MyDD :: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways

Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways

by Matt Stoller, Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:06:16 AM EST

I've really enjoyed watching Bill Clinton get passionate and aggressive against the wingnuts smearing his legacy. I think most Democratic activists have a sort of guilty pleasure feel towards Clinton - we know he wasn't progressive in all sorts of ways, but he's still Bill Clinton. And we love him for that.

On the other hand, what Arianna says is absolutely on point. His bipartisan above-the-fray attitude which excuses his wife's fundraising events with the likes of Rupert Murdoch is going to slam head-on into the reality of the right-wing extremism that people like Murdoch put forward. Clinton stopped fighting the right when he left office, but they didn't stop fighting him. I'm glad he's back in it, but I hope he's really back in it. You know what I mean?

Tags: Bill Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (3.00 / 3)

what makes you think he's back in it? he was defending himself- not us.

by bruh21 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:10:24 AM EST

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (3.00 / 1)

Touche.

I'll believe Bill starts taking the fight to the other side when it's beyond a personal affront he takes offense to.

by PsiFighter37 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton should give it both ways. (none / 0)

He should be stately/diplomatic on the international scene. However, he should let republican hacks have it on the national level. For example, I heard Paul Begala mention that Clinton likes proposition 87 out here in California. If so, he should use his political gifts/capital to help advance key progressive policies and candidates.

by jncamane on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:21:29 AM EST

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (3.00 / 1)

Clinton is also not being helpful to Democrats in asserting that pulling out of Iraq will be a disaster. This from someone who supported the original invasion. It is a disaster either way, and he is undermining Democrats with this talk.

by Bob H on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:58:34 AM EST

"guilty pleasure" (3.00 / 1)

I think you mean...he's underming "Progressives" with this talk.

I say that because many Democrats (as opposed to Progressives) believe--really believe, not just talk--that pulling of Iraq will be a disaster.

I think Matt's post really hits the nail on the head. There's a conflict we feel in Bill Clinton between how we want a Democrat to behave and how we want a Democrat to believe. We want them to act like a tough Democrat and have positions like a smart Progressive. Clinton gives us one side of the menu only.

For my money, we can't do better than Bill Clinton just ignoring the rules of an interview and taking over Fox News for 20 minutes the way he did in that video. His behavior was absolutely beautiful.

But then, when that moment is over, I come back to those Clinton issue positions--Iraq in particular--and I loose my buzz. Damn! I wish he wasn't the grandaddy of al "centrists."

I think that's the "guilty pleasure" that Matt talks about. This idea that we want Clinton to come out bare-knuckle swinging because nobody draws blood better than him when he's "on." But we feel guilty because we also know that he really enjoys sharing the stage with Murdoch, he really believes this "centrist" stuff--and worst of all--that he really wants the chance to do the Iraq occupation better than Bush, instead of pulling out.

I imagine this kind of "guilty pleasure" is what most people at the Big Dog lunch from last week felt. And whether or not I appreciate Bill Clinton more, I can appreciate that "guilty pleasure" much more now after this latest Fox News smackdown.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:57:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

'Many' Dems <> MOST Dems (none / 0)

With 70 million Dems in the country, it's true that Clinton's position represents "many" Dems. But it's far from representing most Dems, as poll after poll has shown for several years now.

Versailles Dems think much more like Republicans on Iraq, among many other things, such as torture and habeas corpus, for example. Which is why they have to go.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Many' Dems <> MOST Dems (none / 0)

What poll? Every poll I see..that's properly structered...calls for and end to the war but NOT an immediate pullout as destructive.

Our Presidential contenders agree. All of them.

Most Democrats don't care what is said on the blogs. They don't read them.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're Blowing Smoke! (none / 0)

As usual.

Almost no one is calling for an immediate pullout of all troops. People have been calling for an immediate beginning of withdrawal--as a sign of serious intent--which is a very different thing. And they have been calling for withdrawal within a given timeframe--as opposed to an open-ended commitment.

The partisan split on this is pretty striking: Republicans still tend to support the war, and are willing to stay "as long as it takes," while Democrats--and independents--want to see us get out.

