This is pretty awesome.
So Bill Clinton was the Democrats' best weapon during the Bush years, and now he's still their best weapon during the Obama years. Is this more a testament to the vast political skills of Clinton, or the complete inability of the Obama administration to figure out who put them into the White House two years ago?
These two years have been a political mess, one mostly created by Democrats and their boundless ambition in finding broad, overreaching solutions for problems most Americans weren't even aware they had.
Washington (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton, the man once described as the "comeback kid" during his 1992 presidential bid, has now become something of a go-to guy for Democratic candidates facing a tough election battle.
Economic woes and fears over the rising national debt have weighed heavily on voters -- especially independents, who are leaning more toward Republicans than Democrats, according to recent polls...
The White House wants to use the former president in swing states where Obama is not necessarily popular, such as Arkansas and Kentucky, the Democratic officials said.
Asher calls that "basic common sense."
"It makes a hell of a lot of sense to have the more popular fellow come into your community and campaign for you," he noted.
So Bill Clinton was the Democrats' best weapon during the Bush years, and now he's still their best weapon during the Obama years. Is this more a testament to the vast political skills of Clinton, or the complete inability of the Obama administration to figure out who put them into the White House two years ago?
These two years have been a political mess, one mostly created by Democrats and their boundless ambition in finding broad, overreaching solutions for problems most Americans weren't even aware they had.
12 comments:
So, tell us, why did a solid majority of Americans elect Barack Obama, if not for pledging throughout his campaign to tackle those big sweeping issues?
And do you suppose Obama's numbers (which are still glorious in comparison to the final Bush years) have anything to do with the deep economic recession? See Reagan's '82 numbers and Clinton's '94 numbers and susequent mid-term Congressional losses, for more on what that's like. In fact, there are two recent presidents who had significantly better second year numbers than Obama, and both are named Bush - not exactly presidential role models.
"So, tell us, why did a solid majority of Americans elect Barack Obama, if not for pledging throughout his campaign to tackle those big sweeping issues?"
- Bush fatigue
- Excellent orator
- Black
- Blank slate
It certainly wasn't his political accomplishments to date, since there weren't any to speak of and Obama never tried to make his limited legislative record a touchstone of his campaign. He ran a campaign focused on vague themes like hope and change that allowed voters to project their best wishes onto him without mucking it up with details. It was an excellent strategy.
I do think that, as in Wisconsin, the ineptitude of Democrats in the legislative branch is a big factor in public perception of the party as a whole. This bottled-up desire that Democrats have to do stuff has them killing ants with sledgehammers all over the place (e.g. stimulus bill, cap and trade, response to BP, financial reform, the Arizona immigration snafu). I think they also blew a chance to burnish their reputation as consensus-builders by making incremental reforms to health care that were passed separately and would've been easier for Americans to understand.
It's a remarkable thing that after two cycles of obvious electoral repudiation, the GOP is poised to retake much of what it lost, and through none of its own doing.
So, it wasn't his legislative accomplishments that got him elected (and, regarding your list, people must have been ignoring what he was saying during that excellent oratory), but it's his legislative accomplishments (which, again, he told people countless times he would do) that's got his numbers down? And, what's more, voters in a hugely hyped and historically attended presidential election will respond to broader societal influences when casting their votes, but respondents to automated telephone polls in an off-year must be responding to policy issues? If you say so.
And, overreaching solutions? HCR was essentially the GOP health care bill from 1994 -- that is, a solution crafted 8.6 million uninsured citizens and thousands of annual premium dollars ago. Financial reform came enough to the center to grab three GOP senators (no small feat in this GOP climate). And all signs point to energy reform heading toward the middle from the House-passed cap-and-trade bill from last year. Don't tell me you're now adopting the hyperbolic rhetoric and spin associated with the tea partiers you so often (and hilariously) skewer?
I'm saying that people respond to things in theory differently than they do in fact. Everyone supports "health care reform," and then you get into the details and you end up with "get your government hands off my Medicare." Everyone supports Wall Street reform, but then the Dems start lumping community banks into their regulatory wet dreams and people will end up being pissed off that maybe their bank won't refund their ATM fees anymore.
Politics is easy when you avoid the details, something Obama did pretty well in his campaign, largely because McCain never materialized as much of a threat.
I think there's also harm in the constant appearance of starting way to the left and being dragged to the center. In that regard, I suspect that narrower majorities in the House and Senate (or possibly no majority in the House at all) will be helpful to Obama, as it will serve to rein in some of his more progressive supporters.
