Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?
The first half of the interview is about the Obama informercial (which I said was a great idea) and about John McCain's criticism of Obama as a "socialist" (which I said was absurd, considering the Bush years have redistributed wealth up the income ladder). But where it really gets interesting is toward the end in a discussion about Bill Clinton.
Fox showed a clip of Clinton allegedly "complimenting" Obama for having called all of Clinton's economic advisers during the financial crisis. Clinton also "complimented" Obama for supposedly knowing nothing about the financial situation, but having the courage to admit he didn't know much and the courage to tell Clintonites he wanted to know more. This is problematic on a number of levels.
First (as I told Fox) why does Bill Clinton always need to make everything about Bill Clinton? We're five days from an election that is a referendum not only on Bush-ism, but on incrementalist Clintonism. And yet, Bill Clinton seems unable to realize that reality - and is desperately trying to make sure the Obama presidency is, in part, about Bill Clinton.Second, why does Bill Clinton need to reinforce the right-wing narrative that Obama's inexperience means he supposedly doesn't know anything about major issues before the country? True, that's not exactly what Clinton said - but it is what he implied. Not good.
Third - and perhaps most substantively concerning - Clinton's entire narrative is the starting gun of what will be a very intense effort by the larger pool of Clintonites to infiltrate an Obama administration. If we can step back and look honestly at the economic situation, then we have to admit (as I admitted on Fox) that Clinton officials had a hand in the key deregulatory policies that led to the financial meltdown, and the key free-market fundamentalist policies (rigged trade deals, corporate tax loopholes, etc.) that are hollowing out the economy. These same people are now going to try to use an Obama presidency to reassume the posts they had in a Clinton administration. And the fact that, according to Bill Clinton, Obama is already potentially letting them - well, that's really disturbing (if unsurprising).
The hope is with a big enough election mandate, Obama will feel more empowered to sweep out the Clintonites and start fresh - both in terms of personnel, and in terms of ideology. Because if he doesn't, not only could it stunt his policy agenda, it could also create political problems for him. The media - and especially outlets like Fox News - are going to be looking for weak points that allow them to tar and feather an Obama presidency as just "more of the same."
To be sure, I told Fox that having Bill Clinton campaign for Obama is a great thing. Bill Clinton is a great political asset to any campaign (if he's not implying that the guy he's campaigning for is uninformed). And while I don't love criticizing Democrats on Fox News, I thought that under the circumstances, it's important for progressives to start laying down markers about what we should and should not cheer on - what we should and should not expect from an Obama adminstration. In my opinion, it doesn't help Obama win the election, nor will it help his administration, to be painted as a mere second act for the last Democratic administration.
Making the Obama presidency the third term of Bill Clinton's presidency is both substantively inappropriate to the times, and politically dangerous/tone deaf. I hope that's not the path a President Obama takes, should he win the White House.
- Posted in
99 Comments so far
Show AllNot to worry! Obama's hinting at working on making it George W. Bush's third term, what with having Gates and Powell on the payroll, crafting foreign policy.
This should come as some relief to the concerned Obama voter.
For those who've been paying attention for a long time, this is now surprise.
Remember, this is the candidate who cited Ronald Reagan as his ideal of what a President should be. Funny how it looks like he'll govern just like Reagan.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
FWIW, no, Obama never "cited Ronald Reagan as his ideal of what a President should be". He said that Reagan came to office at a time when the culture was ready to shift, and that we are at a similar point of cultural shift (in a different direction) now:
"I think part of what's different are the times... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."
But feel free to twist his words.
WHY are Obama's supporters so blind to his conservatism?? I suspect: they consume too much corporate mainstream media & somehow just don't know how corrupt this candidate really is. There are so many reasons not to vote for him, but his even considering Gates is so preposterous!!
Good form!
I think we've had about as much of Bill Clinton as we've had of George Wanker Bush. But considering that Obama's chief economic advisors are Robert Ripoff Rubin and Lawrence Slim Shady Summers and that Obama supposedly said nice things about Henry The Pimp Paulson . . . it looks like more of the same, no matter who becomes Fuhrer of the Turd Reich.
I'd hate to see you when you're angry, Mordechai!
Check out this link
http://www.election411.org/blog/id/4110264/obama-change-you-can-believe-not
that reveals who Obama's advisers and fundraisers are and what sort of mischief they have been up to.