The underlying reason is that Reps think the war is working--and thus it makes sense to stay "until the job is done" while Dems and independents think it's a failure, which is why withdrawal makes sense, sooner, rather than later.

Within this public opinion landscape, talk about an immediate pullout spelling disaster is a de facto tactic for making the majority accept the minority position. This is what Dems like Clinton do, and it's what you're doing as well.

For a clear-eyed look at where public opinion is and has been, take a look the latest from Harris, which has data going back to March 2003, and has this summary of partisan differences:

Polarization by party

Attitudes to Iraq and replies to all these questions are highly polarized by political party, with Republicans being more likely to support the war and its outcome and giving President Bush far higher ratings. On the whole, the attitudes of Independent voters are closer to those of the Democrats, which explains why the overall numbers above are so bad for the Republicans.

Some of the biggest differences are:

* Fully 70 percent of Republicans but only nine percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Independents give President Bush a positive rating for his handling of Iraq. Nevertheless, there has been a steady decline in the support of the President on this issue by members of his own party, with 82 percent of Republicans giving him a positive rating in September 2003, 79 percent in September 2004 and 74 percent in 2005.
* Most Republicans (76%) think that taking military action against Iraq was the right thing to do, compared to only 15 percent of Democrats and 37 percent of Independents.
* A majority of Democrats (65%) and a plurality of Independents (47%) think that the situation for U.S. troops in Iraq is getting worse. Only 21 percent of Republicans agree with them.
* Republicans are almost seven times more likely than Democrats to feel confident that U.S. policies in Iraq will succeed (45% compared to 6%), and only 14 percent of Independents are confident.
* A majority of Democrats (68%) and Independents (58%) think that it is likely that there will be a civil war in Iraq in the next six months. Only 34 percent of Republicans think the same.

So, the vast majority of Dems don't have to read blogs. They share our views, regardless of how they've come to them.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 03:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which side are you on? (none / 0)

A line has been drawn for battle, and there are only two sides.

This post, and that of former Republican Huffington, are in defense of Fox News and against the interests of the Democratic Party.

Every website in America that imagines itself to be progressive should be speaking as loudly as possible in support of Bill Clinton.

Are you for Clinton or for Fox?

by stevehigh on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:52:31 AM EST

Re: Which side are you on? (none / 0)

Arianna is for Arianna and will ALWAYS find a way to have the headline. Period.

She will always attack the person with the headline at the moment. No one is every 'enough'.

Others in the blogsphere...no names...are the same.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's A Limelight-Grabber, But She's OUR (none / 0)

Limelight-Grabber

And considering the rest of the media landscape, that's a very good thing.

Doesn't mean I always agree with her. Don't have to. But I do know that no progressive could possibly have gained her prominence by starting out as a progressive. It was only because she started as a conservative that she gained her high profile. Rather than berate her for it, we should point it out every chance we get, as evidence of just how badly the deck is stacked against actual progressive voices.

Besides, where else are you going to read novelist Jane Smiley on politics semi-regularly other than Huffington Post? Such as the one in late Auguest that began thus:

In the late eighties, I wrote a novel called A Thousand Acres. Everyone thought it was about incest and "King Lear". To me, those were plot elements that I was using in service to the theme, which concerned the transformation of the midwestern American landscape from a unique, diverse, and rather fragile natural ecosystem that supported methods of European animal and grain farming imported by German, English, and Scandinavian farmers during the nineteenth century to a denuded and lifeless "food" factory in which a few crops (corn, soybeans, hogs, and beef) and the money that could be made from them pushed every other consideration of human endeavor and biodiversity to the margins, or snuffed them out entirely.

My book was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and made into a movie. American agriculture got worse.

That alone makes Huffington a net plus with plenty of room to spare, IMHO.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (3.00 / 1)

Clinton as Michael Corleone:

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!"

by Hesiod Theogeny on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:15:41 AM EST

What legacy are you referring to? (none / 0)

Was it this part? (Clinton's empty apology for his failure to do anything to stop the killing of 800,000 in Rwanda.)

I'm too sleepy this morning to write another critique of Clinton, but, no, Matt, I don't love him. And I don't believe he spent his presidency "fighting the right"--except in response to their personal (and over the top) attacks on him and his wife. Remember "triangulation"? I think that word defines the Clinton "legacy" more than any other.

