I'm witnessing a very disturbing trend--and on MSNBC of all places. It's not enough that Republicans are doing all they can to bring down President Obama, some liberal pundits are pitching in, as well.David Corn of Politics Daily, and other liberal pundits are quick to compare Obama with President Clinton, and, you guessed it, Obama is coming up short in every category: Obama's not as politically savvy as was Clinton, not the leader he was, and not as politically focused.
Why this sudden need to elevate Clinton at the expense of Obama?
Forgotten is the Clinton sex scandal that rocked the White House; forgotten is Monica Lewinsky and the stained dress that was preserved as proof of Clinton's infidelity. Gone is Clinton's failed attempt to provide health-care reform, and a host of other failures and scandals that marred his presidency. Remember e-mailgate, and few other gates that plagued his administration: Cattlegate, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Troopergate, and Chinagate.
Because of Monicagate Clinton had to face down an impeachment. I'm not saying that Clinton was guilty of any of these political indiscretions, but that they have mostly been forgotten, as the New Clinton takes the stage in his new role of Obama defacer. In the clip below, you can hear a little bit of this, as well as an explanation for why Clinton's reputation is undergoing a rebirth.
Because of Monicagate Clinton had to face down an impeachment. I'm not saying that Clinton was guilty of any of these political indiscretions, but that they have mostly been forgotten, as the New Clinton takes the stage in his new role of Obama defacer. In the clip below, you can hear a little bit of this, as well as an explanation for why Clinton's reputation is undergoing a rebirth.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
If you don't wish to watch the whole vid-clip, here's a transcript of the part where Obama is compared to Clinton--a comparison that's mostly unwarranted, and unnecessary.
SIMON: I agree with almost all of that, except one small point I would like to make. One reason Bill Clinton is doing so well now is that he's not viewed as a political figure anymore. He's viewed as this philanthropist, this man who's raising hundreds of millions of dollars to, you know, cure AIDS, to solve environmental problems, things that are not especially political. Sure, he's going to go out on the trail for Barack Obama, but I might -- I think, once he does, you might see those figures shift a little.
FINEMAN: Well, I hate to disagree with Roger--boy, we are really disagreeing a lot -- but I haven't seen the poll numbers on that. I can't imagine that there's anybody in the United States who doesn't still regard Bill Clinton as a political figure. Bill Clinton oozes politics out of every pore. And that's what made him infuriating, but what also makes him charming, and also what makes him able to explain in kitchen-table language what Barack Obama can't always seem to do. And it's a fascinating thing. It's a mixed blessing for Obama.
Not only is President Obama's accomplishments--only two years into his presidency--towering over Clinton's presidential years, the challenges facing his administration dwarf those of Bill Clinton's, and Ronald Reagan's administrations combined.
And I think that that is the nub of the problem: Obama's achievements to date, although not as impressive, or as progressive, as many would like for them to be, clearly has him standing out among those in the pantheon of presidential achievers.
First, it was comparing Obama to Woodrow Wilson, and, of late, to Bill Clinton. No matter whether it is on the job-creation front, or handling the Gulf oil spill, or protecting this nation from terrorists, or the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--President Obama finds himself being measured by the shadows cast by his white predecessors.
It's as though the conversation has taken a sudden turn, for both liberal and conservative pundits (We have always known where Republicans stand!): "We can't have a black president eclipsing the white ones of the past. We can't have him achieving more. We can't have him succeeding where others have failed. We can't let him achieve the stature or the greatness that's reserved for those of a much lighter hue."
Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong--that it has nothing to do with Obama's race--but I'm hard pressed to find another motive.
15 comments:
They just do not want to give President Obama his props for his accomplishments in the short time he has been in office. It might make them look bad because black folks are not supposed to have leadership abilities according to that old southern way of thinking.
To tell you the truth, I do not trust the Clintons and never did. Clinton is from Arkansas and well...he has that "Southern good old boy mentally" he just knows how to camouflage his with a little southern charm. However, his true self came out during the elections. I don't know why people seem to have forgotten that. If you go back and really think about his policies, he did more to hurt African Americans then helping them. The sistah souljah, mass incarceration of blacks with the unfair drug laws, some of the affirmative action dismantlement, and a few other things come to mind.
