I am obviously not alone in the way my view of the Clintons has undergone a dramatic transformation over the last 6 months. So, let's talk about our feelings. What happened? I'll start by talking about the big ugly elephant in the room first. How wrong were we about them from 1992 to the last year? Nobody wants to believe that their own biases overwhelm their ability to perceive reality, but here we are. To an extent, I can defend myself from the "bias" charge by pointing out that the Clintonian tactics, before this campaign, were in almost every case counterpunching. Whitewater was NYT bullshit. Travelgate was ridiculous. The Republicans REALLY DID decide to torpedo Hillarycare, not on philosophy, not on the merits, but purely as political calculation. And the media REALLY DID cover that story, too, very poorly. And I haven't even gotten to Monica Lewinsky. My perception of the coverage of the Clintons was that it was unfairly biased against them, except when it really mattered...once media-fave Tsongas was out of the picture, until Bush I was beaten, the media were favorably disposed toward Bill. And in 1996, once it was clear that Dole had no hope, the media piled on him. But outside of that, the media screwed the Clintons, and that made them paranoid and defensive. (And it never ended! No, their staff didn't trash the White House offices...a handful of $10 keyboards had the W key taken off. BFD. Ari Fleischer catapulted the propaganda, and got away with it.) And since they were fighting to rationalize the tax code, to "mend it don't end it" on affirmative action, because they were fighting for the things I believe in, I appreciated their fighting spirit, I welcomed it. It was OK. At least, that's what I tell myself. Well, that starts the discussion. Who's next?
I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. It seemed to me that (a) for a long time the Clintons got a raw deal from the media, and (b) much of the criticism of them was unfounded politically biased bullshit. As Dubya's presidency has dragged on, Clinton's 8 years has come more into focus, and that focus has cast a rather harsh light on what happened. My opinion of his presidency has dropped significantly, irregardless of this campaign, as I've grown more politically sophisticated. While I still feel he faced a hostile and unfair media (fed by the right-wing noise machine), I've become increasingly puzzled as to why - after all Clinton's presidency resulted in a lot of right-wing policies being enacted. I think his presidency was a net negative for liberalism in America, for a lot of reasons. This election, however, has caused my opinion of the Clintons to go completely in the tank. Every politician, by definition, is ambitious. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But there's ambitious, and there's "Rovian". The Clintons have shown a willingness to do or say anything, to the point of lying and leveraging aspects of the electorate that we as liberals should be trying to educate out of the electorate, to win. They are using racism to win some voters, and alleging sexism to win other voters. It's pathetic. They're Machiavellian at best, sociopaths at worst. Even her political positions are born out of calculated political expendiency, not any sense of ethics. Her position on the Iraq war (and hostilities towards Iran) being the most obvious example. Now, I just want them to go away.
Well, there is no difference between the clintons then and now. Yes, they have a fighting spirit, but it is simply fighting for themselves. When that fighting serves the purposes of others in their party, they are tolerated and even championed. In hindsight, there should have been more scrutiny on how the down ticket races were lost. How 2000 was lost. What role the clintons played in things related to the greater good of the party. I don't think we need therapy, I think we just need them to go away. Hillary's true believers will be a problem for the party. In some ways, they remind me of the people who continued to support jim and tammy faye as the ugliness of their "ministry" was exposed. It is a dangerous proposition, but a BIG part of me is thinking that Obama should just simply reject the clintons. Definitely no vp slot. No promises of much of anything. Trust in the new money raising machine you have built. In the end, its mostly about money and how the clintons have dominated the old school democratic donors.
