First of all, trade has nothing to do with the New Deal. Neither does regulation. The New Deal is a social safety net that protects citizens from the slings and arrows of fortune as they go from cradle to grave.

Clinton didn’t “give” us WTO, either. It was a follow-on to GATT, which had been around since the WWII. NAFTA was supported by liberal as well as conservative economists. It wasn’t just a corporatist wet dream. If we were to continue to be a major player in the emerging global market, we HAD to sign on to new, more expansive trade agreements. The devil, it turns out, was in the details, and the details of this agreement turned out to bite too many of us on the ass. Maybe Clinton should have known better, but there were more than a few upstanding progressives who were hoping against hope that it woud be a net plus for working Americans.

The telecomunications act deregulation of the financial industry are harder to excuse. But hey, nobody’s perfect.

tbach, it was Clinton who pushed for the UN sanctions regime.  Clinton, with the aid of the UK, conducted multiple air strikes on Iraqi targets.  As revealed by Scott Ritter in “Iraq Confidential” the goal of both the Clinton and Bush administration was never disarming Iraq.  It was “regime change.”  When asked about the documented deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi children, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, said “it was worth it.”

I draw no more comfort in the fact that it was the Bush administration which is responsible for a higher number of deaths, an estimated 1.1 million Iraqis; that Bush has rendered more than 4 million homeless than I do in knowing that in our prior war of choice, Vietnam, 14% of Vietnam’s population lost their lives.  At some point one has to come to grips with the fact that the imperial conquests carried by our government in our name have slaughtered innocents in numbers sufficient to consider the word “genocide.”  But then, this is nothing new.  Consider the decimation of Native Americans as the U.S. of A. expanded westward under the racist doctrine of Manifest Destiny.

Actually, it was Clinton who waged war on Democratic Party history when he turned his back on the New Deal and gave us NAFTA, the WTO, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and deregulation.

Exactly how were the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children Clinton’s fault? Are you talking about UN sanctions strangling supplies of food and medicine? Let’s forget Hussein’s role in this, and US and UN efforts to get humanitarian relief into Iraq, which was thwarted by Saddam. It seems quite a stretch to lay this entirely at the feet of Clinton. To the world community at the time there were two options in dealing with Hussein and his brutal treatment of his own people and sable-rattling toward his neighbors: pressure him with sanctions and police him with fly-overs, or overthrow him. We’ve seen what the latter wrought. So you’re blaming Clinton for joining (or leading) the UN in the former?

Clinton is not without fault. He did give in too much to corporate interests to get the financial backing he needed to get elected. Some of those concessions worked out for the country in the short term (we had unprecedented growth, the lowest unemployment in a generation, and got rid of huge deficits, leaving office with a substantial surplus). But some of those concessions (deregulation of financial industry) have indeed proven to be a “house of cards”.

Still, taken all in all, Clinton restored US prestige and influence in the world that had taken a hit after Carter and Reagan (and, admittedly, begun to recover under Bush the elder) and left it better off than when he took office.

Was he a great president? No. Only the most challenging of times can yield a great president, and his times were relatively peaceful. But he was perhaps the greatest politician we have ever had - which is a mixed blessing to be sure. But I still insist, were he a lesser politician - say, one with Obama’s skills - the Republican revolution would have done far more damage to liberal gains of the New Deal than they did.

yeah.
Oh, and Hunter…he bombed Iraq..not Iran.
  But I feel Obama has some real integrity.
  I too hope he holds on, plays it cool, and only politix enough to get through.
  And Billary is just freaking awful, who can’t see that? She makes my skin crawl. She uses the gender ticket blatantly, while smiling her nasty little haha smile at Barack, knowing he has to play the race-nuetral ticket.
  I’m no democrat. But I genuinely like Obama, and I usually really dislike the front runers in all presidential campaigns.

Obama has it right.  Clinton betrayed his democratic base when he rammed NAFTA & the WTO through on the fast track, then opened the door to corporate control of what we see, hear and read through the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Any interested in the depth of Clinton’s betrayal should read Jeff Faux, “The Global Class War.”