One of the things that I love about the Lamont victory over Lieberman is that it gave us a taste of a real alternative to triangulation, which Eli Pariser pinpointed perfectly in an oped he wrote for the Washington Post the next day (and I, in my pathetic excuse for a personal blog, noted here at the time).

Lo and Behold, a demonstration of grassroots progressive power produced some interesting moves by national Democrats, especially those with presidential ambitions--with Hillary Clinton leading the way by loudly rushing to give $5K to Lamont's campaign. It's nice to imagine that they've had a change of heart, that their about to stand up and fight, show some backbone, etc...and that Clinton's putdown of Chris Wallace shows something has changed for real.

I still think we're on our own, and it's silly to put any faith in politicians, especially the ones who operate in the top-down stratosphere. Bill Clinton stands for nothing more than his personal ego. Actually, I do think he stands for one other thing--getting his wife into the White House in 2008.

Speaking of which, who among us actually believes former President Clinton when he says he never discusses the possibility of a presidential run with Hillary? I mean, why the bald-faced lying?

by Micah Sifry on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:46:20 AM EST

Re: What legacy are you referring to? (none / 0)

You like to have it both ways too, Micah. You can't be in bed with the right and on 'our' side.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:16:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What legacy are you referring to? (none / 0)

How does criticizing Clinton put me "in bed with the right"?

by Micah Sifry on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 12:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great (none / 0)

This is a point getting back to the ridiculousness of Jerome's post on "The Architect" -- a supposedly frozen electorate. Dems sing the praises of a man who both lost the Congress for the first time in fifty years and never broke 50% of the popular vote while running the Iraq war for 8 years.

Keep reaching to the "base" guys, in a few years you'll be whining better than any of the old liberals.

by brutus1 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:25:02 AM EST

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (none / 0)

I know what you mean.

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:34:13 AM EST

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (none / 0)

Well, let's remember something about Bill Clinton's bipartisism and "above the fray" centrism.

It got him elected President of the United States of America. Twice.

It was a riviting performance with Chris Wallace, and as much as those with the conservative slant seem to be instigators in sending it far and wide across the internet, seemingly with "look at the crazy-old-liberal" sub-titles, the more widely viewed this clip is the better for Democrats and our country.

And yes, it's about time SOMEONE, ANYONE on the Democratic side showed anything resembling leadership, passion, or integrity.

But let's also remember how he, and how any Democrat will in the future, prevail in catpuring what was once and someday will be again, the highest most influential office in all of the land:
CAPTURE THE CENTER!

Remember how well he did it? Sure some loyal Democrats had to hold their noses at times.
Notice how well Hillary has worked to do the same during the past five years? Hold your noses if you need to "netroots", but if you want to see a Democrat occupy the White house again in your lifetime, don't expect them to sing to you.

by Patrick Thompson on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:29:36 PM EST

Centrist Revisionism (none / 0)

Well, let's remember something about Bill Clinton's bipartisism and "above the fray" centrism.

It got him elected President of the United States of America. Twice.

Absolutely false! In 1992, he called himself a "New Democrat," but he ran an agressively populist campaign ("It's the economy, stupid!") that was srtikingly more progressive than Michael ("It's about competence, not ideology" Dukakis or Walter ("I'm going to raise your taxes") Mondale.

He then tried to acheive populist ends (universal healthcare) via corporate means (HillaryCare) and ushered in the first era of sustained Congressional GOP rule since the 1920s.

With success like that, who needs failure?

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (none / 0)

If there was anybody who could've sunk Bush and his administration was Bill Clinton. However, Bill perfectly knew that a Democratic Presidency would've sent Hillary's dreams down the toilet. the clintons only care about one thing and one thing only....and that's the clintons.

I've said it before....If Hillary's the candidate in 08 I'm voting for Nader.

Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?

by AnthonyMason2k6 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 03:59:40 PM EST

Re: Arianna: Clinton Having It Both Ways (none / 0)

Absurd. Disappointgly so.

Do you want a Democrat in office or don't you?

by Patrick Thompson on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.