Barack Obama is the 2008 version of Bill Clinton's 1992 "New Democrat"

[Tom Rinaldo]

The comparisons are eerie if you look into it. Do you remember Bill Clinton saying that "the era of big government is over"? Actually he said that particular quote in is 1996 State of the Union Address. Even after 4 years he was still looking for common ground with Republicans.

Bill Clinton did not come into office as a divisive figure. He did not come into office spoiling for a fight. He came into office committed to finding a new path that sought common sense solutions to the full range of problems facing America, a path that would bypass the prior partisan divides and unite all Americans in a common resolve to better our lives.

When Bill Clinton first ran for office in 1992 the Republicans attacked him as another tax and spend liberal who would spend America into the poor house. Instead Bill Clinton actually balanced the Federal Budget for one of the few times in modern American political history. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 Republicans attacked him for being a proponent of the Big Government Welfare State. Instead he asked Al Gore to Chair a Commission to Reinvent Government to make it smaller and more efficient. Instead Bill Clinton "cut government red tape", including many of the "bureaucratic" checks on corporate greed that we here at DU now complain so loudly about being gone. Instead Bill Clinton championed "back to the work place" Welfare reforms targeted to end a "cycle of dependency" that the Republican Party of the 80's said was to blame for cross generational poverty in America. Those reforms are controversial, but not because they were anathma to Independents.

Bill Clinton was all about "finding common ground" with Americans of good faith from all political backgrounds who were tired of the endless partisan divisions that seemingly America got locked into after Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. And the Republican party responded by despising him for it. The Republican Party responded by launching Right Wing Hate Talk Radio. The Republican Party responded in 1994 by engineering a Congressional Judicial Coup. As soon as they gained a Congressional majority, that installed attack dog Ken Starr as a Special Prosecutor empowered to investigate each and every facet of Bill and Hillary Clinton's personal lives. They let him spend four years and well over 50 Million dolors doing so. And finally the Republican Party responded by impeaching an American President, who had just been reelected with broad support from the American people, for the first time in 130 years, over a blow job.

When I look back on the 90's and try to learn the lessons of that era the above is what jumps out immediately to me. Wes Clark gave an interview once, before he ran for President in 2004. in which he had this to say about the way Republicans operated during Bill Clinton's Presidency:

"Somebody once told me in business that when you're going to negotiate a business deal, you stake out (Clark SLAMS the table) your position and stand on it! Don't go in there and ask what they want. Say, `Here's what I want!' (SLAMS table again).

"You've got a Republican Party under Gingrich and Tom DeLay that says, `Here's what I want' (SLAMS table again). "Then you've got the Democrats over here saying, `Yeah, ah, yeah, we could, some of what you say makes pretty good sense.

"The result is the American people don't see the full spectrum. Before the 2002 election there were a lot of Democratic politicians apparently who said, `I don't have the information. I can't battle with the president on the information. He's got the intelligence. What if there is a smoking gun in there? I can't fight the president in my congressional district.'

"What we've got to do is stake (SLAMS table again) out our position. For instance on tax reform, stop (SLAM) saying (SLAM) you agree with simplification of the tax code. . . . We stand (SLAM) for progressive taxation. We're proud of it. If you make more, you should pay more, period!"

Why is it that so many of the same Democratic activists on DU who SLAM Bill Clinton for acting like Republican-lite in office by compromising core Democratic principles (even though it was his Administration that tried to bring universal health care to the American people), are so enthralled by Barack Obama's call for unity across Party spectrums now? Bill Clinton was certainly as charming and skilled a political figure then as the Democrats had produced since JFK, but more likely more so than any Democratic leader since FDR. Barack Obama today is no more compelling a political leader than Bill Clinton was when he was overwhelmingly reelected in 1996, only to be impeached a year later by the Republicans in Congress.

Since Hillary Clinton first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 she has gone out of her way to not act in a polarizing and divisive manner. She did not assert herself as a star in the U.S. Senate as soon as she got elected. She worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get legislation passed for the American people. Hillary reached out in New York State to her Republican constituents and brought many of them around to supporting her during her successful reelection bid.

