Once Clinton caved on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" he never got his Presidency back -- current lesson?

At the outset of Clinton's presidency, one of his big, new changes was going to be to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Instead of doing this right up front with an Executive Order, then letting the whiners, righties, GOP nutters, etc., just deal with it and move on (with the knowledge that the new President was a man of his word, and someone who didn't back down at the first hint of a breeze), he famously waffled, tried to please everyone and not anger anyone -- too much -- and you know the result.

The results will be the same if Obama caves in on the public option for health care reform. Or "reform," as it seems the quotes are currently needed.

The righties will realize the entire agenda can be blocked and shouted down. The Blue Dogs will go against us on anything like meaningful climate control legislation, regulatory oversight, etc., etc.

It will be another exercise in the sole, remaining comfort being "ah, well, at least he's not insane!"

No. But at this juncture in history, we need a little more than that. And this debate -- which the other side seems to realize more than the White House does -- is about a hell of a lot more than just health care. Reform. Or "reform."

Oval Office with a intern or lying about it!

in terms of legislative agenda, long before that...

He "never got his presidency back."

I guess that's why THIS happened...(from Wiki)



DADT was a compromise to stop what was happening when it was passed. The military commanders were allowed to badger any service member regarding sexual orientation. A "yes" got you discharged, a lie, if discovered later, got a court martial. Is that what you would have preferred?

n/t

approval ratings are borne out of what people consider to BE concrete legislative achievement? Of what do you think the people were approving? :shrug:

no major environmental or labor legislation (unless you count opposite-effect things, like NAFTA) were passed. Good times if you weren't supporting a family on welfare, but the seeds of its own destruction -- a blind eye toward media consolidation, for example --were already cast...

And speaking of poll-like referendums on Clinton -- why didn't Gore win the subsequent election decisively, instead of eeking to a bare win that left it close enough to steal?

a lockbox? Please.

about Monica Lewinsky, so I don't know where you are getting THAT response.

The fact is that a large majority of the people approved of his presidency. That majority considered the whole impeachment fiasco to be disgraceful. If the Vice President had not run away from the President, he may well have won a majority that could not have been stolen away.

have come up and gained traction. DADT spilled blood in the water. Clinton was Commander-in-Fucking-Chief. Powell should have had his sorry traitorous ass handed to him.

Bill didn't have the tesiticular fortitude to bring the US into the leadership position on this issue. He caved, and caved big time. No excuse. No "chess game" bullshit. The guy caved.

And his enemies took notice.

It is a *very* good lesson.

Leaders, sometimes, have to actually lead.

with no military experience wasn't the guy to do it.

Truman had been in the Army.

Yes, I wish Clinton - and progressives in Congress - had fought a lot harder on this one. I agree on that.

Back to the "leader" thing again...

And yes, I don't want us to look back and wish the President had fought "a lot harder" on this issue, either...

The time is now... yes?