Bill may think his wife is entitled to the presidency, but we don’t have a monarchy in this country, and his presidency left much to be desired from a progressive point of view. He blew a chance to get rid of Bin Laden, blew health care, sided with Republican’s on NAFTA and welfare reform, and let the Republican’s short circuit his presidency even more with his scandalous personal conduct. On the plus side, he left us a surplus which Bush squandered. He passed on a terrorist risk to Bush who push it to the bottom of the in basket until it exploded on him. We should put this whole cast of characters behind us and chart an entirely new course with Obama. While not perfect, he at least can start out fresh and bring in fresh people, not rejects from the last decade. We need to give Obama a supportive Congress, so that we send the message that our new president really does have a mandate for change.  Who cares what Bill thinks anymore?

Hunter,

Thank you for the very excellent essay. I won’t attempt to respond to all of your very excellent points, but I would like to note the most spectacular.

You write…

•  “It is unfortunate that his basic integrity becomes a weakness in this sham of a system. I hope he opts to just lose and keep his scruples, if that is what it comes down to in the end.”

I hope the same, and I believe that he will. It’s of paramount importance that he does. I have to have that much faith.

On the other hand, I also have faith in the American people, to come together against the forces that have created our destruction. So, my faith is that it will NOT come down to this in the end. (Obama’s loss that is) because a loss for him would mean a loss for ALL of us. (ALL of us minus the corporatists and the 1% that currently own us all).

There can be no doubt that the system is SUCH a scam, that unless we reclaim it now, though the basic integrity that we recognize in Barack Obama as the only viable leader who could bring us back to those basics, we probably will not have another opportunity before all is lost. That is what makes this such an urgently crucial time for all Americans, not to mention the rest of the world that would continue to come under the attack of America’s militarism.

• 
”I hate it when he does try to “politic”, and thank goodness that it is not his strength and he really isn’t so good at it as Clinton.”

Ah yes…this has been the source not just of my own ‘criticism’ of him, but also my very greatest fear for him, since long before he ever decided to undertake this mission that is really our only collective ‘salvation’ at this point. In short, I was very much afraid that Barack Obama could become corrupted by the system, in order to survive the system. That’s because I’m old enough and experienced enough myself, to know EXACTLY what he would be up against. (and I should add that you’ve explained it superbly, in noting how very anxious and determined the neo-cons and the neo-liberals are, to destroy any chances of returning this country to the people, which is of course what Obama represents – returning our country to us).

Many of us have hoped that this ‘politicking’ by him is simply a matter of him needing to do whatever is required in this sham of a system, in order to get to the place where he actually CAN utilize his brilliance, pragmatism, and integrity, to the advantage of the common good of all Americans. I don’t KNOW that to be the case, since I cannot read his mind.

As a NON-religious person, this is one of those crucial times, when I have to rely on a measure of faith. But then, faith and religiosity aren’t the same.

Thanks again for this contribution.

Yes, politics is messy.  The question would then be, “What did Bill Clinton get?”  We know what he gave, but what did he get in return?

Perhaps you should go back and look at the Clinton administration through the lens of history, rather than memory, and review how it went about business.

Why is that so few people remember that Clinton didn’t have any health-care policy until he had to have one, because Kerrey and Tsongas had them…and the former was talking loudly about it all the time.

The argument that he came to power just before the cusp of Republican ascendancy holds a great deal of water; it dovetails nicely with the fact that he probably wouldn’t have won in ‘92 if Perot hadn’t run so well.  But that doesn’t excuse his failures, nor does his sailing into a head wind make him a great…or even good president.  It only proves that he spent 8 years tacking back and forth…only to end up further back than where he started.

He didn’t just “buy” the NAFTA pitch, he resurrected it from the grave…against his own party.  Again, read the history books.  You’ll find that Hillary wasn’t opposed to NAFTA, but that she was opposed to it taking up political capital that could have been used on health-care (and scheduling).

Foreign policy?  Ok, it was better than W.Bush..but that’s like saying that living under Mussolini would be way better than living under Hitler.  When he paid any attention to it at all (and his NSA and SoS were appointed with the clear instructions to not bother him with anything less than crises) he worked towards the same end goal as Bush…only he did it with neo-liberal economic policy rather than military might.