Hillary Clinton knows how to cooperate for the good of America, but she also understands how the Republicans fight. She understands that the last thing the Republicans will accept lying down is a Democratic candidate who attempts to unite the Center and Left in America, marginalizing the Republicans with their core Right wing base only. She knows that will threaten the Republican hold on power and throw their continuing legacy of divide and conquer politics onto the scrap heap of political history. She knows how hard the Republicans will fight that. She knows how dirty they can and will play. She has been through it personally and she can see what is coming. I am not sure that Barack Obama can.

[Clintonite]

1. Yeah, and Obama copied Bill's Change & Hope theme as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. It seems Paul Krugman was thinking along similar lines today

I saw this after I posted my piece here:

Lessons of 1992
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 28, 2008

"It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[ecstatic]

3. And did you know, Clinton also praised Reagan while campaigning in '92?

I don't have an exact quote or a link, it was brought up on either CNN or MSNBC. Clinton and Obama have a lot in common.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Most clever Democrats find something positive to say about Reagan

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are clever Democrats. I have a problem though when a candidate runs against the Past by promising "Change", but that "change" turns out to be "Back to the Future". Hillary Clinton did her time in the trenches preparing for that "future". I think she is a fighter and she knows how to fight. Obama to me is an unknown quantity regarding that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. So who's running this time, Bill or Hillary?

Or both? Or can't we tell any more?

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Tie in your question to my OP and I will gladly discuss it with you. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. The reason I asked (rhetorically, I'll admit) is that your dicusssion focuses on

what Bill did when he was President with respect to how he dealt with and negotiated with Republicans. From this discussion you segue into a plug for Hillary. That's fine; while I support another candidate I can't take issue with your opinion because you present it rationally and not all spittle-flecked and ranting like some Hillarians (and a few other partisans) on DU lately. The question is more where the line can be drawn between what Bill did and what Hillary proposes to do -- or if there is a line. Can we assume she would govern like he did? Should we assume that? Is it fair to her to treat her as an extension of Bill? It seems like whenever some aspect of Hillary's policies is brought up the discussion turns back to Bill. So I'd say, especially considering what a very active role he's been taking in her campaign, it's entirely fair to ask who the real candidate is. I'd like to see her stand on her own, but I don't think Bill's ego will let that happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. OK Thanks. That's a fair question.

I honestly think Hillary Clinton will make a better President overall than her husband was, and I don't mean that as a slam on Bill. She is more disciplined. She is more focused. She has less of a need to please everybody all of the time, and I suspect she is a little bit more liberal - which to me is a good thing.

I know Hillary is extemely bright, and from all indications she is an extremely good learner. I think Bill was in the Captain's seat as was fitting during his Presidency. The buck stopped with him then and it will with Hillary if she is elected in 2008. All of us lived through the political 90's and are in a postition to learn lessons from them. But Hillary Clinton had a front row seat. Not only was it front row, sometimes she literally sat in the defendents seat during Ken Starr's probe of her and Bill's life. I think she was in a position to learn more from that than any of our other current candidates. That is why I link the two in the way that I did in my OP here.

This may seem trite but those of us who are married or in a similar long term committed relationship have models to draw upon though each will vary according to each of our lives. Mates do share many details of their lives with each other, including, often, profesional details. No doubt Bill and Hillary Clinton have had thousands of hours of talks comparing world views and what works and doesn't work concerning social change. How can one weight the significance of that type of sharing and learning?

Hillary Clinton has been a U.S. Senator on her own right for over 7 years now which is the same amount of time as Barack Obama and John Edwards have spent in the U.S. Senate combined. She is out there on her own at almost all of her campaign appearances, during her TV interviews like "Meet The Press" and during every debate she takes part in. Voters do have a basis to measure her on at that is at least as substantative as their basis to measure her opponents. It is just that she ALSO deeply shares in the legacy of the Clinton Administration, and that is a very important chapter of recent American history, and so it gets discussed, validly so, by both Hillary and her opponents both inside and outside of the Democratic Party.

