In Defense of Bill Clinton
Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM PDT
I've never liked Bill Clinton very much. After the 1994 election, he lost any will to fight for major progressive reforms. Instead, despite a huge lead over Bob Dole in 1996, he repeatedly gave in to the Republicans. He was not a progressive President.
So there are definitely a lot of great reasons to criticize Bill Clinton. But until recently, most of us were cheering him on. Even a Clinton critic like myself was cheering him on a year ago when he fought back against Chris Wallace's hit job on his anti-terrorism record on Fox News.
But lately things have changed around here. Bill Clinton is the punching bag of the moment, and the ever-expanding number of anti-Clinton dairies here reminds me more of the Free Republic than Daily Kos. Clinton isn't being criticized for accomplishing little as President. He's not being criticized for compromising with the Republicans. He's not being criticized for triangulation.
Instead, we're criticizing him for being a tough campaigner. We're criticizing him for taking the MSM to task. We're criticizing him for distorting Obama's record. We're criticizing him for employing race-baiting and even suggesting that he is a racist.
And we're way off-base for doing so. We're not only wrong, we're hypocrites. The consensus view on this site has always been that you don't win elections by sitting back and playing nice with your opponent. You don't win elections by holding back and "rising above politics." You don't win elections by transending politics. You don't win elections by playing nice with the media or the Republicans or anyone else. You win elections by fighting hard.
That's exactly what Bill Clinton is doing. He's fighting and clawing to win this election, which is exactly the same way he won elections in the past. Is it any coincedence that he's the only Democratic President elected to a second term since FDR? I don't admire the guy's record in office, but he knows how to win elections. Politics isn't an easy business and it's not a pretty business, and you don't win elections by rising above the political arena. You win elections by fighting within the political arena.
So when Clinton is challenged by a reporter, or thinks he or his wife is being misrepresented by the MSM, he should be fighting tooth-and-nail to call out the press. When Clinton sees a weakness in his opponent's record or experience, he should be hitting him hard. When Clinton sees himself or his wife attacked unfairly, he should respond aggressively.
Now, race-baiting is a different matter entirely. There's no excuse for that. And in the past, when I saw race baiting, I called it out myself. But what Bill Clinton said the other day is not race baiting. He said that African-Americans might vote for Obama out of the pride of seeing an African-American with a chance to win the nomination for the first time:
Voting for president along racial and gender lines "is understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time," the former president told a Charleston audience while campaigning for his wife.
That isn't race baiting. It's the truth. I remember when Harold Washington ran for Mayor in Chicago, and there was unprecedent turnout in the African-American community. That wasn't a bad thing, it was a great thing. It helped derail the Daley political machine. I'd expect the African-American community to be energized about an Obama run. Why wouldn't it be? You can't compare his comment to real race-baiting, like Bob Corker's ad with a blonde white woman asking Harold Ford whether she'll see him at a Playboy party and winking at the camera.
The charge that Bill Clinton is a racist is equally absurd. We're talking about Bill Clinton here, for Christ's sake. There's a reason he and his wife have so many prominent African-American supporters.
Now, is Clinton being unfair to Obama? Sure. Is he playing hardball? Sure. Is he playing dirty? Yep. Is he taking a page out of the Rove playbook, as some have argued on here? No doubt about it.
But as a site, haven't we always been about adopting the Republican strategies and using them to advance a progressive agenda? Haven't we always been committed to fighting fire with fire, instead of whining about their tactics?
The truth is that Obama has tried to "transcend" politics. His entire campaign is based on a call for a "new kind" of politics that will not only reduce bickering among Democrats, but will unite Democrats and Republicans together. He talks about giving the powers-that-be a seat at the table. The imagery in his speeches and the look of his campaign materials and ads suggests that he's a prophet or a crusader rather than a politician.
Bill Clinton is dragging Obama into the world of real politics. He's forcing Obama to match attack with attack. He's forcing Obama to throw mud back and forth. He's forcing Obama to get his hands dirty. He's forcing Obama to show voters that he's a politician too. And it's a damn good thing he is, because if he didn't do that and Obama became our nominee, the Republicans would do the same thing.
What this tough primary fight should be teaching the Obama campaign is that you can't skate into the nomination by remaining "above the fray" and playing paddycake with your opponent. I know Obama, I admire the man, and I respect his ability. He will be our nominee, if not this year, in a future year. But he cannot run a campaign that is based on holding hands and rising above politics. He's going to have to become a fighter.
Permalink | 74 comments