Tweet
No major struggle in politics is purely personal. Behind every conflict of personalities there lies an ideological divide. So it was in the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008 where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the major contenders. Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) candidate–a politician who, like her husband before her, moved the party in highly conservative directions but was still recognizably a Democrat. As pro-corporate as she and her husband were, they both kept at least a shred of the old Democratic faith in politics as a tool of societal improvement. Barack Obama has turned out to be something else, a Kabuki Democrat, a neocon disguised as a Democrat, who talked the Democratic talk but really worked for the other team.
All this is an old story. What has become clear in the last year or two, however, is that the DLC Democrats, and indeed all national Democrats, have lost their separate identity and become entirely Kabuki-ized. To ascertain this, consider Bill Clinton’s support of the Bush tax extensions (even going so far as to conduct a joint press conference with the president on the matter) or Hillary’s acquiescence to the president’s deprivations of civil liberties and hideous drone warfare campaign. Consider the lack of meaningful opposition by Democrats (including so-called progressives) in Congress to any aspects of the president’s agenda, and the strong-arm efforts of the party to make sure there are no presidential primary opponents.
It is now clear that the truce reached between Hillary Clinton and Obama at the end of the 2008 primary season was in fact a surrender pact. HRC gave up any adherence to a DLC viewpoint and carried her major supporters with her. In exchange, Obama gave Hillary and Bill Clinton a modicum of personal power and influence within his administration.
There was very much in the DLC for traditional and progressive Democrats to dislike. What we have now, however, is NOT the DLC. It is, under the president’s leadership, something entirely more corporatist and sinister. And the entire party is behind it.
24 Comments
I am trying to remember how it is that anyone can envision Pres Clinton as holding on to some of the older values of the Democratic Party.
Would a FDR or JFK have pushed NAFTA through Congress? Would a FDR or JFK signed off on welfare to work? Would either of those two sign off on the various “banking reform” measures that went through Congress in 1999 and 2000. These bank reform measures overturned Glass Steagall and made it possible for the total erosion of most differences between banks and gambling casinos, with the only discernible difference being that should a casino go belly up, tax payers are not perpetually expected to make up the casino owner’s losses.
I certainly cannot imagine JFK toadying up to Greenspan. Or inflicting the NATO war on Serbia.
But I guess it’s possible that I am simply very old fashioned in terms of the values I assign to what the Democratic PArty once was.
Or you are an astute historian.
I can remember during Clinton’s time being deeply torn by his commitment to NAFTA. At that time, the predicted results which have been realized, was that it was going to be disastrous to our workers a benefit to global workers. But, as someone who was still involved in Democratic party politics I could not believe that a Democratic President would so clearly enact legislation that would be harmful and destructive to working people. I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Looking back, I think I would point to that presidential era as the death of the party.
I think many, (I know I do,) forget what great gifted liars these people (Bill, Hillary, Barack) are. As RP (regular people,) we assume that when someone says something they would not boldly, with authority just gobsmack lie. But they do all the time. It is not a way of life for us but it is for them. That is why some thought that Clinton actually represented the party.
With Obama I have been a non believer and skeptic from the beginning. He gets no benefit of the doubt from me. No f ing way was he all that soap seller Axelrod was peddling. Two years in the Senate, and he was a national leader?? Something was rotten in Denmark from the beggining. That said, I believe Obama is not presiding over the death of the Democratic party so much as the burial. The question some of us have to face is whether we believe in resurrections or whether we will move from the denial and grief stage to acceptance.
BTW if you think that no one could possibly think the Clintons are the keepers of the Democratic party flame you have not been here. The idolatry for Hillary is fairly thick there.
Can’t work links. So http://taylormarsh.com/
Can you explain, then, what were the underlying forces behind the titanic 2008 struggle between Hillary Clinton and Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries. The scope of this struggle (the most contested primary season in decades) shows that it was much more than personal. This is the puzzle I am trying to solve.
Did the DLC viewpoint she gave up include her siding with the individual mandate during the primaries?
It was a highly manipulated, stage-crafted side show to entertain the masses. If you remember, Jon Edwards placed 2nd in Iowa, the first primary/caucus of the 2008 season, but he wasn’t even mentioned in the
newspropaganda. Instead, all the commentary was about barry and hillary, who came in 3rd. I knew after that it was nothing but a set-up. Actually, the set-up came much earlier, when candidates like Kucinich were literally cut out of the picture, along with Mike Gravel. These people were treated like freaks by the media, the same way Howard Dean was in 2004, to the point that the unthinking, knuckle-dragging compliant masses wouldn’t take them seriously. Watch and see how much air time Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson are given, and the attitude toward them that will be cultivated.Having lived through both administrations, you will never convince me that the Obama presidency=the Bill Clinton presidency. Bill Clinton was an ally of big corporations, yes, and he enacted some really bad legislation, yes (NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagal, ending welfare) but there was an completely different feel to the two administrations. The main difference to me is the secrecy and militarization of the Obama years.
