Joe Conason: A Time Again for Bill Clinton

We need to put egos aside and think outside the box. And, just in case I haven't used enough cliches, we need all hands on deck.

His opinions of the influence of Bill Clinton are vastly overrated.

Clinton did not even try to influence the ideological counterparts of these people in 1993. The plan that HRC created was never even voted on in either house of Congress. Obama has a broader range of support than Bill Clinton's. There may be a few Congressmen linked to Clinton, who he could call behind the scenes, but most of the people he can influence are in Obama's sphere of influence too.

So that he can dilute the bill a little bit more...

All of the heavyweights. This is going to be a massive drag out fight that has to be won.

"But Mr. Clinton remains popular and credible in precisely the places where the president is suffering politically—and he could achieve traction with the same Democrats who see no cost in undermining the Obama administration. Moreover, he has a capacity to communicate complex ideas in plain terms that would serve Mr. Obama well at this perilous moment."

In his Southern drawl he would take his time and explain very complex issues in a way that anyone could understand them, and did so without being condescending. Despite his personal foibles, I miss Bill.

I also miss Hillary's passionate input. Do some of you know that back in the 90s when she went out to speak to crowds about health care the SS insisted that she sometimes wear a bullet proof vest under her clothes because she received so many death threats?

:-)

surprise me though. They were regular people unlike the Reagans and Bushes. DC just couldn't handle that. Elections will always be about the black hats vs the white hats.

Like her or not, she stands by what she believes in and she gives it her all. Yes, there was so much opposition to the healthcare plan that she received many death threats. Actually, she has always received them, she just doesn't let it stop her. Some questioned why she was not flying commercial crafts when promoting her book "It Takes a Village". The reason was because the SS wouldn't allow her, too many death threats.

Even nowadays she still will do things that makes the SS nervous. On her trip to Indonesia she dove into the crowds and shook hands and posed for pics like she would do here. Recently in India, she insisted on speaking in Mumbai in an outdoor patio while security had suggested that she speak indoors. She wanted to make the point that terrorists will not triumph.

;)

That is what I like about Obama--he is real. They never talked down to us. Obama doesn't either.

and are not about divisive politics for political gain.

Hillary has really grown into her new role. It just might be me, but she honestly looks happy and seems to be enjoying herself. As much as someone can enjoy themselves in a fucked up world that is.. She just exudes confidence and not desperation. I'm really liking her right now.

Obama and Hillary is a marriage made in heaven. Who would have thought it nine months ago.:fistbump:

Joe Conason clearly loves Bill Clinton. However, on healthcare, Clinton really did not seem to care that much. He wrote a book that had about 1000 pages. The largest expansion of healthcare insurance since the 1960s, was SCHIP, which came out of Senate efforts to write a bill modeled after a MA program. Look at Clinton's book - this was simply ignored for the most part. In fact, HRC did make a major contribution to that program - she pushed Bill Clinton to include funding in the budget.

The one I think could pull some of these people in is Ted Kennedy. Kennedy is the one who can communicate these ideas because they are his and they are close to his heart. If he has the strength to record a short plea or draft a letter, I think he would have far more credibility and ability to reach people than Clinton does.

Bill gets clobbered constantly, but historical perspective is important. The opposition to the gays in the military and health care were huge. Strategically, he probably should have not started with the gays in the military issue until later on in his administration. It only served to rile the other side even more and fight harder to defeat anything he proposed on any front, specially on health care. Hillary is more of a fighter and more gutsy than Bill, then again, I think that could apply to Obama too.

:-)

paid by the company, not this expensive crap we have today that covers nothing. rEad Bill Clinton's book and you would see why he failed. He did not get involved and did not concentrate on health care. Sound familiar?

By screwing around, waiting on the process, without leadership, Obama has lost the old folks. rEpublicans have convinced them, and he has said he would cut Medicare payments. Bad move and he totally lost momentum. Nothing before the recess. Its dead folks for another 20 years, so get ready for INSURANCE REFORM. Whoopee.

I admit that more people had employer subsidized insurance in 1993 and their copays were much smaller. this made the demand for healthcare reform weaker than it now is. However,I have seen people going too far in excusing Bill Clinton on healthcare. The fact is that he had Democratic majorities (57 in the Senate) in the House and Senate nearly as big as Obama does - and there were more moderate Republicans then. In fact, Ted Kennedy made the needed compromises to get SCHIP in 1997 when there were only 45 Democrats.

The reason Clinton did not want to fight for HRC's healthcare plan was he wanted to push instead for the welfare reform bill. (Talk about adding insult to injury.)

As to gays in the military, Bill Clinton had learned nothing about working with either the military or Congress when he unilaterally said he was going to change the policy. This was something where the issue should have been worked quietly behind the scenes in the military and in the Congress. In addition, Clinton did not have the capital with the military to do much - they did not trust him them. DADT was a compromise, that did not correct the main problem, but was marginally better than what it replaced. A better compromise might have been worked had Clinton handled the politics better.

I have no doubt HRC is a fighter - she was a fighter even in May and June 2008, when Obama was the very likely de facto nominee. She has however yet to really lead on anything, making the concessions and getting people to coalesce behind anything. That is what is needed and Ted Kennedy has been a master at that - where Hillary really hasn't been. Bill Clinton had the advantage of being President, but he has done less to get Democratic goals that Ted Kennedy.