Yes, Obama will most likely win the election. Progressives must understand that change will come not from the top, but from us working locally to transform how our communities are structured; that is, from models based upon "I'm getting mine, devil take the hindmost' to models designed around cooperative relationships. That means working to change the prevailing model of social organization the majority of people in this country subscribe to.
The Democratic Leadership Committee, a Clintonian committee, is a pro-business entity meant to model the Kennedy Administration. It fails however, in that it is narrowly focused and does not adequately address the weakened condition of the poor and middle class (soon to be poor). That enormous failure has led to to the near bankruptcy of the middle class. Obama, based upon his votes, is clearly an adherent of the DLC philosophy. He is NOT a man of the people. Obama only tilts marginally toward the middle class in his policies although his rhetoric is more expansive. Obama is a compromiser and feels more comfortable in the company of those who led America along the path toward an economic neutering. Obama's mighty ego will likely not lead him down the path of recapitalizing the middle class. In all probability he will fall victim to the culture of Washington upper class corruption and an endless quagmire in Afghanistan. Obama's past votes absolutely fail to qualify him as a man of the people. He is just another in a long line of pied pipers with unlimited ambition and limited wisdom. The enormity of the hardships facing America will not be slowed by a, "can't we all just get along" presidency. Obama is unprepared for the reality he will inherit. We can only hope that he is strong enough to stand up to it, and that seems very unlikely.
So odd that every anti-Obama comment complains about his "mighty ego". A "mighty egotist" would have spent the whole half an hour of his ad with the camera focused on himself; the focus was on others.
An egotist would have had a Clintonian style war-room reacting instantly to every attack & launching others; Obama has brushed off the personal attacks against him, while declining to make use of the abundant material that might have been used against McCain.
The anti-Obamites are too Bushian for my taste, "Yer either with us or yer with the bad guys."
Funny, I thought it was every Obama-bot attack on Nader that refers to his might ego. Maybe you guys taught the rest of the world that particular smear.
No, I don't particularly like that line of attack. I know I have plenty of material to point out about Obama and his right-wing policies to even have to go there.
Although, given that, your particular examples are rather strange. You seem to imply in the first that this is a home movie made by Obama. I'd guess Obama did the stand up parts in the filming, then went on to the rest of his schedule. He might have seen it later just to approve it. But I'd seriously doubt that Obama is making the editing decisions in the video.
Likewise, I don't see at all what a Clinton-style war-room has to do with this. That seems to have nothing to do with the candidates ego one way or the other. Instead, its just a good way of dealing with the total bull the right is going to through out during a campaign.
Then of course you have to descend into the typical total-bull from the Democrats in trying to assert that anyone who dares to oppose Saint Obama is really 'Bushian'.
There is the minor detail that Obama seems to oppose every important progressive ideal. He wants to continue and expand the wars. He wants stimulus in pro-business tax cuts and bailouts for wall street. He wants to defend bad trade deals that send our jobs overseas. He wants expanded spying on the American people.
The Obama camp seems to want to try to spread the myth that their right-wing candidate is really somehow 'progressive'. Then they attack anyone who dares to point out the basic facts about his record and policy proposals that point out the Democrat lie.
These true progressives are then subject to the bizzare attack of being Bushian for actually opposing the Bush policies that Obama promises to support and continue.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html
For those who don't follow the link above, it leads to an article about how Obama rejected membership in the DLC during his original run for US Senate in Illinois.
Of course, whether Obama is formally enrolled in the DLC or not, the fact is, a disgraced Clintonite like Rubin is on his economic team.
Obama shows the ability to listen to contrary viewpoints & to come up witih his own nuances. Though he doesn't always come down wholly where I would want him to, both his method & his substance show he works outside the traps that fundamentalists of both types try to create for him.
Limiting Clinton's role in the campaign -- deploying him but not allowing him room to run with his own interpretations -- is a sign of the carefulness of his judgment.
Obama's "careful listening to all opinions, nuancing, and leaving everyone feeling as if they had been heard, is just plain B.S. It's just propaganda of the carefully groomed, crafted persona of the mythical Obama.
To bad the viewpoints he listens to never include the left.
He's alwasys surrounded by right-wingers. He's got most the Clinton types advising him, and he's always sitting down with Republicans and promising Republicans cabinet posts.