I know that Hillary has to show the American people what she is made of and she has to win this election on her own experience. But part of that experience WAS her years inside the Clionton White House. Certainly she is more experienced at dealing with a frontal Republican attack than our other candidates are because of that experience.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Thanks for your reasonable answer.

But I have to wonder to what extent Bill's legacy will become so inextricably entwined with Hillary's candidacy that nobody can tell the difference. It sure seems like Bill is running all over again sometimes. If he doesn't back off and let her be her own person he might actually hurt her campaign.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I agree that Bill has to back off. Now it's time for the public to consider Hillary not him n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I realize some can use this OP to argue in favor of John Edwards

And it would be fair to attempt to do so. Personally, although I believe any one of our three candidates would be a blessing to America as President, I agree with the observation in "The Nation" that Obama is running furthest to the Right of all three.

[BootinUp]

8. there is a difference though

I agree that Obama has used rhetoric similar to Clinton in '92. The difference is that Clinton was a policy wonk and won approval or a mandate for many of his programs and ideas via the election. Obama campaigns on a lot of empty rhetoric and does not seem to push his policy ideas hard enough. If he wins I am not sure that congress will feel he has a clear mandate to make changes.

[robbedvoter]

14. Policy wonk with experience as a governor behind him & respect for civil rights

ingrained in his upbringing by his grandparents in AK. "Colorblind" would never his choice addressing race questions. That's why he was called "first Black President" and that's what attracted him the wrath of the bigots.
Contrast this with "I am not that invested in the fights of the 60's and the 70s - and in my book is difference enough already.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. That is true. Clinton did not run a fill in the blank campaign

He campaigned on hope (including that video "The Man from Hope" and he campaigned on change, but he also campaigned on detailed policy initiatives that he planned to pursue once elected.

[ZinZen]

9. Tom we may be backing different candidates

but you are one thought out classy Clinton supporter. I wish there were more like you. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis and objectivity.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. That is very high praise and greatly appreciated

It angers me when Obama gets unfairly trashed on DU also, I just spend more time defending Clinton since she is who I currently support. I will never call Obama; Bush or Republican-lite. He is one of our own and a rising leader for America. I honestly do believe that there is the potential inside Barack Obama to be a great President. If he becomes our nominee I will work hard to make that happen.

[Tatiana]

11. Good post, Tom. And you almost made me cry here:

"What we've got to do is stake (SLAMS table again) out our position. For instance on tax reform, stop (SLAM) saying (SLAM) you agree with simplification of the tax code. . . . We stand (SLAM) for progressive taxation. We're proud of it. If you make more, you should pay more, period!"

Good G-d, oh what could have been! If only some of the spineless Dems in Congress would heed this advice. But Clark's not a candidate, so I'll get back to your post.

Bill Clinton was a socially progressive, fiscally conservative centrist. I get so tired of people saying Bill Clinton betrayed them on welfare reform. The man ran for office on a platform of welfare reform! He was preaching welfare to work as governor of Arkansas. This shows that people were mesmerized by the charm and did not listen to his message about where he stood on the issues.

Which brings me to the reason why I actually like the back and forth between Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are sharpening Obama and schooling him. His responses to accusations have become more pointed, more sharp, more aimed for the jugular than his previous ho-hum unity/kumbaya/let's-all-get-along statements. I like this. Obama isn't sitting in second place (aimed at first) for no reason. He's the one with the least amount of experience, yet he's been a quick study and really progressed as a politician.

Can Hillary fight the Republican attacks successfully? You bet she can. She is a fighter and so his her husband, and in that sense, they make a formidable team. Obama, I think, is getting there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Great post.

I feel exactly the same way. If the Democratic Party can heal the wounds this Primary season brings with it the candidate we end up running will be much stronger because of it. Obama in my opinion is improving as a candidate, and Hillary continues to show her well earned ability to stand up against political pressure.

