The Man Who Could Cost the Dems the White House.

A few posts ago I mentioned how I had forgotten over the years what kind of people the Clintons really were. I was conscious of how good the economy was in the nineties, how likable Bill could be, and the fact that he was a much better (not to mention more conservative) president than W. I remembered what kind of president he was but forgotten what kind of person he is. The willingness to say anything to win, renting out the Lincoln bedroom to campaign donors, stealing furniture like the God damn Beverly Hillbillies (I'm sure Bush didn't want most of that furniture anyway), and pardoning campaign donors like it was going out of style. Over the past few weeks there have been so many reminders of the slash and burn Clinton machine that I'm truly disgusted by the idea of returning this family to the White House. Up until losing Iowa, Hillary's campaign seemed to be based on talking about the issues; since then it has been a muck-raking machine not unlike the one Bush ran in the 2000 primaries. This was when Bill really launched his scorched earth policies toward Senator Obama. In the past few days I can't turn on a tv or radio without hearing Bill allege voter intimidation or distort Obama's comments. (yeah, I'm sure Obama supporters were trying to bully union members with Bill Clinton standing within earshot.) It has gotten so bad that Ted Kennedy and is reported to have had a heated discussion with him telling him to knock it off for the good of the party. Of course this was a waste of time because Bill Clinton couldn't care less about the good of the party. He only cares about getting his wife elected so he can be nearer to the power he clearly can't live without. His accusing Obama of being a sellout to the party for claiming that Reagan had better ideas than the democrats was the thing that pushed me over the edge. So I'd like to look a little deeper into this discussion and you can judge for yourself who is telling the truth. First of all Obama did not say that about Reagan, he said Reagan inspired people in a way that Clinton never did. This has the advantage of being true. You want an example? There are currently at least 4 presidential candidates running around calling themselves "the next Ronald Reagan" (to the point of absurdity). How many are calling themselves "the next Bill Clinton"? Zero. Not even the one who's married to him. Secondly Obama said that in the 1990's the Republicans were "the party of ideas". Note he never said good or better ideas. It's funny that Bill would pretend to be offended by this after spending his entire '92 campaign pitching himself as a "New Democrat" clearly implying that he also believed something was wrong with the old dmocrats. To argue that the 90's were not a decade dominated by republican ideas would require a condition bordering on amnesia (especially from '94 onward). I listened to an interview today with Paul Begala trying to defend the Clintons and he did an excellent job of making my point for me. He talked about how he was there fighting against these ideas all the time. He never pointed to times he was fighting for the ideas of the left. The real idea man pushing the discussion of this country in the nineties was not Clinton it was Newt Gingrich. What were the "ideas" driven by Clinton in the 90's? A "universal" health care plan that didn't provide universal health care? An assault weapons ban that didn't ban assault weapons? (Not that I would be in favor either way) This is what has taken down the dems again and again. Let's pretend for a minute that every idea the GOP has had in the last 30 years was a disaster in the making that would clearly lead to a Mad-Max scenario. A bad idea beats no idea any day of the week. If I were to ask you for 3 main ideas that sum up the Republican Party you could name them without batting an eye. If I asked the same question about the democrats to 5 people I'd most likely hear a) 15 different answers or b) some incredibly vague answers. To put it another way Al Gore is probably the closest to an idea man the Democrats have had in recent years. He laid out a clear vision for his goals as president, and it's not a coincidence that he fared much better than John Kerry who didn't offer any vision whatsoever. It's also puzzling to me why of the three democrats left standing, the only one I view as an "idea" man is running a distant third. As a McCain supporter I would much rather see Hillary as the opponent. As an American I would much rather have an Obama or Edwards presidency than return the Clintons to the White House. Some parties never learn.