Meanwhile, during the DNC here in Denver, most the progressive left was in town. To my knowledge, no one ever met or sat down with the Obama camp. The response from teh DNC and the Democratic mayor of Denver was to send the riot police out into the streets to pepper spray anyone on the left trying to express a different view from the Dems pro-war, pro-corporate position.
?
Have you seen Obama talking to say Iraq Vets against the war?
Have you seen Obama talking to the people who were protesting the bailout?
Obama never talks to these people, and never 'comes down' anywhere near them. Meanwhile, his big contributors have constant access, and he always manages to 'come down' with what's favorable to them.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Paul Street's book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics tells the whole story referred to above in the excellent comments by Quizmasterchris, Mordechai Shiblikov and Stone. I urge true progressives to read it. It not only reveals Obama as a conservative, corporate militarist, but also goes on to lay out a clear agenda for (real) progressive change in the case of an Obama administration.
I've only read the beginnings of this book so far. But the parts I've read I'd highly recommend.
I'd be interested in seeing what he gives as an agenda later in the book. And if he has any suggestions on how to achieve it. I can only see one way to do it, and here it is.
We will need to be organizing very strong Green Party \Independent Congressional campaigns in the 2010 elections. And we'll need to have campaigns directly targeted at Democrats in races where a strong 3rd party run might cause their defeat.
Democrats only understand raw political power. If we don't have a big club in our hands, they'll continue to laugh at us and call us idiot liberals just like the leaders of the Dem majority in Congress have done. If you want them to pay attention, then we need to show we have the ability to hurt them. And the ability to go in and cause their candidates to lose is just that.
If we don't do that, there's not a chance of Obama doing a dang thing we want. He's already clearly said the only way he'd do anything progressive is if we force him to do so. The above is how to force him to be progressive. Threaten the Democrats with defeat.
And the best way to set this up and make sure we have a credible threat in 2010 is the strongest possible vote in this election for Nader, McKinney etc. The bigger those numbers are in this election, the more Obama and the Democrats will take our agenda seriously.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
For Green/Indies to win, they must target both Republican and Democrat seats. Wouldn't you agree?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
The problem is that we have to do the work of deprogramming Democrats and Republicans FIRST - otherwise we'll have the same arguments in four years, with well-meaning well-intentioned "peace activists" voting for pro-war candidates/parties. We also need to form one progressive party and choose one candidate we can all be reasonably happy with. (I like Matt Gonzalez!!)
I like Gonzalez too. I think you'd have to go to Counter Punch to read his latest article - very well worth reading. Common Dreams would never publish it. Too bad there isn't a comments section on Counter Punch. Maybe if we ask nicely ....
"What Do They Have To Do to Lose Your Vote?" by Matt Gonzalez, running mate of Ralph Nader, a lawyer living in San Francisco.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
I posted a link to his fantastic article, too, all over Common Dreams! But I have a deep suspicion that only non-Obama supporters actually read it, don't you?? Obama supporters (& Democrats) always talk about "horse race" issues, you know, "winning" and how we can't "win", never about issues - I ask: do you Obama supporters want more endless wars? More bailouts? More FISA bills? More right wing policies??
It's odd isn't it, but I think the right question is what more do they have to do than Bush to win your vote? Most Obama supporters in the end want someone as much like Bush as possible, but with the democratic veil on. What will we do after four more years of Bush policies sugar coated with forgotten empty promises as Obama out bombs Bush?
Paul Street is the bomb.
--
Eric Patton
http://www.myspace.com/412205319
Please ---- no more Clinton/Bush crappy economic progams. I'd like to see Goldman Sachs get out of the government and leave our tax money alone.
I hope Michelle will have a great influence on the Obama administration and that she will make him govern as a progressive which is what we need.
If this is what you want, vote Nader.
Don't vote for the candidate who just strongly supported the Wall Street Bailout and who actually seems to the right of Clinton on most economic views under the strange premise that his wife will set him straight.
Obama has hundreds of millions of corporate dollars in his campaign accounts. And the way American politics works, he and the Democrats will start fund raising for the next election the day they take office. Its bizarre this constant belief that somehow Obama is going to tell all his contributors to go stuff it after he's elected, especially when at the same time he'll be calling them asking for more money the next election.
That's the reality we face. I really hope you aren't voting for the next President based on what his wife will say during pillow talk.