[Tatiana]

19. Explain to me why Edwards isn't at least second place.

I think the lack of media coverage plays a part, but I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker. He was lamenting the economy and saying the future president had better do something about the falling dollar and the loss of good-paying American jobs. I asked him who he was voting for in the primaries (he is Independent, but leans Dem). He said Clinton.

I said, "why? Sounds like Edwards is your candidate." Edwards had his chance and he lost, according to this guy. We need to quit going with losers like Dukakis and Kerry and Gore (though he eventually acknowledged Gore won) and pick someone who can "win us the championship," he tells me. So I wonder if people are not just voting on issues of substance like policy, but more intangible things like charisma, drive, determination, ability to inspire others, etc.

We really can't afford another 4 years of the insane right-wing destruction of our government.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. That is hard for me to answer without seeming to take a slap at John

You can look in my Journal for my 12/24 post where I explained why I chose Hillary over the others. I have to run out for a few minutes but in short; good message, wrong messenger. Not because I am saying John isn't sincere. I think the Republicans could tear him to pieces in the General Election over perceptions of him having massively shifted positions among other things.

Others disagree I know, but I feel that way sincerely. Winning is important. I could say other things about questions of initial judgment making, but I don't want to make this a negative thread about Edwards. He is contributing a lot that is positive to the debate inside America.

[jackson_dem]

45. The Edwards "flip flopper" meme exists only in the blogosphere

And it was promoted by Obamites in the swiftboting of Edwards. The rethugs research should show Obama and Hillary have as many flip flops as Edwards. They will attack all three as flip floppers, unless they nominate Romney.

[WinkyDink]

16. I just want to know how Obama thinks he can tame the Republicans.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. You changed your subject line through edit so now I have to also, lol

That is a very good question for voters to consider in my opinion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Wow, this forum moves FAST ever since Skinner made that change

A thread falls off the front page in about four minutes without a post it seems. It's hard to get a serous discussion going on anything. The threads that hold their own are mostly conducive to one liner type posts.

On edit I should add that there are some notable exceptons that have attracted real discussion. But as soon as I hit post for this reply the thread appeared in about the number 8 position on the page already.

[BootinUp]

26. interesting observation

I am not sure what the solution is to that problem. lol.

[AX10]

24. We need a warrior like FDR.

Now that's how you change the system!

"Hillary Clinton knows how to cooperate for the good of America, but she also understands how the Republicans fight. She understands that the last thing the Republicans will accept lying down is a Democratic candidate who attempts to unite the Center and Left in America, marginalizing the Republicans with their core Right wing base only. She knows that will threaten the Republican hold on power and throw their continuing legacy of divide and conquer politics onto the scrap heap of political history. She knows how hard the Republicans will fight that. She knows how dirty they can and will play. She has been through it personally and she can see what is coming."

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Our times unfortunately may call for an FDR in more ways than one.

I do think Hillary has the intelligence and toughness needed. I think once she takes the oath of office she will step into the spot light and people will no longer be paying attention to what Bill said, but to what Hillary is saying instead.

[AX10]

47. I agree.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Obama is no Clinton, and the year we are in is not 1992.

We were not fighting a war that should have never been authorized and waged in 1992.

Obama did not support this war, both Bill and Hillary did.

The War is a dire issue, and the decision to be allowed to go there is a serious one. We are still fighting this war.

Someone we both Admire, Wes Clark, worked hard to have congress hear his view on Iraq, and was making last minute phone calls, working with Ted Kennedy to change minds on Bush's blank check (Ted of course voted NO on the Blank check). Clark also supported the Levin amendment (another senator who heeded Clark's words and voted no), which Hillary voted against.

Let me be very clear with you that the reason I supported Wes Clark above all else was because he was prescient, and because he stood up while many others were sitting down due to the prevalent popular opinion at that moment. I support Obama for the exact same reason that I supported Wes Clark. Obama had the courage to stand for what was right, and he did it in a clear and irrevocable manner. Obama has a vision for America, the way Wes Clark had in his 100 year vision.