His presidency is the only reason we were able to survive the Bush years IMO.

To say that Clinton didn't prioritize health care is astounding to me. He did not care more about welfare reform, it was barely debated in 94. Health Care was his top priority and he fought like a dog for it. There weren't 60 votes in the Senate for an employer mandate. And that was the center piece of his plan. Without it there couldn't be universal coverage. There were also 40 Republicans signed on to the Dole plan--meaning they weren't looking to work for reform. And Shelby of Alabama, still a Democrat at the time, was never going to vote for anything. And let's not forget Harry and Louise and all their damage.

I don't understand how you can think Clinton could have gotten the ban of gays lifted. It came up early because the GOP made an immediate stink. They were going to attach an amendment to Family and Medical leave to require the ban stay--and they had the votes. I might add....that was why Hillary's lobbying congress on FML was relevant, a fact conveniently forgotten during the primaries when HRC was denounced as a liar. She worked to persuade lawmakers to keep the two issues separate. (And it was reported in the media at the time). But the Congress was never going to just butt out, the military was never going to support it and the public wasn't behind the president on this issue. He did his best at the time, attitudes being what they were. And Bill Clinton showed respect and inclusion to gay Americans that no previous president had ever approached. In doing so he laid the groundwork for the shift in attitudes that ultimately followed.

I seriously doubt that Barack Obama--or someone like Mario Cuomo or Russ Feingold, for that matter--would have gotten better results then Bill Clinton got in 93 and 94. He had to fight like hell just to get the budget through. And in doing so--as far as I'm concerned--he saved our country.

Steve

HRC speaks of Bill not pushing Congress on the bill. Read Bill Clinton's book - he made a huge deal of welfare reform and he used his articulateness and charisma to sell the reform as offering people a better life. He did a fantastic job of that. Go read Bill Clinton's autobiography and find the number of pages speaking about welfare reform and about SCHIP, the major health insurance plan passed. (hint I had a hard time finding much on SCHIP there.)

I did not say that Clinton could have lifted the ban, but that the way he did it GUARANTEED he couldn't. It was not the GOP that brought up the issue, it was Clinton by announcing he would change the policy. I am not saying that Clinton didn't do his best, but I do think that the beginning of his Presidency was tough because he was new to DC.

You always explain things better than I do.

:pals:

Imagine if Teddy was the Senate headliner instead of Baucus?

One can only dream.

:(

Health care costs have skyrocketed and things are far worse than in 1993. Now people are willing to listen and there's more acceptance that health care needs reforming. In 1993 the Clintons were fighting against the tide.

;)

is Teddy.:loveya:

How much influence he would truly have. His influence took a hit with the Va. Governor's primary IMO>

Bill Clinton actually agrees with Obama's view on health care...I wouldn't be so sure.

Point being: Clinton's persona is based on a wide range of notions and ideas, not a one time event in a little state somewhere near Maryland ...

OK ... it's not THAT little, but the primary is forgotten ..... Long forgotten ...

Virginia, or the Washington Post endorsement of Deeds.

Steve

come on, dude. It is over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6208946

Not in the link, they mention the pro reform people were slow to make the link to 15 years ago. The question is why would bringing up what happened 15 years ago be a good idea? It is actually THE OTHER SIDE bringing up 15 years ago because they succeeded in demonizing it. This is good as an internal fundraising letter, but this does not make the arguments that need to be made to win people in the middle.

Obviously Rahm is fairly certain that Bill Clinton can't persuade the Blue Dogs or Benator anymore than President Obama can or he would've made the call already.

:rofl:

Anyone who thinks he can be counted on to shape a more progressive health care system hasn't paid attention to his record. Clinton promoted the right-wing Blue Dogs and DLC within the Democratic Party and neoliberalism in general.

I don't understand why would anyone believe he supports health care reform that places people above the the profit motive and the health care 'industry'?

Both he and Obama are scary smart, but Obama gives a more eloquent literary speech, and Bill's stronger extemporaneously and faster on his feet. No-one, no-one fights the right-wing smear machine, disruptors, and media gang as well as the Big Dog. Just go back and look at his Sept. 2006 interview with Chris Wallace for an example. Wallace ambushes him, but the Big Dog tears him to pieces and picks his bones clean.

corporate Democrats. Clinton is a self-promoting & self-agrandizing jerk. Let's hope he stays in Pyongyang for good.

Unfortunately, use of the term 'leftie' doesn't mean anything anymore

I support the most progressive viable Democrat in any given race, and Clinton was that in the '92 and '96 general elections. You might not get a great seat at the table with a Democrat, but with a Republican you get no seat. Are you from the "vote Nader; elect Bush" school of "lefty" thought?

but don't make a mockery of the left.

But thanks for the little purity troll lecture.

the mud puddle throwing mud at anyone possible.

I suspect your friend can take care of himself, so I'm not sure why we need a nerb here.

The issue that began this thread was Bill Clinton. I don't recall you explaining why he's your hero.

And I don't feel any need to spill my guts to you about how I vote or don't vote. Suffice to say, I usually vote DP, though I usually hold my nose and then puke my guts out afterwards. You may have a different experience, I really couldn't care less.

But I don't feel any need to bow down or bend over for that corporate puta who dragged the DP into the neoliberal wilderness.

Excellent. We've reached common ground sooner than I'd have thought.