His legacy was that he played a shitty hand badly.  Yet he thinks that his legacy is greatness, and so do many others.  It isn’t about ideology (at least not from me).  It’s about reality.  The reality is that no mess was “cleaned up”; worse yet, much of the foundation for Bush’s economic house of cards was laid by Clinton.

You know, he’s only responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children…but it was “worth it”.  That’s ideology, and it’s the same ideology as Bush’s…and it’s probably the same ideology as Obama’s.  Is it the same ideology as yours?

Just because politics is a difficult, give and take business does not excuse mistakes or wrongs.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, and the general election, and is inaugurated as President, he’d still going to have a hell of a time trying to move into the White House, with all the moving vans full of Hillary and Bill’s stuff blocking the driveways, and her aged wrinkled ‘chick’ fans clogging up the Rose Garden, with all those ‘She Never Gives Up’ signs.

If you can pay, or your employer is paying for your health insurance and if you are not about to lose your home, and if you have a job or a life-sustaining retirement and if you can afford to send your kids to college then Bill Clinton in the presidency probably didn’t negatively impact your life. Lucky you.

For eight years the Clintons were driving the bus and they drove it to right where we are today.  Aside from the murderous Iraq war, George Bush has simply taken over the wheel.

Bill’s just pissed because he’s now known as ‘The Other Clinton’.

It’s likely that those close to Mr. Clinton are not at all surprised by his behavior during this campaign.  The guy has to be front-and-center, has a preternatural craving for attention and accolades bordering on a diagnosis.  No wonder Obama is driving him nuts - not to mention that Obama is smarter than he is and Bill is at least smart enough to realize it.

After he lost an election for Arkansas governor, he stalked shoppers in all-night markets, in the middle of the night, asking them if they’d voted for him and if the answer was no following them up and down the aisles as he peppered them with questions as to why not.

Do we really want this guy back in the WH?

It was understandable for Obama to attack the Clinton legacy - as Hillary is basing no small measure of her experience on those years in the White House. But for him to suggest that he’s above “politics of personal destruction” with the same breath is transparent hypocrisy.

Regardless, you both need a history lesson. Clinton came to power at the HEIGHT of the conservative movement. They sought to demolish the New Deal completely, and had gone a long way to convincing a relatively complacent populace that it was the right thing to do. So the first “pressing issue” Clinton dealt with was to get a moderately progressive politician elected who would reform some of the more unpopular progressive programs (welfare) rather than allow them to be killed. True, he bought the NAFTA pitch (Hillary claims to have been at least wary of its impact on workers as it was written), but some form of free trade was and is inevitable if we’re going to be a viable player on the global economic stage).

There’s also his success at least in comparison to Iraq) in the Balkans. Peace brokered in Northern Ireland.

The problem with ideologues, be they Left or Right, is that you have no patience or tolerance for the messy reality of democratic politics. Compromise, giving-to-get, is viewed as a failure, as a betrayal. Like any smart politician, Obama has played on that sentiment among his base. And like any politician worth his weight in salt, he will “betray” you in time.

Integrity was absent when Bill used his power to take advantage and discredit women like a pimp with the support of his madam.  Experience of power to use it or abuse it, the Clintons did both and loved it, why do you think they want back in the White House?

But it’s true.  Bill wants his legacy, but he didn’t govern to produce the legacy he covets.  And while he cannot be blamed (wholly) for the Republican Revolution of ‘94, he didn’t even really try.

The Reps may have gone after him unfairly for scandals, but there were scandals.  And even when there weren’t real scandals (Whitewater), he and his wife behaved like they were covering something up.

There wasn’t “peace”.  The Clinton administration killed at least 500,000 Iraqi children; it watched ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and Rwanda.  And the “prosperity” was all about short-term, corporate profits; fixing the numbers; and consumption of cheap imports.

Sure, the Clintons made it across that bridge to the 21st Century…but how many Americans did they leave behind?  Not one pressing issue was dealt with by Clinton: that’s his legacy.