Would today's Democratic Party have nominated Bill Clinton?

[wivabef]

Here is an excellent question answered by a writer with whom I'm not too familiar, so I don't know if she's a leftie, rightie or tweenie. But it explains why I liked Bill Clinton so much!

The basic premise of the piece is that not only was Bill Clinton more moderate than the top delegate earners in the last election, but that he was more able to appeal to the center. And because of that, the democratic party would not have pushed him to the front.

I tend to disagree. I really think he had the charisma to beat out the current trend to favor the more liberal candidate. But, I'm a MOD chick anyhow. I'd be interested to hear how our democratic symposiacs feel.

[mnehr]

It depends on who Clinton is the day they nominate. Clinton is a masterful communicator and he could probably win over Ward Churchill and Jimmy Swaggart on the same day. Too often, people don't judge words by supportive actions.

[wivabef]

mnehr said

It depends on who Clinton is the day they nominate. Clinton is a masterful communicator and he could probably win over Ward Churchill and Jimmy Swaggart on the same day. Too often, people don't judge words by supportive actions.

My same thoughts, better put.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

wivabef said

Here is an excellent question answered by a writer with whom I'm not too familiar, so I don't know if she's a leftie, rightie or tweenie.

Since the bio line at the end of the op-ed piece says "Duncan Currie is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard," it's safe to assume he's a far-rightie.

[frazzledspice]

The past two Democratic Presidents have several things in common:

- both were governors.
- both were Southerners.
- both had wives who were somewhat more liberal than they were.
- both were Southern Baptists.

Jimmy Carter, while not as charismatic as Bill Clinton, was downright earthshaking compared to Gerald Ford. Of course, now that he has 25 years of good, some say saintly, works under his belt as an ex-President, he has the "halo effect" big time.

Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress during much of his Presidency. He had to compromise to accomplish his goals. He had much more respect and willingness to work within the "checks and balances" structure of the federal government than did many Republicans in Congress, who spent much of their time (and $50 million on Kenneth Starr) trumping up spurious charges.

I think he would have been more liberal if he had been working with a more liberal Congress.

Presidential candidates are determined by primaries, not by insiders. The Democratic Party needs to unite behind a winner. If this means that personality and birthplace are considered equally with positions, so be it.

My question is: Could the Republican Party ever nominate a moderate? (You know, the ones they parade in front of the TV screens for two days every four years, like Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, or McCain.)

[mnehr]

frazzledspice said

My question is: Could the Republican Party ever nominate a moderate? (You know, the ones they parade in front of the TV screens for two days every four years, like Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, or McCain.)

Easially,
If you look at the 08 polls now (I know, its very early) Guiliani trounces almost everyone, even Hillary in NY. I believe McCain is also very high in the numbers and Condi is considered moderate but has a high rating as a potential candidate. If you look at extreme 'right wing' candidates, they have far less of a chance. I doubt you would ever see Newt nominated, and we see how well the Libertarians do.

The future for both parties is more in the center, as in reality, that is where the country is. Both the extreme right and left get the most news because they make the most noise, but they are not representative of the majority.

[wivabef]

AuntieEmma said

Since the bio line at the end of the op-ed piece says "Duncan Currie is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard," it's safe to assume he's a far-rightie.

I am aware of many publications, but not the Weekly Standard...so I guess, for me, it wasn't safe to assume. Especially because I thought it said Donna Currie! My speed reading skills are sorely lacking.

Still, is the question illegitimized by the poser? Is there a Clinton Paradox?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

wivabef said

I am aware of many publications, but not the Weekly Standard...so I guess, for me, it wasn't safe to assume.

I googled to look for a pithy description of the magazine (so you wouldn't have to take my word for it), and found this. Pretty interesting -- I didn't know that Amazon had reviews of magazines.

Still, is the question illegitimized by the poser? Is there a Clinton Paradox?

I'm personally not interested in the Weekly Standard's views of Clinton (so have been abstaining from this conversation except for the asides about the source).

[brian_igo]

There is of course no connection between the accused liberalism of today's Democratic candidates these same critics views of Clinton in 1992 and 1996. (Maybe I missed the Weekly Standard, Rush, National Review, et al, describing Clinton as a centrist way back when, but I don't think so.)

The right smears Democratic opponents as liberal regardless of their views. Who the Democrat is, is irrelevent.





Brian

[AuntieEmma[$]]

And there are too many debatable premises in the article (I can say now, since I just broke down and read it). In particular, the notion that the Democratic party has moved to the left is very debatable (and is, in fact, hotly debated within the party). Without accepting that premise as fact, the author's argument that Clinton is too far to the right for the party as it is today doesn't make any sense.

[anderclayton]

I don't know. From where I'm standing (and living--Seattle) it sure seems as though the Democratic party has moved pretty sharply to the left. Most of the pretty moderate (to mid-liberal) Republicans are considered distinctly right side lately.

I didn't really understand Clinton's appeal at the time (aside from his personable nature) but it didn't really feel as though it was issue based at all (what did he accomplish in his first term that warranted a second?) so I'd say he'd probably win handily again.

Ander

[wivabef]

AuntieEmma said

I googled to look for a pithy description of the magazine (so you wouldn't have to take my word for it), and found this. Pretty interesting -- I didn't know that Amazon had reviews of magazines.

I took your word for it. But glad you found a place for magazine reviews (and I have now learned that not only is the Weekly Standard "neo-conservative" [a term I consider an oxymoron] it is apparently a magazine!)