I was never a big fan of the Clintons, but I will admit to the right-wingers that I wasn't as quick as them to really catch on. When Clinton won the nomination in 1992, I decided to be cautiously optimistic because, after all, he would have a Dem-majority Congress to work with. And I wanted the Reagan/Bush dynasty gone. Well, Clinton managed to screw the pooch pretty quickly there. For all the talk about what a great politician he is, it surprises me a lot that more isn't made of the fact that, under Clinton, the party lost both houses of Congress, as well as their majority of Governorships and, I believe, significant losses in Statehouses nationwide. And at least some of Gore's loss can be attributed, IMHO, to "Clinton fatigue." And all the while, he was "triangulating"--in other words, conceding a lot of ground to the GOP, leaving little ideological ground for his own party to operate on. FFS--Dick Morris was in his inner circle! As for the race-baiting, Clinton's non-sequitor attack on Sistah Souljah jumps to mind. And the decision to race back home after a poor showing in NH to execute a mentally retarded black man to bolster his "tough on crime" bona fides should have been a BIG red flag to us.
Right now, I'm actively hoping she gets ousted from the Senate at the first available opportunity by the voters of New York. This is what I'm talking about. A lot of details about his Presidency have really crystallized for me. I was never a huge fan, but I was really blind to what was going on for a number of reasons (not the least of which is that I was a politically unsaavy college snot for most of the Clinton presidency). Instead of being an opportunity to reclaim liberalism as a good thing, Clinton tried to move the party more to the right - and succeeded.
It's Always Someone Else's Fault. Sorry, but twenty years of that bullshit is more than enough. I know it's been used by politicians since the dawn of time, but the Clintons (and the Bushes) have used it to the point where it's almost like breathing for them.
Perhaps it is my Midwest upbringing, but I always thought the same of the Clintons as I do now--astute politicians whom I mostly agree with that are ************ human beings.
Is this where I say I TOLD YOU SO?! (Well, I didn't tell you people specifically as BigSoccer wasn't around in 1994.) I've been saying the Democratic Party has been in an abusive relationship with the Clintons at least since election night in 1994.
Concur. Sure, I was on the side of the aisle polically during Clinton's presidency. But I always thought that they were pieces of shit regardless of their political leanings.
Seems pretty simple, given that Hillary today is every bit as liberal as she was in 1992. If you were to do a side by side comparison of her and Obama's Senate voting record, you wouldn't be able to make any important distinctions, at least not on the issues that matter in this election. EDIT: War in Iraq - I'll give you that one. So what happened? You decided you like Obama. And Hillary became the bad guy.
Now we'd rather tell them..... you can go your own waaaay....go your own way. Thank you, thank you folks. Remember to tip your waiter.
Hillary didn't become a "bad guy" until she started implying that McCain would be a better president than Obama. She's putting her own need for power ahead of the good of the party. For the good of the country, too, for that matter.
I've had a strange relationship with the Clintons. Bill's presidency and all their right wing-lite policies (as well as my youthful naivity) drove me to vote for Nader in 2000. W's presidency made me regret that vote and redeemed the Clinton's in my view. Hillary's campaign has made me remember why I didn't like them to begin with and really want them to go away once and for all.
Minor quibble: "bluntly stating" would be more accurate than "implying." For me this was the point of no return as well, especially considering we were talking about the clear front runner in Obama at that point.
Face it. Most of you defended the Clintons because the Republicans were attacking them. AM's rule 1 of politics: Incumbents suck unless proven otherwise. In fact, Bill's only redeeming quality was that he pandered to voters.
I'll certainly admit to being in denial about one thing: how much damage the Clintons did to the Democratic Party during the 1990s. But, then again, I wasn't a confirmed Democrat until Bush. I gave money to McCain in 2000 and, at that moment, would've voted for McCain over Gore. I thought Gore was an overstuffed phony dressed by Naomi Wolff. He could barely put two sentences together without stumbling and McCain cerca 2000 had a full arsenal of zingers and a clear head. People looking at McCain's stuttering today can hardly believe it, I know. (I still voted for Gore over Bush) I think the Clintons are gambling that if they can keep Obama out of office, the 1990s will look even more like halcyon years, post-Cold War, pre-9/11 and Bush-Iraq. I'm not sure they're even thinking of running again in 2012 as much as they are of being hell bent on being the ONLY Democrats running the country in the collective memory of two generations.