If you want Goldman Sachs out of the government, vote Nader.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
The chance of Nader winning the presidency is as "good" as the chance that a meteorite will hit this planet somewhere in the next 2 months. In other words, not happening. Get a local Nader and then have him or her move up the ladder even as far as presidency. Ralph Nader running for presidency is like trying to learn calculus when you haven't even taken the basics of algebra.
Michelle and Barack are heavy into the Council on Foreign Relations--Not Progressive, Subversion and Destruction of Sovereign Nations--North American Union and other "Market States" under One-World Global Government, Corporate/Military, Totalitarian and Fascist.
...can't forget about Joe Biden!
i know some pathetic hillbilly fucks who live around here who have Mccain-Palin yard sign stickers in their front lawn, when Obama seizes power I will drive by their houses to see how they feel.
I will harass my Republican Party neighbors by playing a Henry Rollin song called 'Liar' real outloud, so that Republican Party militants, get real depressed, and down on November 5. I just wanna see their look on their pathetic faces on that day when the History of USA will change. And when the road toward socialism will begin in this barbaric right-wing culture.
I don't think that the Republican Party will get back to power again. The Republican Party left a big scar in this country. USA will continue to have different political parties, i think Democrat Party will survive for some years, but new parties will arise in these 4 years. I think that the Green Socialist Parties of this country will get stronger. Free Speech TV will get more funds, and a new wave toward social-democracy first and then toward socialism of the XXI Century in the near future.
The evangelical churches will continue brainwashing the masses, but they won't have so much power. AIPAC and Israel will lose its hegemony, and best of all Sarah Palin won't appear on CNN so much lying to the world.
.
First of all, leave your neighbors alone! Secondly, please understand that "Democrats" are brainwashed, too. AIPAC? Obama full supports. Faith-based initiatives? Obama wishes to expand. The Republican party will certainly regain power! Obama: one term president.
"First of all, leave your neighbors alone!"
Yep, trying to get staunch "conservatives" to vote for real progressives such as Ralph Nader is like teaching pigs to sing. Nader would be winning if he could convince voters from both the Republican and Democratic camps but he isn't. Do the math. In 2004, Bush won 62 million votes while Kerry won 59 million. That means Ralph needs at least 40 million votes to even have a snowball's chance of winning. I'll vote for Nader because of his crystal clear stands on various issues even if I don't expect anything but I wished Nader would have reached out to Republican voters sick and tired of their privacy rights being shredded. Nader should be reaching out to disaffected Republican voters sick and tired of being sold out on the economic front and being duped into nation building for the corporate cronies.
"Secondly, please understand that "Democrats" are brainwashed, too. AIPAC? Obama full supports. Faith-based initiatives? Obama wishes to expand."
The reason Ross Perot actually won 19% of the vote in 1992 was he hammered away at both parties equally. I wish Ralph would do the same. Most progressive groups and people are not convinced that Nader is taking on both the Republicans and Democrats equally which may explain why they're sucking up to Obama. Until Ralph can erase the perception that he is taking votes only away from Democrats, he will be derailed. He needs to make it clear that he's taking away votes from both parties or his lunch will be eaten every election.
"The Republican party will certainly regain power! Obama: one term president."
How can you be so sure? What if the Green Party finally gets it together in 2 or 4 years or some other 3rd party progressive party. Why aren't you looking forward to prospects of 3rd/Independent parties consistently? Just expecting Ralph Nader to show up once every 4 years is not helping him or us. Don't fall into the trap of picking between the Republicans and Democrats. You already know that both Republicans and Democrats suck so why not move towards helping others build a viable 3rd/Independent Progressive/Liberal Party for a REAL change like I'm doing. And if at first you don't succeed, keep trying. Don't you think that is a much better idea?
None of the existing third parties have a snowballs chance of ever moving up in my opinion. Their appeal is far to narrow. It would take a new third party.
Is that what you are talking about?
The reason I chose the name "progressiveparty" is because I believe the alternative progressive parties ought to merge into one larger party, called "Progressive Party". We would "move up" if we got a fair shake: inclusion in debates, level playing field including an equal amount of money for all candidates, a level playing field when it comes to media attention - 4% is one of 20 people. Imagine how high the percentage would go with a level playing field? It would be enough to get a progressive agenda on the table!
Politricks_of_de_sh-tstem
In addition to some progressive "thrid party", what is really needed is a viable "third party" on the far right, one that better appeals to social conservatives.
Then, with the threat of Republican victory in swing states muted, more progressives could vote according to their convictions, rather than choose a Phyrric victory.