Toni Morrison must have been on medication or something when she called him the first black president. And he just give that grin people give when they are laughing at you for being a sucker.
BD,
This is a just trial balloon for Hilliary to run again. If it appears that Obama might be a one-termer, look for Hilliary to resign from her SOS position in preparation for throwing her hat into the ring. There's been some guy in Chicago I think who's been running a draft Hilliary movement.
I think Obama simply does not have the power base that the Clintons have owing mainly to his being a relative newcomer (as well as an outsider) on the political scene and that has impacted him on a number of fronts. The Clintons and the other dems simply signed up because he was winning, but remember that both Bill and Hilliary were very bitter at the loss. They've not forgotten that and there's no question that they're circling now that it appears Obama is wounded. He's not wounded quite enough for them to be totally open with their ambitions, but make no mistake they're circling for the opportunity in move in for the kill and for all we know, they might have teamed up with the right wing entertainment complex to bring him down.
Obama's approval ratings are still 45%+, so they've not declined enough for them to smell blood, but if they were to drop another 5-10 points, look for them to swoop into action.
Granny:
You have hit the racist nail right on the head, but I am not surprised at America's way of thinking.
Leadership coming from a Black Person has always been difficult for Americans to accept, especially from a Black Man (I am not being a sexist with that statement).
One example of this is in football, when one of the greatest comebacks in Super Bowl history was achieved by Doug Williams, and yet very little is ever mentioned.
As a person of a generation past, I understand that Americans will really only recognize or accept the accomplishments or leadership of African Americans is when they consider it popular or hip.
I also recognize how quickly they can turn, and I also recognize how quickly we will follow, therein lies the shame.
Further proof, is the theory behind reverse discrimination.
>>Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong--that it has nothing to do with Obama's race--but I'm hard pressed to find another motive.<<
BD,
I missed this part earlier as I quickly read through the post and this was the last sentence. Yes, race plays into a lot as concerns black folks and yes, whites are generally reluctant to recognize accomplishments of blacks. That's one of the reasons why I personally don't even bother to seek anyone's approval other than my own and that of those who care about me. There's something very "freeing" about not worrying about the stamp of approval from someone who's inclined to deny it.
However, I feel that race isn't the entire issue here and it's more about power or Obama's lack of a power base. Look at how he filled his administration--it's filled with Clinton people and there are going to be divided loyalties. MSNBC and most of the liberal media was basically lined up with Hilliary by default until Obama established himself to be viable and then switched to him mainly because they resented Clinton's heavy handedness and judged their fortunes to be better with backing Obama. That same media sat by and did basically nothing while the right wing entertainment complex flailed away at Obama with the goal of dropping his approval ratings.
As I say in the post above, Obama doesn't have a deep power base in the democratic party and the success of Fauxnews has made some people conclude that he's vulnerable in 2012--nevermind that Clinton's mid term approval ratings were about the same as Obama's or worse and that he lost the house during his first term.
Where is Obama's power base? The CBC? They backed Hilliary until the last possible moment until everyone else decided that they'd back him. That speaks volumes about even the lack of black legislators in Obama's camp and they'll follow everyone back to Clinton because they've been bought and paid for and will do as they're told.
@Granny: "[H]is true self came out during the elections. I don't know why people seem to have forgotten that."
Granny, you make some good points--actually, some very good points. In some ways, the Clintons haven't been a friend to blacks, although we have, in many ways, given Bill and Hillary our unquestioning support.
@Greg: "Obama is wounded. He's not wounded quite enough for them to be totally open with their ambitions, but make no mistake they're circling for the opportunity in move in for the kill...."
Greg, I like your assessment as well: Hillary and Bill might be testing the water, but, if they are, they will have to do it with Obama's blessing.
I don't think Hillary can win the black vote in certain key states unless Obama really screws up.
If Hillary is seen as undermining Obama, or taking advantage of a mortal wound to his presidency for political gain, she'll lose black support.
@Mr. I.M. Black: "Leadership coming from a Black Person has always been difficult for Americans to accept...."
Right on--which is why many blacks felt that a black president was as unlikely as finding life in outer space, and why many whites felt no compunction when it came to attacking him, and showing their racist propensities.
@Greg: "Where is Obama's power base?"