Hillary did not read the NIE, so she wasn't doing her homework....
Hillary voted yes on the IWR, and so she did not have good judgment.
Hillary voted nay against the Levin amendment, so she wasn't interested in a reasonable approach that would entail a real effort to work with the U.N.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I was a military analyst and so I looked at everything in great detail. I wasn’t allowed on television to talk politics at all. I testified in front of the senate, but the “Boston Globe” did a long piece on my military stuff about three or four days ago. You can find it there. Joanna Weiss wrote it, and she said what’s changed is my rhetoric. My rhetoric has changed, because when I wasn’t a politician, I couldn’t speak out this forcefully, because I didn’t have any basis for doing it. I had a military commentary that I gave. I said from the beginning of the war with Iraq, that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat. I said in the beginning that we shouldn’t rush into war.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/26/exclusive_democracy_now_confronts_wesley_clark

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Hillary is a Clinton. Obama is no Clinton. Not even close.

[Capn Sunshine]

30. Sixteen years ago

and many of today's voters weren't even in high school then

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Which might explain why they are not aware of the similarity in the approach

that Obama is championing now and Bill Clinton championed in 1992. It can seem totally new to someone who was not paying attention then.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. I worked for Clinton-Gore

And I've worked for Obama since 2006.

Clinton's politics didn't approach the Obama message, yet any inclusionist candidate will find themselves borrowing from the best.

Nice take, Tom, I always appreciate your thoughtfulness.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I always credit Obama for that speech

And in my mind it is a strong point in support of supporting Obama. But like I have previously written, John Kerry made a vote similar to Hillary Clinton's and his 2004 running mate did worse, yet I have no doubt that the America we live in today would be in far better shape and social justice would have advanced noticably rather than retreated the way it has over the last four years if Kerry/Edwards had won. The IWR vote is very important to me but it does not singlehandedly obscure all other considerations.

I don't mind you raising the issue at all, and I responded and gave Obama credit on it, but this is not new ground being covered. We all are aware of the position every candidate took in the build up to the Iraq war and through the actual invasion of Iraq. It matters a lot, but it has been discussed at least as much. If getting the matter of Iraq right from the very begining is the only test a candidate is graded on, with Kucinich out of the race now that just leaves Obama. Some threads though are started to talk about other matters of interest also.

[FrenchieCat]

37. It wasn't simply a "speech"....it was a stand, and the right one at that!

What is "New ground" as you term it is irrelevant.

I am not here to select what would be better, as I am here to select what would be best.

I have determined that what is best for America today is Barack Obama, you have determined otherwise.

My loyalty to my own view is stronger than my royalty to any one person. My support is only transferable if the threshold of my beliefs are embodied in the pass-thru.

I respect you Tom, but I just don't see your perspective on this at all. You are a great advocate, but I can only believe that what you advocate is not quite so easy to do as it once was. I'm sorry for that, but I do understand.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. I did not mean to imply it was only a speech. Certainly it was a stand also.

And yes I believed much more strongly in Wes Clark than in Hillary Clinton. Clark endorsed in mid September and I "endorsed" in late December. Before that I shifted my support to Gore before Clinton, and I toyed with Biden also. The determination I reached differs from yours, but the differences, on both sides, are honestly arrived at and held.

[sundancekid]

42. DITTO. After learning about a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff

the Clintons did FOR Clark (in 2004) and against Gore (in 2000)- my BS detector has gone off waaaayyyy too often (and this is from a Clarkie 2004 person) ... power at all costs; power brokers where it suits them ... and then came the last 3 weeks or so --- Yoda was right: "Fear of loss leads you to the dark side" ... I have lost all important respect for the 2 Clintons. ENOUGH is plain enough. Be sure to know that if Hillary is the nominee, I will stay home. I marched in the streets against Vietnam, BUT I am NOT MOVING A MUSCLE any more for any politico whom I cannot respect. PERIOD.