But look at the totality of the two health care proposals. HRC’s failed 1993 health care reform effort was highly flawed and overly complex, too enthralled to the health insurance industry, and like the ACA avoided the obvious solution of single payer. Her proposal was, however, a genuine effort to achieve a more equitable system of universal health care. The ACA, as far as can be known about this monstrosity, will minimally help the populace as a whole, and is mainly an effort to increase health insurance industry profits.
Also, look to the Middle East to find a gargantuan difference between the two presidencies. In his last few months in office, Bill Clinton put the historical stature of his presidency on the line trying to bring peace to the region through a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians. Though he ultimately failed, he was an honest broker trusted by both sides. Obama has made perfunctory efforts toward Middle East peace, but mainly he has continued GWB’s policy of endless war, now mutating to the hideous form of drone warfare.
Ha … Taylor Marsh! I forgot about her. Too funny.
I’m not sure what the question is here. Hillary wanted to be president … she has since before Bill got the job. Obama came along and announced he’d leap-frog her; and she didn’t just roll over.
It was not, ultimately, a conflict of personality or policy (although ostensible differences on both were the playground of mega-media buys) – it was a conflict over which insiders would control the spoils.
In the end, Obama ended up holding the office and putting Clinton people in a ton of power-positions (she got pretty much every slot beyond his COS and political core). And now they are all making *tons* of money in exchange for their access and everyone’s happy … little green peas in a pod, them.
Me thinks you have the pod split open. As you say, same as it ever was.
One of the supreme ironies of American politics is that the Democratic Party, for all its proportional-representation rules and diversity mandates, is much more hostile to newcomers than the Republican Party. It continues to rely on its legacy constituencies and give the back of its hand to newcomers.
The GOP, on the other hand, has had three episodes of what Markos Moulitsas* would call “crashing the gates” in this generation: the Reagan conservatives in the 1970s, the Religious Right in the 1980s and 1990s, and the Tea Party. Each has not only moved the party farther to the right, but has also brought in new blood to replace those aging out of the system.
* Who has become a gatekeeper of the Democratic establishment. As I said, how ironic.
FDR and JFK were my two favorite presidents. When I look at Hillary and Obama, it brings tears to my eyes; we’ve been sold out.
Hillary Clinton got Obama’s chief-of-staff slot. A little footnot from Rahm Emanuel’s past.
Wonder who Obama put at State to watch Hillary Clinton.
The real difference is that 9/11 gave the fascists the ability to make good on their dreams of having a police state. My guess is that a post 9/11 Clinton Presidency would not have looked that much different from the way the Big Zero runs things.
Ahem, Can anyone direct me to the Progressive Caucus inside the United States Senate Chambers? Just thought I would ask.
Jaango
OK … I’ll give you that one, I guess. Maybe he was a stealth staffing win for Clinton after all.
I was giving him credit for being an Obama toady based on their Chicago affiliations … and the deal where he swapped offices with Daley. Not sure I’m convinced that view is entirely off-base. Maybe he was like a bridge-type character.
Either way. There isn’t enough daylight between the objectives of Obama and Clinton to matter much, IMO.
Not one Democrat primaried against Obama: that told me that not one Democrat is for the 99%.
So I left that party after 63 years. And I will never go back. It sold all of us out.
It is a little acknowledged fact that Bill Clinton (with the enthusiastic backing of Al Gore) is the president who innovated the practice of rendition to third-party nations for torture. The entire CIA snatch-and-spirit infrastructure was built under Clinton … the diapers, network of front companies and chartered airplanes; all of it. It was well-documented in Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies.”
Bush’s innovation was to establish American sites where some of those snatched could be handled by our people – without any of those pesky middle-men. Other than that addition, our torture program was structurally designed and brought into existence by Clinton.
Oh, this comment is in re Warp9@16 (and my comment @18 was actually responding to @15). Apparently, I can’t work these buttons today.
The Dem party died with Kennedy. The military industrial complex sent a pretty clear message to future presidents, you mess with our profits and you will be next.
Carter’s election was made possible only by Watergate, and all of DC shut down Carter as soon as he tried to be a democrat.
Clinton’s election was an accident, he had no real democratic mandate, caused by the crazy billionaire Ross Perot who siphoned off Papa Bush’s winning margin.