I think that his base is composed of blacks, young people, and progressives.
Progressives are angry because Obama and liberals capitulated on health-care reform (didn't consider for a moment single-payer), and idealistic young people--viewing negatively the dealmaking that led to the passage of health care legislation--are angry, and blacks (some seeing Obama as some black Moses) are a mix bag--some are angry, while some, like me, are seeing the glass as half-full, rather than half-empty.
Yet, if Bill and Hillary feel that they can take advantage of a wounded Obama, they need to think twice--blacks left the Clinton camp for Obama's camp after Bill opened his big mouth once too often.
I don't think Bill and Hillary can win a race in 2012 if they alienate black voters: That will be their biggest challenge.
>>Progressives are angry because Obama and liberals capitulated on health-care reform (didn't consider for a moment single-payer), and idealistic young people--viewing negatively the dealmaking that led to the passage of health care legislation--are angry, and blacks (some seeing Obama as some black Moses) are a mix bag--some are angry, while some, like me, are seeing the glass as half-full, rather than half-empty.<<
This is what I mean by the lack of a power base. He needs a base within the halls where legislation is formed and voted on. Basically, these people need to fear him if the thing doesn't go down like it needs to. As it is they don't, which is why the health care reform was ultimately so tortured IMO. Of course, it didn't help when the insurance lobby was twisting arms and diluting the public option. I just don't think Obama has a quiver full of enough favors owed him to twist arms and perhaps it'd be tough to do so anyway given the money that's corrupted the entire process.
I guess my expectations were controlled about Obama at the outset. That has more to do with the system itself, which I distrust, than Obama himself. Obama did raise expectations that have been dashed, but realistically, he's doesn't hold all the cards. My problem is that the ones he was holding were played improperly and no one really had his back. He had a mandate on health care and if the congress wasn't coming to that dance, he should have been back in front of the people calling the offenders out. As it was, they allowed the right wing entertainment complex to define the entire battle and still turn the thing into a defeat even though they failed to give Obama his Waterloo by denying passage of the bill.
>>I don't think Bill and Hillary can win a race in 2012 if they alienate black voters: That will be their biggest challenge.<<<
Yes, there'd be a lot of people sitting on their hands even beyond black folks. There is one thing however in the Clinton's favor I think--the economy is perceived as being great under Clinton (a misperception IMO, but generally accepted as truth) and depending on how bad things are, folks may start reminiscing about the "good old days" under a Clinton and want to bring one of them back. I don't think that black folks will go for that.
To be honest, I'm just disgusted with entire political system. I hate to feel that way as I know full well that those feelings are deliberately induced to suppress the vote, but there's no denying how I feel. I suspect many feel the same way.
@Greg: "Basically, these people need to fear him if the thing doesn't go down like it needs to."
I agree.
Obama is stumping now, and I thinks he's relying on his popularity to win the day.
He's charismatic, to be sure, and may be able to rescue his bacon, and that of his party from the fire in the next election--that is, if he can start a counter-fire, and fire up his base.
"To be honest, I'm just disgusted with entire political system."
Money has certainly corrupted the process, and the Supremes have made that corruption easier with their recent rulings.
I forget the name of the bill, or who sponsored it, but it was recently defeated. The bill was designed to reward companies and corporations that showed economic loyalty--not outsourcing, or moving their manufacturing capabilities outside the country--and to punish the economically disloyal.
Of course, it went down to defeat, which begs the question: Why bring it to the floor in the first place?
Perhaps it was to show just how corrupt the system is, and which party could be trusted to combat coporation outsourcing.
There're so many ways one can interpret what happened, that it's hard to get at the truth, and the motives behind what was done.
The problem is: Too much love of party, and not enough love of country.
Ours is a patriotism crisis. Money is the new patriotism and the new loyalty. It's sad when a whole political party can be bought off. It's sad when the survival of a political party trumps the survival of the country in which it resides.
But this has been the position of the Republican party for the last twenty-two months--opposing the efforts of the Democrats to reduce the deficit and ward off a depression.
The choice seems obvious: But not to these supposed "small government" types.
"Money is the new patriotism and the new loyalty. It's sad when a whole political party can be bought off. It's sad when the survival of a political party trumps the survival of the country in which it resides."
