Just before Super Tuesday, Obama circulated an attack mailer that held the Clintons responsible for net losses of Democratic seats during Bill's presidency:
In the mailer, Obama is pointing to Dem losses in the 1990s to bolster his core message that a Hillary candidacy would polarize the nation and cripple efforts to build a long-term progressive majority. Obama argues that he'll be less alienating than Hillary to independents and Republicans, due to the fact that he's unencumbered by the baggage of the 1990s.
Some are criticizing the mailer for being too negative - yet Hillary Clinton is often portrayed as being "tougher," because she's unafraid of using tough tactics, and Obama unable to mix it up with the GOP because he's too nice. Others actually liked the Clinton presidency:
As for attacking the only two-term [Democratic] presidency since F.D.R., no doubt Bill Clinton had his faults, especially on movement organization. But he left this country in great financial shape, which cannot be denied. This is just one reason Obama's losing lunch bucket Democrats to Clinton. What people remember is the impact the Clinton presidency had on their lives. In the end, that's all that matters to them.
Which seems willfully naïve. If anything, Clinton's trade policies hurt "lunch bucket Democrats" (NAFTA?), and is no doubt one of the contributing factors in the loss of so many Democratic gubernatorial and Congressional seats. Certainly NAFTA is a dirty word 'round these parts. I have no idea why blue-collar Democrats are trending to Clinton. I'd love to read an analysis; but I don't think it's because of Bill Clinton's economic policies.
And then there's Steven Suh's baffling condemnation of Obama's mailer - that he's buying into the conservative mystique of the Clintons. Suh claims that, with this mailer, Obama is "running away from Clinton and the Democratic party."
Now I'd argue that the Obama mailer is accurate. Clinton's politics did blunt the liberal political movement. Remember all the triangulation Clinton did? He legitimized conservative rhetoric. He legitimized the conservative world-view. He showed why triangulation doesn't work. If you adopt conservative issues, you don't win the center, you push the electorate into the conservative camp. And the Democratic party's namby-pamby, tepid view of its own values, and the disdain for its base, stems from the Clinton years.
But then any interpretation of Obama's mailer hinges on the mailer's intent. If Obama is arguing that Bill Clinton hurt the Democratic party because he was too liberal...well...then we've got another triangulator on our hands. But, if, on the other hand, Obama's arguing that progressive ideas are extremely popular across the country, and that Hillary Clinton - like Bill did during his presidency - would alienate potential Democrats by abandoning popular lefty ideas, then I'm aboard. |
