  The Democrats have moved more to the center as the Republicans have moved ever more to the right.

A friend of mine once observed that the whole term centrist has become meaningless because as the Republicans have kept pulling the country more righward, the center has also shifted out from under us.  What does being a centrist mean today? What is a moderate anymore?  And if Obama, as well meaning and talented as he is, reaches out, will anybody on the other side actually be there to grasp his hand in a bipartisan spirit?

And if no one grabs that hand, where does that leave Obama and the party.

That is the problem with this whole transformative argument. It will never happen. Not because Obama is lacking anything, but because the GOP does not want to compromise.

And even if the Democrats pick up 5 or 6 Senate seats, it won't help. In fact, it would probably have the effect of making the GOP caucus more conservative and obstructionist, as only those from the most conservative states will survive.

is that the more seats they lose, the more obstructionist and nasty they will become.  It certainly doesn't hurt to be forewarned of that.

you think Republicans are more likely to compromise with Hillary Clinton?

What they did to Bill Clinton.  They will comb his past for any hint of scandal.  And failing to find any, they will lie and attempt to manufacture one as they did to John Kerry with the Swiftboat allegations.

The difference is that I believe Obama will give them far less amunition than the Clintons will; so it will be easier to call them out on their smear machine.  That is a plus for Obama.

I also think it's very good that he is running on a platform of trying to find common ground with Republicans.  Because then when they have their temper tantrum and try to trample mud all over his presidency, they will be the ones who will be exposed as the obstructionists and will face the public's backlash.

But I am not naive.  No, the Republicans are not going to work with him.  And fear of their professional smear machine is not the reason to vote for him.

The fact that he won't give them amunition and will, therefore expose them for what they are, however, is a great reason to choose Obama over Hillary.  

But if he doesn't win, I'm not gonna take my marbles and go home and pout.

and that is that it will be easier to call them on the smear tactics.

I thought I had seen a lot until the Swift Boat Vets came along, and I for one will never look at politics the same. I mean, here we had an allegation for which not only was there a shred of evidence, but overwhelming evidence that it was completely and utterly false, and yet our pundits and politicians debated its validity for weeks. It was simply breathtaking.

It is like this Obama/Muslim story (I refuse to call it a smear because I refuse to acknowledge, even implicitly, that there is anything wrong with practicing Islam). Plenty of folks believe that, even though it has been repeatedly debunked. And like the supervillians of comic books who refuse to die, it keeps coming back in a new form. The last one I heard about was, "Yes, he is not a Muslim, but he is prone to it because it is in his family background. Do you want to take the chance?"

The GOP will also make a run at Obama's church, most specifically by distroting its message with respect to African Americans and the fact that allegedly his Pastor gave an award to Louis Farrahkan, someone who is deeply offensive to many American Jews.

I didn't think much of it when I heard it, but I recently ran into a woman I know from my synagogue, a person I would consider intelligent, and she was really upset about it. I set her straight by asking her whether she agreed with everything our Rabbi said and did, but this stuff takes hold in niche communities in a way that can fly under the radar.  

I find it inspiring that instead of focusing on the other side as the Dems have done in the past, this cycle Dems are looking at themselves and taking heed of exactly what they want for the future. It is not good enough that it is simply not a Republican, but more focused on having the "best" nominee representing a broad base of those that make up the Party. The idea that one expects such "crap" from the other side is reflective of the lack of self(party) analysis until now. Both sides have always resorted to such tactics at all levels of government, but it is inspiring that we are now there appears to be admissions that this is not the way in which we feel the Party should be moving. It is indicitive of the kind of leader you will get; both Clinton and McCain have resorted in this process to typical old line establishment politics again and again.  

We should ask Bush to stay for another 8 years because Democrats have done incredible!

Once Bush is gone, we can't just run as anti-Bush anymore.  So, yeah, our political strategy is going to have to change DRASTICALLY in a few years.

start by looking directly at the 1st two years of Clinton's administration and how badly key issues were handled, starting with things like not standing up for nominees, mishandling gays in the military (not listening to Les Aspin on how to do), undercutting Bruce Babbitt on grazing fees.

and of course - health care, with all the secrecy

it is not merely the numbers -  it is WHY those numbers

But in fairness, all of those things happened when the Clinton administration was young.  It's a good argument for respecting experience.  The Clinton administration did make a lot of mistakes.  But it got better as it got more experienced.

There were a lot of problems Clinton inherited from the first Bush administration and it took him time to get his feet on the ground.  

Our strongest argument in the general election, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama wins the nomination, is that at the end of the day, Democrats are better at governing.  

Why are so many people here undercutting that argument when the Clinton administration was largely well run?

By the end of it, most of the world respected us, liked us, and we did have prosperity and real job growth and even the beginning of wage growth for the first time in decades. In other words, the economic fundamentals were solid in ways that benefited more than just corporate CEOs.

I believe that Obama would be a better candidate and an excellent president because he is the face of the future.  But I don't believe we have to bash a largely successful, though imperfect former president to do win the nomination.

Could we, for the love of God, stop reminding the country of the early failures and remember all the things that were successful, not the least of which was successfully ending genocide in Bosnia.  

that is the question which is raised by the piece, which is from a mailer sent out by the Obama campaign.

I don't think any Obama supporter is saying that the entire Clinton administration was a disaster.   But if someone wants to claim credit for the experience of that administration, then the entire administration becomes fair game.  Including what happened on their watch to the Democratic party.

Is the entire blame for Dem losses to be shouldered by the Clintons?  Of course not -- DLC, stupidity in House (Foley and Gephardt) and Senate leadership also contributed.  But the context of the large losses in 1994 can be laid in large part at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

like the House banking scandal, which the Congressional Democrats brought on themselves by being - wait for this - corrupt.  People like Dan Rostenkowski - a House leader from the Chicago Democratic machine - actually deserved to be turned out on their ears for years of abusing the system.

There was a confluence of factors and, no, it can't all be laid at 1600 Penn Ave.

Gingrich and his ilk took advantage of the fact that Dems in the House had gotten arrogant and corrupt after years of being an unchallenged majority.

What happened to the House Republicans in 2006 is sort of similar to what happened to House Democrats in 1994.  Years of entrenched power led to a culture of corruption.  We should learn from that and not grow arrogant when we gain power.  But to blame Clinton for that is absurd.

But nooooooooo. No one would listen then and all were whining about not tearing down other Dems.

Well, now that the only person who could assure very few losses in congress has been driven out i have this to day.,

I say as Will Rogers once said. "The American people (or Democrats) deserve to get what they want, And get it GOOD AND HARD."

Dems asked for this, now it is time to reap the whirlwind of CRAP that is going to fall on our down ticket races.

Don't count out Obama yet.  As long as he can minimize damages on Super Tuesday, he pushes this into extra innings, where there is a lot more time to campaign.  Which, of course, is Obama's strong suit.

I was told there were no pro-Hillary posts on the front page because they were not substantive and well cited...

Ok then...

What's that spell, kids?

The result of his Youth outreach effort I imagine...

Frequently whining about how the blogosphere is against you, and how it's not fair.

Give me a break.  You saw the poll: for every Hillary supporter here there are eight Obama supporters.  Obama has the blogosphere's support.  And you whine that Hillary doesn't get equal time?  DUH!  Because Obama's supporters can put out eight times the effort online as Hillary's!  Their are 8 TIMES MORE OF US!  

You whine too much, and THAT is why you're a troll.  You do nothing but come on here, insult the people that work this blog, and then claim that it's not fair when they strike back.  The fact is, you have CHOSEN to come into Obama's "territory".  With Edwards out, Obama is pretty much the choice of damn near the entire online community.  You can make your case for Hillary, but all of this whining is just giving what little there is of Hillary's online support a bad name.

Get over yourself.

So far I do not believe you have managed a response without including an insult and/or curse...

Lowell mentioned this blog was here for the community it represents...as I have noted Hillary is supported by about 10% of this community if that poll is to be believed...yet I have not seen a single pro-Hillary post make it anywhere near the front page...it has become an auxiliary of the Obama campaign...

And if that is what it is to be...that is fine. But don't claim to be representative of the RK community if the candidate that 10% of us support is not at least once in a while represented on its face to the wider world.

Obama supporters are in general, at least on the blogs, intolerant and insulting of the supporters of other candidates....viewing any criticism or dissent as evidence of bad faith...

That if you're just going to sit around here and whine, don't bother.  Be productive, or shut up.  Either help your candidate, hurt Obama, or get out of the game.  I don't mind when people write pro-Hillary posts or anti-Obama ones.  But all you do is sit around here and complain about how unfair things are.  As Truman once said, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Take Daily Kos, for instance. I'd say that right now, at least 90% of the user diaries are pro-Obama, maybe even 99%.  But, so far, Markos hasn't endorsed anyone. So...the front page of Daily Kos is pretty neutral, since...wait for it...it's MARKOS' BLOG!  Here at RK, I can tell you that every single "front-pager," as well as 90% of the community in general, is either pro-Obama or neutral. So, as Dan G. has correctly pointed out, it's not exactly surprising that there wouldn't be pro-Clinton diaries on the front page.  To me, what's really interesting is that we're not seeing many user diaries by the 10% pro-Hillary people. Why is that?

Again where were you in 2006/07 when a disportionate amount of the focus was pro-Hillary. RK just like the Party is moving in another direction...ie its called a movement. Everything was building on the point in 2006/early 2007 that Clinton was the annoited nominee. The landscape has changed. She cannot earn it based on the 90's or even time in the Senate now, she has to earn the votes right now based on her future vision for the "future". Probelm is its rooted in a 90's mentality, the more times she references it the more she gets into trouble with electorate.

Working on two posts at once

How dare you suggest they bear any responsibility for things that happened during their tenure in the White House.

The Clintons were simply hapless victims of all the bad things that happened during their tenure in the White House.

They deserve the credit for all the good things though.  As far as the good things go, they are 110% because of the Clintons.

And NAFTA has nothing to do with our current job problems in this country. In this case the Clintons just weren't in office to see the long term results of this policy. Now Hillary is going to clean up? As a matter of fact I have heard her say nothing about what she would do about companies which ship jobs overseas. She has not acknowledged that our trade policies are also responsible for our illegal alien problem to a great extent. I would say many of the problems we are looking at today were caused by some of Bill's policies.

-And didn't that tech bubble burst after?

NAFTA was a disaster.  That's why I stuck with Edwards for so long.  He said unequivocally that he opposed NAFTA.

We have to begin to reward those companies that create jobs in America and use tax policy to penalize the profits of those who offshore jobs.

And also many people don't realize that at one time in this country we had no income tax because we got all of our income from tarrifs. Other countries had to pay to get into our market. The Customs office therefore managed the country's revenue.

Many people think tarrifs would be terrible, but I think it might solve a lot of problems. Corporations which manufacture in other countries and want to sell the goods here should pay a tarrif, even if they are American companies. That would bring some jobs home fast.

That way prices of foreign goods would still stay low for consumers, but it would benefit the manufacturer to make and sell the products here.

Hmmmm... Maybe I should run for office.

If you had bothered to look you would see that is not all I do...

As to the Obama bias here...I am simply stating what is obvious...it is just as clear you don't like to have that fact pointed out...crashing the party I guess

Contrary to assertions there have been many good pro-Hillary posts here...certainly superior to the many cut and paste pro-Obama threads that are constantly promoted...

"the many cut and paste pro-Obama threads that are constantly promoted"

Thanks for continually insulting this blog and all the hard work that goes into it.  

It is not an insult to state the truth

It's fair to raise the issue of Democratic election losses during the Clintons' tenure as something they should be expected to account for.  What I think rightly concerns many people here is the tendency to turn this issue into another simplistic bumper sticker when (as discussed in detail above), the reasons for those losses are more complicated than meets the eye.

The other issue -- speaking as a recently converted Obama supporter, but one with his eyes wide open -- is that the Clintons have a long record in public service, which makes them a wider target.  Every politician makes mistakes, and the longer you're around, the more you will have made.  Obama's freshness is both a plus and a minus: he can hopefully bring some positive changes to Washington, but we can't predict what types of mistakes he's going to make because we haven't seen him operate on the national stage long enough to know.  

That's going to make some people wary of voting for him, and you better believe that the Repubs are going to use it against him as hard as they possibly can in November.  So not having a long track record is both a plus and minus.

Just from recollection, I thought the largest factor in the failure of health care reform in 1993 was the $200 million or so of negative ads that were run against it.

But after reading some of the history, I see that another large factor was the sheer delay in getting a proposal on the table, during which delay the political tides shifted.  There were many other factors in play as well.

http://www.princeton.edu/~star...

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...

http://www.time.com/time/natio...

If she had enlisted the business community and the American people and made it "their" plan she might have succeeded. In my opinion she came across as "its my plan".

Since she had no official government post and she just came out with "her" plan I understand why people balked.

Picture this. The wife of your boss comes into the company and tells everyone that she has a new efficiency plan than the company needs to adopt. She has no official job in the company and she hasn't discussed the plan with the staff prior to announcing it. Most people who have a minimal IQ would realize how foolish it would be to try such a thing, even nutty. However a narsissist wouldn't see anything wrong with this since they cannot really see themselves as others see them. They think others see them as they see themselves, as the world's greatest expert.

As a rule of thumb, when I find myself thinking that intelligent and rationale people have done something "nutty", my first assumption is that I don't really understand what was happening.  In my experience, intelligent and rationale people do things for good reasons, especially when the stakes are high and they are trying to accomplish something that will help people. If you assume people are foolish or psychologically flawed, you miss a lot.

As I recall -- and I may be wrong since it was long ago -- the Clinton administration studied prior efforts at health care reform which failed, drew lessons from those efforts and tried to avoid making the same mistakes.  Probably they made new mistakes in trying to avoid past mistakes. They also probably underestimated the powerful interests that are against health care reform.

Anyway, is there a window of opportunity for health care reform in the next administration, regardless of who is elected?  The Iraq war has to be concluded, and then there will be a huge political fight over the expiring Bush tax cuts and tax policy in general.  There's global warming, immigration, veterans issues.  I hope I'm wrong, and I don't want to be negative, but I think that other problems are going to demand attention before any effort at health care reform.  

 

I'm not quite sure if it's a completely accurate comparison but it's close enough.  It's not so much that people thought Hillary's plan was nutty.  But because the hearings were conducted in secret and doctors, insurance experts and others in the health care field were excluded, it began to raise fears and misgivings.  Then, it appeared that the plan was based on HMOs, which were beginning to be very unpopular. People hated their HMOs.

Whether it was fair or not, a lot of people began to fear that the plan would lead to health care rationing and inadequate coverage to meet people's health care needs.

After that, it was easy for the health insurance industry to exploit those fears and demonize the reform effort.

And a lot of the blame for the failure and the fear it aroused could be laid at the feet of the first lady because of the way the effort was conducted.

Likewise, today, I know that for health insurance reform to really succeed, you have to get most people to buy coverage.  Mandates are the easiest way to do it, which is what Hillary's plan contains.

But the mandates could also be the deal breaker that ensures no reform gets done.  Which is why, even if it is with some misgivings, I think Obama's plan is more doable, at least in the short run.

If it succeeds and earns the trust of people, hopefully, more will sign on, without being forced to, and it will have a better chance to succeed.  

That's one of the reasons I'm supporting him.  I do believe he has a better chance to actually implement some of his programs because people will be more willing to trust him and take a few risks.