Bill Clinton In 2008?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, General Politics
Okay, not exactly. But two Dem strategists lay out a very compelling argument why the nominee in 2008 should be like Bill. Well, all except for those personal pecadilloes…
By any logical standard, Democrats of every stripe ought to be embracing Clintonism and its central tenets — providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals. As an instrument of progress, it’s beyond compare. Just recall its achievements: record budget surpluses, rising incomes, more than 22 million new jobs, millions leaving welfare and poverty for work.As a political formula, its record is just as impressive. Not only was Bill Clinton the first Democratic president in 60 years to be reelected, but consider this: In the three elections before 1992, Democrats averaged 58 electoral votes. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton averaged 375. He won a dozen red states twice.
Will the Dem nominees take heed? Can Hillary take up the mantle? Or will it be somebody like Mark Warner, Bill Richardson or Evan Byah.
This entry was posted on Monday, June 12th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 12th, 2006 at 7:06 am
The LAST thing the Democrats need is someone “like Clinton”. They do not need another person who will slash our defense budget, screw interns, bow to the eternally corrupt UN and go on “humanitarian” missions that involve bombing other countries, then pulling out when his popularity takes the slightest of dives; or otherwise be a discredit to every human being on earth.
How you can post how anyone should be “like Clinton” with a straight face is baffling.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:18 am
–”How you can post how anyone should be “like Clintonâ€Â? with a straight face is baffling.”–
I dunno, maybe because beyond the bad behavior with the interns, the rest of your diatribe is mere far-right rhetoric?
Clinton never slashed spending–he simply did not increase it at levels some hardline hawks deemed necessary. Every year saw minor increases (some very minor). Bowing to an eternally corrupt UN? Your opinion, but not supported by facts
Many people who voted for Clinton did not approve of his personal behavior, myself included, but more people were better off under Clinton then under Bush, who has floundered in most issues foreign and domestic.
The point of the post is that the country needs a candidate whose centrist tendencies appeal to the vast middle, not to give the far right another opportunity to spout off on Clinton.
Clinton is done. He cannot run again. Stop trotting him out like the boogie man to scare the GOP-base and try righting your own ship and wresting it from the sycophants and fanatics who have taken the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower so far to the right as to be repulsive to the ideals on which it was founded.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Over the last six years, with the folks the Donks have been putting forward, I’ve come to miss the “good ole days” of Bill Clinton.
Another Clinton, though, is as likely to be elected as another Bush.
Put somebody up with his centrist appeal (real or imagined!), WITHOUT the baggage of the name, and the Donks have a race on their hands.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Maybe people didn’t like Clinton’s personal behavior but at least he didn’t start WWIII.
I think it would be nice to have a president who didn’t piss away $200 million [borrowed] a day on corrupt contractors and bogus, non-existent projects.
The wingers will smear anyone the Dems select so there’s no point in trying to pick someone they’ll appove of. Fuck em.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Well, let’s try to tone down the hyperbole, or you will be just as bad as the other guy. W. has hardly started WWIII–he’s just not very good at his job.
If by the Wingers, you mean the far right, of course no one the Dems pick will appeal to them, but the idea is not to appeal to them or their counterparts on the far left
The idea is to appeal to the vast majority in the middle with someone who has enough charisma and a solid plan to excite the middle so we can take our government back from the extremists
June 12th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Actually, I think you’re right, Justin. Here’s the irony- the so-called liberal Clinton was an extraordinarily cautious politician, especially post-1993 following the health insurance debacle. In contrast, Bush, the conservative, threw caution to the wind and charged into Iraq. So who’s the real conservative?
June 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
My point exactly. Even Michael Moore jokes that Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve ever had. I think Clinton was much closer to a true conservative than Bush, and I think the right-wing knew that. It’s why they tried to destroy him…because they knew that people would start to really shift back towards a more moderate agenda, and that didn’t fit into their plans.
June 13th, 2006 at 6:33 am
gerryf: The premise of this post was that Bill Clinton was some sort of moderate demigod. He wasn’t. When push came to shove Clinton was a liberal, and his life was run by his poll numbers. Clinton had more scandals than you can count and his relentless obfuscation and lying even occured when he was on trial by grand jury! And lets not forget he appointed ACLU hack Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who sees it fit to rewrite the constitution rather than interpret it, and finds no moral issue with case decisions that have poor legal logic but meet the political ends she prefers.
Whether it was giving the NARAL ladies their legal infanticide bill, lobbing bombs in the general direction of the enemy and calling it “national security”, or pulling “budget surpluses” out of thin air, Clinton was king at only one thing: avoiding media attention for his injustices towards humanity.
What the Democrats need is not another corrupt Clinton, what they need is a clue.
kriez: You are working off flawed definition of conservative and liberal. You are using the dictionary definition and not the political definition.
Cautiousness =/= conservative
Recklessness =/= liberal
As to Michael Moore, I didn’t know he did jokes, lately all he does is bash America, probably for making him obese.
June 13th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Brian- I’m used to agreeing with you but here I must depart. You’re right that I’m equating cautiousness with conservatism. The second part of the equation (recklessness = liberalism) is at first blush more troubling. But GWB’s incursion into Iraq was, in many respects, premised upon the inherent good of the Wilsonian principle of spreading democracy. In my estimation, this is a liberal impulse, not a conservative one.
June 13th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Nonsense:
“By any logical standard, Democrats of every stripe ought to be embracing Clintonism and its central tenets â€â€? providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals.”
You might be able to cherry pick some Clinton actions and define them as liberal, but the intended point of the article is very clear…the idea is the Dems ought to find a candidate who embraces central tenets.
You can either agree or disagree with that, but to trot out the Clinton Boogie man is irrelevent and ultimately tiresome.
June 14th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Brian said:
“Clinton was king at only one thing: avoiding media attention for his injustices towards humanity.”
I’ve never heard adultery described as an “injustice towards humanity.” You make him sound like Saddam Hussein. What a flair for the dramatic you have! Seriously, I wasn’t impressed with some of Clinton’s behavior, but he was a pretty good president when compared with his contemporaries. He’s certainly better than the current president, although I suppose it’s safe to assume you would disagree.
I’ve always wanted to ask you what color the sky is on your planet.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
That is the best string of comments I’ve ever read. I wish I could have found it sooner than 3.5 months after it was poste.
October 21st, 2006 at 8:21 pm
I think that it’s time for someone else beside a Clinton or Bush. What does this country want - two dynasties for the next few hundred years? Who will be after Bill or Hill? Maybe one of the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton? Give me a break! How about some fresh faces and names!
If Hillary should win in 2008, I’m crossing the Rio Grande into Mexico, or rowing a boat to Cuba.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I’d rather have a Democrat that screws interns, than a Republican who screws us on our electric bill every month…making deregulation possible and making my bill go up 40%.