NOT the Democratic Party's 2008 nominee for president?
Simple. It is because of this man:
I cannot think of a single person I've spoken to who disagrees with this fact. I especially have never spoken to a single Democrat who disagrees. Bill Clinton's presidency was NOT one of the greatest in history, despite it having been described as such as he was introduced last night to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A great presidency is never a liability to a successor, unless that successor is a gross mediocrity; and no one at last night's convention would countenance that Barack Obama is a mediocrity. But a bad presidency is a liability to anyone closely associated with it.
It is reported that Hillary Clinton is quite close to that liability.
____________________
What I have heard said by many conservative pundits since John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination (presumptively) is that John McCain was the "media's" choice for the Republican post. Of course, this assertion is always issued with contempt, as the media are largely portrayed by the conservative punditry as a hive of leftists. In many senses this is true; the media do tend left. And it is also true that many on the left, including those in the media, are not uncomfortable with a McCain presidency. I recall diehard leftists -- among my friends and family -- during the 2000 election cycle telling me that they were impressed with McCain and that I should be, too.
But if the media created John McCain's presumptive place atop the Republican Party, it was the Republican machinery -- along with countless conservatives -- that put Barack Obama atop the Democratic Party. Let me put it this way:
Why is this man
enjoying his ascendant celebrity?
Simple. It is because of this man:
During the height of the Democratic primary season, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro drew much attention to herself when she asserted that Barack Obama was enjoying great success in his bid for the White House because he was black. Of course, the attention Ms. Ferraro drew from her leftist peers was largely filled with ire, though some in her party were quite sympathetic to her views. While it could be reasonably argued that Ms. Ferraro's observation has some merit, her reasons for saying what she did were really a type of cover. What I believe Ms. Ferraro was doing was concealing something about the candidate she was not only supporting but advising: She was concealing the fact that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, was losing NOT because Barack Obama was black, but because Bill Clinton was her husband. (Please note that I am in no way impugning Mr. Obama's obvious abilities and talents.) Instead of looking at the heart of the problem, Ms. Ferraro looked to alleged external causes for her candidate's struggles.
Last fall, I attended a Barack Obama event. It was very much a surprise to the local folks who know me who were also in attendance, as my conservatism often precedes me when I go to such events. What I noted afterwards was how many liberals came up to speak to me; all had one thing in common. They agreed with the (very conservative?) position that the Clintons were a bad choice for the 2008 nomination; they agreed that Bill Clinton was a liability to winning the general election; they agreed that the Clinton machine would destroy and digest any person who stood in their way; they agreed that the Clintons were motivated by power and avarice.
But to what were these liberals agreeing? That's right. They were agreeing with what Republicans had been saying about the Clintons since 1992.
Hence, the Democratic Party, staring directly at the very competent wife of "one of the greatest presidents in history" and a US Senator in her own right, took its cues not from itself but from the Republicans' "Anyone-but-Billary" meme. By the thinnest margin, Hillary Clinton missed a nomination because of too much baggage, with her husband being most of that baggage. Barack Obama might NOT be a better leader, legislator, or chief executive, but he isn't a Clinton, and has a better chance of winning the general election because he was not born of such a pedigree; or so concluded many in the Democratic Party. Perhaps that explains why he did so well during his exploration process among the middle-aged white women comprising his earliest focus groups.
What I am saying is that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has ultimately kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House... for now. But what I am also saying is this: The Democrats know where their party's weakest link is, and they don't want you to know it. Their weakest link is Bill Clinton. And it is for that reason that the Republicans should use all their muster to show why the Democrats don't really believe that Bill Clinton is the "greatest president" and why 9/11, the war on terror, and even the current housing crisis (or so they could argue) were all born during his presidency. Reminding voters of Bill Clinton's great national liability, and not Barack Obama's assumed weaknesses, is the key to Republican victory in November.
(One place to start: You know those "47 million uninsured Americans" who don't have health care and are being exploited by Democrats to foster sympathy for a nationalized health care system? Were they insured under Bill Clinton?)
___________________
Here's the calculus for a Republican win: Constantly remind the electorate that this man
is where he is because of this man
and because the Democrats don't want Americans to recall what occurred on Clinton's watch, under his "great leadership" when, as even he said last night, he led "our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity." That the Clintons have been pushed aside by many in their party proves that Democrats accept the Republican verdict on Mr. Clinton's presidency: it was not what he and his party think it was.
And the Democratic Convention's penchant for revisionism, a revisionism brazenly shaped in plain view, reveals the party must conceal Mr. Clinton's failures.
"Peace," Mr. Clinton? What peace? The peace of the World Trade Center bombing? The peace in Somalia, the Balkans? The peace which led to continuous military strikes against Iraq? The peace in 1998, when Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in the heart of your presidency, calling for the murder of Americans everywhere, and that largely because of your abuse of Iraq? You mean the peace that led to 9/11?