Very true. The behavior of the republican party has been absolutely abhorrent and although they're no where near as strident, the democratic party has been purchased as well. The system is broken and has been removed beyond the grasp of the people IMO. It's also nearly beyond repair unless the undue influence of money is removed. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that will occur soon.
"Money is the new patriotism and the new loyalty. It's sad when a whole political party can be bought off. It's sad when the survival of a political party trumps the survival of the country in which it resides."
Money has always controlled what happens in Washington and for everyone that believes the Tea Party is not controlled by THE MONEY; I have some swampland to sell them.
@Blinders Off: "Money has always controlled what happens in Washington...."
Blinders Off, how right you are! I've been debating for a while whether to publish an article I completed sometime ago that makes a similar point: Our Republic came into being, first and foremost, as a way to protect the wealth of the rich.
I don't think the Liberal chatter class ever supported Obama. Here's my theory - the David Corns, Tavis Smileys & Ralph Naders of the world want the O-man to fail. Badly.
The right's pretty damn easy -Obama's a classic Washington Liberal and he's Black. He's also smart enough to get his big Black liberal agenda pushed through Congress. The end.
What's interesting is the DLC/Green Party types are jumping down his throat too. The why is because Obama is the ultimate game changer - not because of his color, but because he is getting things accomplished.
The Washington Establishment of the DNC is afraid that the Era of Clinton would be seen as a relic of the 90's. Hilary will never be President. And given the fact that Obama is young dude -he'll be the power broker in the party for the next 10 years. Personally, I don't think most White Liberals like Black people in positions beyond that of supplicant.
The Left's big fear is that Obama's successes would mean they have to step their game up and play smart. No more mau-mau chanting, its show and prove time. Tavis and Messy Jesse will be non-factors if Obama pushes forward education, green jobs and healthcare. This is a rather strange one, but for those who know the professional activist/latte liberal types, you'll understand that they stand to gain nothing from Obama being successful. Nader will be relegated to an even lower standpoint than Clinton, because Obama would have achieved many of the things he's been railing about since the 60's and 70's. Fixing the holes in financial regulation? Check. Healthcare reform? Check Green Technologies? Tech. Once the skinny Black guy is done, there won't be much for the Naomi Klein's of the world to bitch about.
Interesting take LA. I can see an argument being made in some circles that Obama is "not one of us" and certainly, there's no love lost between Nader, Smiley and Obama.
I perceive Obama as a mixed bag. That's not a bad thing as that's pretty much how any president would look 22 months into his term. There's not been enough time elapsed for me to totally assess how he's done. I think he was forced to compromise on both healthcare and financial regulations. He did show some backbone in placing Elizabeth Warren in charge of the new consumer protection agency via the backdoor. In that instance, the backdoor was the only route to get her there. The pocket veto today on changing notarization rules in light of the foreclosure fraud was also good.
I'm not totally in the tank for him but I'm not totally out either. This is generally my position with most politicians.
@LAC: "The why is because Obama is the ultimate game changer - not because of his color, but because he is getting things accomplished."
What's more galling is that he's getting things done despite his color.
Could it be the Ihopehefails crowd actually thought he would?
What chance did an almost-unknown black guy have up against the established power structure, and years of precedence--blacks could be congresspersons, but the presidency has always eluded them.
Naturally unfit for the job!
"This is a rather strange one, but for those who know the professional activist/latte liberal types, you'll understand that they stand to gain nothing from Obama being successful."
A bit of this broke through when Jesse took umbrage to how Obama addressed blacks.
From Jesse's perspective, Obama may as well been addressing him--talking down to blacks, and to him in particular.
Obama as president would forever seal his fate as a second-place finisher, and elevate Obama as the power broker extraordinaire, with actual power--not just a pretender.
"Once the skinny Black guy is done, there won't be much for the Naomi Klein's of the world to bitch about."
Obama's on a tare, to be sure. His accomplishments may not be gold in terms of perfection, but they're certainly sterling silver.
Barring any malfeasance, or a sex scandal to mar his record, he could go down in history as one of this nation's greatest presidents--such has been the challenges he faced coming into office.
If he can fix the employment situation--which is more complex than having two wars to contend with--his place in history is assured.
Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment