Posted on 12/04/2002 9:23:51 AM PST by wcdukenfield
Bill Clinton is attempting to rewrite his role in the last election, and the major-media outlets are happy to help him.
As I recall, in the last weeks before the election, the contest was characterized by the media as a showdown between Clinton and George Bush. In fact, the media covered Clinton's campaign appearances as if he was still president and the leader of his party.
For example, the Washington Post reported that "Two presidents dueled over Florida Governor Jeb Bush's reelection tonight, with President Bush making a bitingly partisan pitch for his brother and former president Bill Clinton drawing a standing ovation for the governor's opponent."
And consider this from the Miami Herald: "Nearing the end of a campaign increasingly marked by bitter partisanship, the two leading candidates for governor looked to their parties' political commanders-in-chief ... for a final boost of voter excitement. For Democrat Bill McBride it meant touring South Florida with Bill Clinton, the former president beloved by the party's base. ... For Governor Jeb Bush it meant sharing the stage at a Tampa basketball arena with his president brother as 8,000 screaming fans waved American flags and chanted 'U-S-A.' ... The presence of the country's two most influential politicians so close to Tuesday's election ..."
The truth is that Clinton runs the Democrat party. He did so for eight years while serving as president, and for the last nearly two years since he left office. The modern Democrat party is a reflection of Clinton. Indeed, Clinton's capo, Terry McAuliffe, chairs the Democratic National Committee, where he serves as Clinton's mouthpiece.
Other media reports revealed that Clinton was instrumental in persuading Andrew Cuomo to drop out of the Democrat primary for New York governor. He was reportedly involved in persuading Robert Torricelli to step aside. Clinton took credit for the successful "strategy" that reelected California Governor Gray Davis. And in Louisiana, Clinton is supposedly helping to mobilize black voters on behalf of Mary Landrieu.
So, the Democrats suffered a humiliating defeat. They lost the Senate (Republicans won 22 of 23 seats) and they lost more seats in the House. This means that since 1994, since Clinton has been heading the party either directly or through his surrogates, the Democrats have not won a majority of seats in either house of Congress. Moreover, last month they lost gubernatorial races in heavily Democrat states — including Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Georgia.
Bill Clinton was a key architect of this Democrat debacle. He helped pick candidates, raised money, campaigned, and was involved in the party's strategy. The Democrats also ran on his issues. They argued for less defense spending, temporary tax cuts, the status quo for Social Security, a massive Medicare-based prescription drug program, and deferment to the United Nations on Iraq.
The Democrats also unleashed the Clintonian tactics of race-baiting, class warfare, and fear-mongering aimed at the young and the elderly and, in some cases, character assassination. This all failed miserably. And now Clinton is desperately attempting to spin, as if he had no role in any of this.
Now Clinton claims the Democrats lost because they didn't campaign as strong advocates of national security, they didn't focus enough on the economy, they lacked unity and a clear message, they weren't tough enough, and so forth. And the mainstream media is lapping it up like thirsty kittens.
If the Democrats have any hope of regaining power, they need regime change. That means ousting Clinton as the de facto leader of their party. The Democrats will find this undertaking as difficult as the Republicans did when Clinton was impeached.
I recommend that they keep him charge and learn how to swim.
Works for me.
Of course!...It's an algore toilet!
FMCDH
No one who carries a very big bat in the Democratic party wants to mess with this right now, because doing so might upset the balance among the various 2004 contenders. You'll have Daschle opposing anybody who might help Kerry, Kerry opposing anybody who might help Gephardt, and so on. So they leave Clinton and McAuliffe in place; they are the devils we know. The only thing that could upset that is if Hillary starts making a move, in which case we will see a real hammer-and-tongs struggle over the DNC chairmanship. What's fascinating about this analysis is that it suggests that Clinton's "DLC" approach, while effective for him personally, has been a disaster for the party. Others will see that as well, and the conclusion they will draw from it is that the party should turn left, away from the DLC 'moderates' and toward the serious lefties like Pelosi. Most of us think that will result in a train wreck, but if you were a Democrat, what else could you think? Clinton's "moderation" sure hasn't worked, at least not for anyone except Clinton. The wild card in all this is Gore. If Gore had a brain in his head, he would offer to stand down from the 2004 contest and serve as DNC chairman. His big problem is that he wants to be something, but the tea leaves are spelling out "the ash heap for you" if he continues down his present path. He might be perceived as a suitable, and reasonably neutral, replacement for Clinton's stooge at the DNC. It is probably starting to dawn on Hillary that her strategy of waiting until 2008 is highly dependent on maintaining control of the party apparatus for that long, and that the intervention of a presidential candidate in 2004 could easily upset that. Whoever it turns out to be will get to name a new DNC chairman, will populate the place with his own stooges, and will most likely remain as the new head of the party even if the Democrats lose. That could put Hillary in a spot where she can't get back in, and I wonder if that isn't going to make her start thinking "it's now or never." |
That's true, according to the rules. What's that got to do with Clinton planning?
. . . which explains why Gore is now in control of the DNC . . .
He was in control of the DNC. Joe Andrew, McAuliffe's predecessor, was Gore's guy. Had Gore won, Andrew would probably still be there today. McAuliffe was supposedly slated to become Ambassador to the UK in a Gore Administration.
When Gore lost, everybody started looking ahead to 2004, and they didn't want Gore's guy there. Clinton's guy looked safer, because Clinton can't run again, and nobody figured Hillary for 2004. It is true that Clinton pushed on Gore's guy, but it was Daschle and Gephardt who shoved him out.
You're right that the same thing could happen again, but probably not. Whoever the nominee is will presumably replace McAuliffe with his own guy. If he loses, his guy could indeed get rolled, but The Return Of McAuliffe is an unlikely outcome. For the 2008 cycle, everybody will know that Hillary is coming, so her guy isn't gonna get it.
To some extent, the Clintons have power because people think they do. That's why the current moment is Hillary's best bet. A lot can happen between now and 2008, including the emergence of some new "power" in the Democratic party. If the nominee is someone with a little more star power than Gore, he might not be so easy to knock over, even if he loses.
There is also the issue that the Clintons are perceived to be part of the DLC wing of the Democratic party. To the extent that the liberals take over the joint, Hillary will lose influence, and may even come to be seen as an emblem of the failed past. I suspect that she is personally a lot more ideologically liberal than Bill ever was, but she might not be able to shed the DLC baggage. It may be that she has to move now, or forever lose her chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I think the "regime change" happens naturally as we approach the 2004 elections and a new Democratic standard-bearer appears. Until then, Clinton is likely to remain a consensus party leader, mostly because everyone understands that he's on the way out.