[OTOH, the far right will become organized into a party before progressives can agree to a party platform: it just a classic collective action problem (with social conservatives being fewer in number and easier to organize).]
Obama will decide on his own or based on whoever can best control him. Just let him win first. Geesh !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Yeah, geesh! Quit all of this democracy crap and let the man win first! He bought the most TV airtime, he gets to win! Geesh!
"Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?"
Maybe so, unless he has a death wish.
It seems to me its about time to start coming together and moving forward.
Obama is going to win and the best idea would be to start finding out how to make the best of it. And certainly stop saying can't/won't/before.
Quit worrying about Nader/Barr/McCain/Palin. They are history. If people aren't going to be part of the solutions, they are assuredly part of the problem.
With all the serious problems coming, shouldn't we start addressing them?
...three, two, one...
Ka-Boom!
Yeah, let's just continue the Clinton neoliberal policies that helped pave the way for where we are today.
I'm hopeful that Obama's first term will be more like Chavez's or Evo's first term. Nationalize energy resources, for starters.
:)
Obama's one and only term will be a carrying out of his conservative right-wing policies that he has pledged himself to & his corporate sponsors.
Thanks for the report from the future. It is certainly true, and perfectly clear that:
No one has ever been surprised by how history turns out;
No President has ever moved in ways that surprised or confounded his backers;
No political leader anywhere has ever been moved by crises or popular movements.
Sorry if i'm rude, i just think this kind of "future certain" thinking feeds cynicism and inaction. Whether Obama is allowed to win, or the thuggest party steals another term, how can we move history no matter who sits in the Oval Office? Presumably history is not only moved by the person in the Oval Office...
As of today, no one's won anything yet. As for the Republicans . . . those rotten, miserable, superstitious and ignorant screwheads will be back in force in 2012 if McCain loses and Obama cannot get the MSM to depict him as a "dynamic leader" worthy of reelection. It's the Democrats who've disappeared over the last 30 years and become a parody of the Democratic party I knew as a younger person.
Unless they change their tune it won't matter if they come back in 2012. Unless Pelosi and Reid manage to screw things up more . Some of these idiots are touting Palin for the future, geeezzzzeee.
"It's the Democrats who've disappeared over the last 30 years and become a parody of the Democratic party I knew as a younger person."
Isn't that the truth.
"FWIW, no, Obama never 'cited Ronald Reagan as his ideal of what a President should be.' He said the Reagan came to office at a time when the culture was ready to shift, and that we are at a similar point of cultural shift (in a different direction) now:
'I think part of what's different are the times... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.'
But feel free to twist his words."
It is you who have misrepresented his words by leaving some important ones out. Here is the whole quote pertaining to Reagan:
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Clearly, he is expressing approval for the direction that Reagan took the country in and disapproval for the so-called "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s"--i.e., the political movements that from a progressive point of view changed the US in a positive direction.
"Clearly, he is expressing approval for the direction that Reagan took the country in and disapproval for the so-called "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s"--i.e., the political movements that from a progressive point of view changed the US in a positive direction."
No, it is not at all clear regarding the conclusions that you draw out of it.
The things that Obama referred to as things people felt positively about about Reagan were not policies but emotionally-laden terms: "accountability... clarity... optimism... dynamism and entrepreneurship..."
And the things Obama cited that people felt negatively about were unspecified "excesses... and government had grown." Lots of people felt there were excesses in the social movements of the 60s and 70s, and this is plainly part of what Reagan appealed to. This is not some blanket, Reaganesque denunciation of all the social and political movements of the 60s and 70s, this is an analysis of Reagan's appeal.
And his statement is led by saying "I think they felt that...", meaning that this is his understanding of what was involved the appeal of Reagan in the popular consciousness, not that this is what Obama is doing as a candidate. Clearly he is NOT appealing to the same public consciousness as Reagan did, in many obvious ways.
Again, you are free to twist his words...
Compare anything any one of us would have said when asked about Reagan with what Obama said. The gap is appalling. Also, watch the video of Obama saying it; it's pretty clear that the "excesses" (liberalism winning a few battles for 15 years or so) bit is something that Obama agrees with when you note tone.
He has said different things at different times. He clearly said during the primaries that he preferred Ronald Reagan's policies to Bill Clinton's (which isn't saying much as both were non-progressive right-wingers). Of course, he was running against Hillary Clinton at the time.