[GalleryGod]

28. More perspective...

There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed “someone with greater experience”—and added: “May I urge you to be patient.” And John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”

So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now.

I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.

My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey -- to have the courage to choose change.

It is time again for a new generation of leadership.

It is time now for Barack Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Well the heart of my OP deals with the question

How is the direction of change new? It is different than the Bush Administration. That part is obvious. But is seems similar to the change that 1992 was about. Obama is a new generation of leadership. I won't argue that point.

[sandnsea]

29. Hillary Co-operated Us right into the IRAQ WAR

When Obama was calling out Perle and Wolfowitz for cramming their ideological war down our throats.

Obama is the one who gets it and will fight Republicans - not the goddamn Clintons who triangulated away nearly everything FDR and JFK had fought for for 50 years.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. You clearly are more confident of Obama ably fighting the Republicans than I

but he may become our candidate and I certainly would rather that your confidence came closer to the truth than my doubts.

[sandnsea]

41. Oct 2002

"What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."

I can't think of very many politicians, especially ones running for office, who made such a bold statement. Had anybody really pegged Perle and Wolfowitz like this at that time? Not that I recall.

And he denounced the nibbling at the edges politics as well, this is not what he's about.

"Others pursue a more "centrist" approach, figuring that so long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably -- and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground."

He's talking about a different kind of politics completely. He wins by being clear about his position, and finding people who believe what he does and then moving forward from there. Honesty builds trust and everybody has something near to their hearts that trumps partisanship. That's how he does it.

And he's obviously not afraid to mix it up because the Clintons have ended up on the losing end of the fight they started.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Again. I prefer that you be right.

Obama was able to call like he saw it from Chicago in 2002, and I think he called it right. He was not responsible then for helping steering national legislation through Congress. He did not have a web of political allies at the National level whose support he needed to accomplish his legislative agenda. The practical alliances that Obama made at that point in his career, and every successful political figure establishs practical alliances that then factor into his individual political decisions, were with few exceptions not with national players; not with national political figures, not with national interest groups, and not with the diverse public that makes up the citizens of all 50 States.

I am not saying that Obama would have done anything differently in Congress. But we do not know what public image he would have been able to craft, what appeal he would have cultivated, had be been that same fire brand in Washington DC that flashed in the speech he gave in Chicago. Had Obama been in Congress in 2002 perhaps the type of campaign he is running now might not have been available to him. Perhaps he would not now be able to offer himself as the type of unifying figure that he does, to get back to the point of my OP. Perhaps he would have been faced with a hard choice; to become a fighter or a unifyer, because one emphasis may undermine the other.

My respect for Obama as a fighter has increased throughout this campaign, but to be honest my respect for him as a unifyer has decreased also, and there is a relationship between those statements. Obama has not melted in the heat of battle and that is good and that is important to me. He will be a better candidate in the Fall because he did not win New Hampshire in January, should he become our nominee. But Obama is getting to fight back largely by scoring points with Democrats who are upset that Hillary and/or Bill Clinton seem not to be playing nice and/or fair enough toward him in this campaign. That strategy works well with relatively idealistic Democratic Party primary voters, and since it works well for the primaries I credit Obama for finding a good strategy that worked for him. That same strategy would not work so well in the General Election. Maybe he has some other tricks up his sleeve that will.

[Capn Sunshine]

33. Interesting as always Tom

I would posit however that the strategy to hobble Clinton , to keep him on the defensive, was the right wing's answer to Clinton's victory. They knew they couldn't beat him. So they created the divisive politics we know for the past 16 years.

See The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

a selected quote from a review:

What were the sources of these unsubstantiated allegations? Joe Conason and Gene Lyons describe these sources in The Hunting of the President as a loose cabal of "longtime Clinton adversaries," "defeated politicians, disappointed office seekers, right-wing pamphleteers, wealthy eccentrics, zany private detectives, religious fanatics," and in my view, the primary culprit -- "die-hard segregationists. . . . " Here, as in the rest of the book, Conason and Lyons restrain themselves from going beyond what they can prove or substantiate from sources -- a demonstration of journalism as it should be practised in this age of "infotainment."