From my own experience in state politics, I will tell you that the GOP majority in the Assembly functioned much better at 51-55 then it did over 55, and especially once they hit 60. At that point, self-interest begins to overwhelm the need for team play. A healthy buzz-cut of Dem legislative majorities will actually empower Obama more since the Dems in Congress will have less wiggle room.
For the record, I've always been an Obama skeptic and said so repeatedly in 2008. That's not because of his party or his ideology, or because I thought he was born in Kenya or because I wasn't impressed by his many rhetorical talents. It's because I honestly was unimpressed by his political accomplishments. I remain so today. I think that, like Scott Walker, Obama has been a skilled political opportunist that was largely untested and unproven at the time of his election.
Obama's campaign had as much detail as any presidential campaign in recent memory. Indicting him on that is a red herring.
I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on Obama's political skills and future. But isn't it at least somewhat eyebrow-raising that the guy who you're claiming to have "vast political skills" was in an even worse political position than Obama during his 2nd year in office? I can't help but see a correlation between the economy, Obama's current position, and Reagan's & Clinton's positions at the same point in their presidencies. You don't, fine. We'll know more by 2012.
I should have been more clear. I know that the detail existed in Obama's campaign. But it wasn't in his message. It was buried in white papers on his website. And Obama never much talked about those details because he didn't have to. Obama just worked to run out the clock on McCain, same as what Scott Walker is trying to do to Mark Neumann. Talking details is something most politicians only do when they have to, which I think is unfortunate but I understand their reasons. Paul Ryan might be an exception to that rule.
And I will concur that a good deal of public opinion regarding Obama is driven in part by the economy - although I do think he hurt his own cause early on by falling into the trap of overpromising, and now underdelivering relative to those promises.
All said, I'd still put my money on Obama in 2012, regardless of his opponent. I do think that barring more economic issues, he's well positioned to improve his standing, especially because he's going to have to move to the middle in the next two years if he wants to get anything done. Clinton benefitted from this as well.
And Obama never much talked about those details because he didn't have to.
You're still trying to imply that Obama ran a different kind of presidential campaign when it comes to policy. What presidential campaign was run on more policy?
Obama just worked to run out the clock on McCain
What polls were you reading?
and now underdelivering relative to those promises.
Wait, did he overreach or underdeliver?
You're still trying to imply that Obama ran a different kind of presidential campaign when it comes to policy. What presidential campaign was run on more policy?
I think I'm just lamenting that he could've openly ran more concretely on policy and instead opted for hopey changey BS. Which doesn't necessarily make him any different than anyone else. Perhaps this is more of a lament that Americans don't demand better from their candidates.
What polls were you reading?
Um, the same ones you linked to that showed Obama opening a lead in April and but for the Sarah Palin post-convention blip, basically held or grew larger for a period of seven months?
Wait, did he overreach or underdeliver?
Haha, fair point. I suppose those are always determined relative to one another. He delivered much less than he and his administration promised, whether it's unemployment figures, job creation, deficit numbers, on and on. That is perhaps more an error in politics than an error in policy.
basically held or grew larger for a period of seven months
I guess I don't define that as "running out the clock," which to me is more associated with having a lead wear away over the course of the campaign with just enough to get the candidate over the finish line on election day. I do agree that the Obama campaign took their foot off the pedal over the summer months, perhaps a bit too much, but I don't think that's true at all of the Sept-Nov period -- correlating with the period voters were tuning back into politics after the summer -- as illustrated by the fact he had his largest lead by the end of Sept that continued to grow through election day.
You mentioned "black" among the qualities that got Obama elected in 2008 but only mention Clinton's "vast political skills" as the reason why he is more popular than Obama in swing states like Arkansas and Kentucky, both of which have large populations of working-class white folks and are not known for their enlightened race relations. I also suspect that much of Clinton's popularity is due to nostalgia for the economic boom times.
This is only going to get better. It won't be long and you will hear talk about Hillary challenging Obama in a 2012 primary... At this point, I doubt he's even the Dem canidate.
Nah, she'll hold off. If Obama doesn't run in '12 (which would stun me), Hillary's smart enough to know that the Dem in that race is probably dog meat.
Although Hillary should have undoubtedly been the Dems' preferred candidate in '08 and I do think that she'd have fared much better than Obama at this point.
Post a Comment