You get the picture, and it's grim. It's no wonder the Democrats are revising history before our eyes in Denver. They are desperate for change.
©Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
7 comments:
As I watched "MythBusters" destroy the myth of the NASA hoaxed moon landings, you were working to bust the Democrat's myths. Maybe you can score a TV show as well.
And all along I thought Howard Dean was the Democrat's weakest link.
Bill,
If everyone is now in agreement on the Clinton Administration, please opine on the political calculus that put him front and center at the National Convention.
I understand Hillary being given her moment, in deference to her block of supporters, but why give Bill another shot at restating his legacy?
In my view, if he represents a past that no one wants to own, it would have been quite easy for the DNC to "forget" to put his invite in the mail. So why do you think he is so prominent in these proceedings?
Thank you for a thought provoking piece, Bill. Be Well,
Chris
Dear Chris,
My guess as to why Mr. Clinton was given a prominent place in the convention is that it would have been suicidal to Mr. Obama to have Mr. Clinton anywhere else. If Mr. Clinton does NOT speak at the convention, he will surely speak somewhere else; and if he was "disinvited" from the rostrum, he would have spoken with contempt at some other venue.
Plus, Mr. Obama needs every Hillary Clinton supporter he can get. Having Bill and Hillary appear to have thrown their support to him lends his candidacy a gravitas garnered by the "centrists" the Clinton's arguably represent.
I think Dick Morris, however, might be on to something when he said last night, before Bill Clinton's speech, that both Clintons must look like (should the junk hit the fan for Mr. Obama) they were not responsible for bringing about his downfall. With both of their rather lugubrious speeches they have shown they are WITH Barack Obama, not AGAINST him. However, Bill Clinton, or so Morris speculates, has distanced himself from his wife (and she from him) so that he can, as is his wont, drop the sort of bombs he loves to drop in casual conversation, in lower-tier speeches, and in passing interviews.
What would reality look like this morning had Barack Obama not given speech time to the Clintons? Would there have been a parallel convention? a protest convention?
Great question to ponder but, unfortunately, reality has taken a different tack.
BG
According to a Josh Green article in this month's Atlantic, Mrs. Clinton was not the manager she represented herself to be. That is, instead of taking charge of her campaign, she allowed it to succumb to infighting. Combine that with a very canny strategy on Obama's part and you have what we see in Denver.
That said, I think I agree with you that for the Clintons, it's always about them. They saw Gore's defeat as being a repudiation of Bill. He see's Hillary's defeat the same way. It would not surprise me that even today, they are secretly planning her run in 2012 and working behind the scenes to assure a McCain victory. If McCain wins, then they can say, "See. Not our fault. We told you this would happen," at which point they will accept the prodigal party back into their loving, all-knowing arms.
Cheers.
I believe the Dems have made a big miscalculation with the Biden pick. He doesn't provide Obama with the gravitas he so desperately needs. He's a good speaker, I'll give him that, but the force of his voice is often offset by what actually comes out of his mouth. He's a loose canon and his verbal indiscretions suggest a personality loosely tethered to reality.
Dear R. Sherman,
I have read similar tales of Ms. Clinton's woeful management style. Reports of how she managed her health care reform project during the '90s were quite unflattering.
Accepting this, I still don't think her ineptitude led to her demise. I seriously believe that Democrats were looking for someone who did not come with the sort of baggage Mrs. Clinton came with; and I believe Democrats very much paid attention to the opinions of Republicans and independents who were sour on the Clintons.
I believe it was the day after the 2006 election that I blogged here about Democrats falling for the "offsides trap." In that column I argued that the Democrats could fall prey to Republican manipulations, and I think they did: They heard the many moderate and conservative Republicans who said they liked Obama, and they went with him. Hence, Republicans got rid of the Clintons (this time) and got in their stead a very green candidate. Yes, he is shrewd and bright; but he is undeniably inexperienced, and he has his own baggage. So perhaps my call to remind voters of the Clinton legacy is overwrought: Barack Obama's got quite a controversial legacy of his own.
My broader point, one which I hope to explore over the next few installments, is that the Republicans MUST take control of the historical political narrative. That narrative places, for instance, the warning signs and even the causes of 9/11 on the Democrats' watch; it places 9/11 on the Clinton White House, the one Democrats told us would be "just fine" if we would all just get over our issues about "sex" and "personal lives" and "privacy." Clearly, the Democrats KNOW that not all was fine then, which explains their ceaseless need to reconstruct a false but flattering historical narrative, and why the Clintons are NOT party favorites.
Peace,
BG
Bill,
Marry me.
Rhetorically anyway.
Post a Comment