Obama’s campaign was the biggest political deception in history, a flat-out scamming of the Democratic party base. But it did prove that a REAL populist can easily be elected (if he doesn’t get killed first.)
As I say, Kennedy was the last real Dem to stand up to corporations and the military, read the account of US Steel, and read his speech to the media reps who he castigated for giving a free ride to corporations. Read some of the recent books that document his meetings with the Joint Chiefs, you will be amazed.
We’ve been a corporate-controlled country since 1963, LBJ pushed through social legislation and should be remembered well for that, on Kennedy’s goodwill, but he was not strong enough to control the military.
I agree we are watching the final burial of the Democratic Party, I believe Obama will be remembered in the history books with the phrase “The Obama Deception,a Fake Populist” as his legacy.
Let King Romney have his reign and usher in Great Depression II, that is actually the quickest way to getting the next FDR.
… X 2
May as well go with the real Ronald Reagan wannabe instead of the fraud who claims to be a D but has turned out to be a solid DINO/INC. UniParty player.
Reaganism needs to have a stake driven through it’s core politics and the sooner that takes place the sooner we Americans may be able to erase what Ronald Reagan stood for and preached. Cuz it ain’t working some 22 years later. Reagan/Reaganism was seldom very good at identifying what was wrong with America and even worse on policy picks and who was allowed to implement them.
Odd thing about Ronald Reagan was with his catchy oneliner about government not being the solution but part/all of the problem was this having been stated by RayGunRonny then someone needed to ask why Ronald Reagan wanted to be part of the problem and was trying so hard to become POTUS?
Barack Obama admires Ronald Reagan and evidently is quite willing to practice Reaganism given the opportunity as POTUS. Voting this DINO/INC. Obama this November 2012 out of the WH seems in order in view of the not very/simply not truthful stuff Barack Obama was laying down thick during 2007/2008 to win the D Party WH nominee race and then the WH in November 2008.
Americans would do better with a real Reagan wannabe in the WH post 2012 like Mitt Romney who at least when Romney tries to gut SS/MC or do all the “good” Reaganism stuff will be properly given credit for doing the junk politics unlike this stealth DINO/INC.poser Barack Obama who is allowed to slide on it by the Obots/Dbots.
I will keep hoping the United States may get lucky and another FDR will show up as early as 2020 despite the best efforts of the UniParty to thwart such a thing. Or that needed political climate changes for the USA will come about and I may see American Militarism,Imperialism and Colonialism taken on and largely dismantled just on the terrible American economic/society/statecraft opportunity losses these three entail. Why do Americans need to defend Singapore when a bona fide classic American city like Detroit,MI looks like it does in 2012?
I am no Romney backer but by all means lets get the real Reagan wannabe in the WH and vote Pretender D/Actual DINO/INC. POTUS Barack Obama out of the WH in November 2012.
At least Romney wears his spots and stripes of a real R and Reaganaut out in the open so you can see them.
Barack Obama will go on to a very comfortable,likely lucrative,Bill Clinton type/fashioned post WH retirement career and having made history as the first African American POTUS will have a big section in WH history.
We Americans need to move on and solve the real problems we face with real solutions. Obama does not seem able to engage the first or present the second. At least with a POTUS Romney doing the Reaganism junk it will be possible to not have to stomach seeing a D doing it and saying it is all good. Reaganism is not all good. Romney will get blamed for all the Reaganism fails he tries to sell or do and if we are lucky Romney will be poltically cashed out by 2016 then too. Deservedly so.
“Americans would do better with a real Reagan wannabe in the WH post 2012 like Mitt Romney who at least when Romney tries to gut SS/MC or do all the “good” Reaganism stuff will be properly given credit for doing the junk politics unlike this stealth DINO/INC.poser Barack Obama who is allowed to slide on it by the Obots/Dbots….We Americans need to move on and solve the real problems we face with real solutions.”
Indeed we have to move on. Part of moving on is walking away from the man who was not a Democrat but knew he could never attain the power he craved as a member of the Republican Party. We have to shake him off and simply refuse to care about him or the freakish and warped organization the Democratic Party has become.
If Romney wins, we’ll hear the same old excuses from the Democrats, but they’ll sound even less convincing than they do now. The Republican Party might be the last party standing in America, but it won’t take long before even core Republicans will be disgusted, as they watch their family and friends lose their upper-middle-class livelihoods.
However, let’s not let our fear of the Republicans blind us to the pure evil of Obama and the Democrats. Instead of voting for people whose issues disgust and appall us, we should, this time around, vote for people whose issues we proudly embrace. Winning isn’t the issue this election. Voting our conscience is.