But this cabal had a powerful effect on this country and its politics because as Conason and Lyons tell us in detail, the once-respected New York Times and Washington Post not only published unsubstantiated allegation after unsubstantiated allegation, they also withheld any exculpatory information. Like sheep, the rest of Mainstream Media passively followed.

Anyone who wants to relive the last Clinton presidency, knock yourself out. But this cabal will do everything in its power to "neutralize" the Clintons once again, and we'll see eight years of gridlock.

OTOH, these poison merchants have no answer for a uniting candidate who get can cross over party lines voters to support him like their blessed saint Ronald. Their orthodoxy wont permit them to even address such an issue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. About those poison merchants

It seems some of them had some personal history of their own with the Clintons that was useful for digging up dirt against them, but most of them were simply people who saw Bill Clinton as a threat to their power and so moved to eliminate him (and Hillary in the process).

When you observe "They knew they couldn't beat him. So they created the divisive politics we know for the past 16 years", why are you confident that the same would not be attempted against Obama? Clearly the tactics would be modified to fit the individual circumstances. Direct racism for example might come into play in a manner more potent than what the "die-hard segregationists" could muster against Bill Clinton, or Muslim baiting which may be the preferred varient. But that would likely be the least of it. That is too crude for most Americans - it would be used selectively.

There is an entire negative stereotype of "chicago machine politics" waiting ready to be mined to tarnish Obama for one obvious example. I am not presuming that Obama is guilty of anything whatsoever, but both Bill and Hillary Clinton were hounded near to death with a $50 million plus budget without a single charge against them ultimately sticking.

You say that they have no answer to a "uniting candidate" who can get people to vote across party lines, but what about LIES? At one time Bill Clinton was a uniting candidate. We can forget now exactly how dominant the Republican Party became during the 12 years of Reagan Bush presidencys. At the moment - given the mess George W. Bush has made of the nation and the world, the G.O.P. has been in retreat. Almost any fresh face Democrat would start out looking good in America now, but that wasn't the case when Bill Clinton ran. And by 1996 he was more popular than he was in 1992, with more Independents supporting him after Ross Perot receeded. But the Republicans still impeached Clinton a year later.

They won't tag "cross over appeal" as a liability. They will attempt to kill it with muck and obstructionism, and try to blame all the failures on the next Democratic President. Nothing tarnishs the appeal of a politician appealing for Hope unity and change more than trench warfare, and the lack of real progress accomplished. That is how the Republicans will attack either Hillary or Obama. She starts out with more baggage but she also starts out with more experience dealing with it directly.

[wyldwolf]

38. Not only that, Tom, issue by issue Obama IS DLC... but without the membership card.

Though that is perfectly fine with me and is the reason I would have no problem supporting him in the general, the 'progressives' who have put Obama on a pedestal have either changed their DLC hatin' ways, haven't noticed Obama's 'New Dem' credentials, or have decided the New Democrat philosophy is a fair trade for electing the first African American president.

But, to me, why settle for generic cola when you can have The Real Thing?

[jackson_dem]

46. Whenever an Obamite disses the DLC I ask them a simple question

"What disagreements does Obama have with the DLC?"

So far I have gotten a grand total of 0 responses...

[Armstead]

44. I prefer Edwards for that reason....however....

..if it ends up being a contest between Obama and The Clintons, I believe Obama at least provides a chance for a fresh start.

The Clintons are stale bread. They've already sold us down the river over the years.

Hillary may mean well. But she represents a brand of Democrat that has utterly failed to stem the tide of Corporate Power, has hastened the demise of the middle class, helped sweep the poor under the rug and supported the erection of an economic system in which neo-liberal "free markets" have crowded out the ability of civil society to achieve any of its goals.

Maybe Obama will do the same. I dunno. But he at least offers the possibility of a change from the paralysis and deterioration we have experienced sincw the Clintons and the DLC have been driving the party.