[frazzledspice]

Conservative talk show hosts feel that Guiliani and Schwarzenegger could never be nominated because they are too liberal for the party, especially Republicans living in the Bible Belt.

I feel that Bush won in 2004 because some shrewd campaign analysts decided to get anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot in as many states as they could.

I'm sure the same thing will happen in 2008. Someone will propose a "Human Life Amendment" just in time for every state to try to ratify it by the 2008 ballot (I'm too cynical to think they'd care about the 1.2 million babies who are aborted in 2005, 2006, and 2007, because 2008 is the year they have to bring out the religious vote, not 2005, 2006, or 2007.)

The Democrats should be looking for a pro-life Presidential candidate right now. Nader will get the feminist vote, but at least the Presidential election will be decided on an entire platform, not one issue.

[pluckyduck]

Could Clinton get nominated? Hell yes. Hell yes. Gulianicould probably get nominated if he jumped parties, and Arnie, too.

I think, despite perhaps more vocal left swinging, mainstream Democrats are more defined by what they don't want (Bush or, shudder, Rice). It's a crying shame that the Dems couldn't come up with someone more appealing than John Kerry (still bitter, still bitter, I'm still bitter).... I don't even understand the question being posed by the writer of the article, would the Dems nominate Clinton again? Of course they would!

Put your pet pig in a Clinton mask and he'll pull a couple of points. :p

JMHO (but I'm right )

Andrea

edit PS - I don't think that Democrats being defined by what they don't want is a good thing, but I think it is reality until Jed Bartlett comes along and redefines a Democratic Presidency. I don't know what the hell Presidency Kerry was defining, perhaps I fell asleep but I'm reasonably sure he never did manage to define one.

Are we talking Obama yet, or is it too early? I think Obama is Clinton times two, hopefully without the baggage.

---------

edited to correct "Osama" to "Obama" Do not post late at night after two large glasses of wine. The common sense filters are already asleep.

[rmthunter]

Are we talking Osama yet, or is it too early? I think Osama is Clinton times two, hopefully without the baggage.

I hope you're meaning "Obama."

Frankly, the present Democratic party, catcalls about moving more to the left notwithstanding, would nominate Bush if they could. He's the classic Democrat: big government, deficit spending, a managed economy, huge entitlement programs, etc. And the Dems are way too much about being Republican-lite.

Clinton could probably win any election he ran in. The question is what he'd do afterward, but then that's always the question with any candidate.

[pluckyduck]

rmthunter said

I hope you're meaning "Obama."

Um, yeah. Man was that embarrassing.

And the Dems are way too much about being Republican-lite.

Isn't that the truth. I was thinking about that yesterday. 10 - 15 years ago, I would have classified myself as a moderate Republican (the John Heinz kind) who freely voted for Democrats, too, when so moved.

Maybe it's just the Philadelphia metro area, but I know more than one of me, that's for sure. I wouldn't be passionate about being a Democrat if I didn't feel so strongly about what I'm not.

Maybe Kerry was our fault, Democrats who don't know who they are, just who they aren't.

We do need some leadership.

Andrea

[wivabef]

pluckyduck said

10 - 15 years ago, I would have classified myself as a moderate Republican (the John Heinz kind) who freely voted for Democrats, too, when so moved.

Andrea

John Heinz. Part of a number of classy, respectful Republicans who no longer grace the Hill.

You know, I blame Dan Quayle. He started the "morality" trend. Once upon a time, Republicans were all about smaller government and state's rights.

[pluckyduck]

wivabef said

Once upon a time, Republicans were all about smaller government and state's rights.

Don't get me started. I'm all in favor of smaller government and state's rights. And individual liberty. And little government intrusion.

So, really, isn't it people like me who are responsible for the Republican-lite thing in the Democratic party? I want the above, with a heart for social programs that can lift people up, a vision for our place in the world, and an absence of moral judgement on people when moral judgement isn't (in my opinion) called for.

I'm hardly a liberal. I like to call myself a liberal though, just to piss off the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans I work with.

Anyway, if anybody is looking for people to blame for the mish moshed message coming out of Democrats, it's probably people like me who are messing it all up.

Andrea

[rmthunter]

pluckyduck said

Maybe Kerry was our fault, Democrats who don't know who they are, just who they aren't.

We do need some leadership.

Andrea

I think Kerry was a poor candidate who would have made a good president. I also think one of his biggest mistakes was listening to his campaign managers, who were trying to market him on a Republican-lite basis. Bush is a past master at framing debates in false terms, and the Dems missed several opportunities to stick it to him because they didn't want to make waves, which seems to me to be what an election is about.

There's an old saying in the auction business that seems to be relevant here: "Christie's is a bunch of gentlemen trying to be businessmen; Sotheby's is a bunch of businessmen trying to be gentlemen." Substitute "Republicans" and "Democrats" as you deem appropriate.

It's very strange, considering my reaction to people like Barry Goldwater way back when, but I'm coming more and more to think of myself as a classic conservative -- small government on a tight budget, states' rights (with supervision by the federal courts), and keep the government out of my private business, thank you very much. I don't find it incongruous that I favor multilateralism in foreign affairs, but not through the UN, necessarily. It has its uses, but if you need to take action promptly on some trouble spot, you need a smaller and more responsive alliance. Nor do I have any problem with government-sponsored social programs, but for the love of Pete, run them like a business or a good not-for-profit, not like a Defense contract.