The Biggest Fairly Tale I’ve Ever Seen: The Clinton Legacy

Bill Clinton was probably one of the most gifted Presidents in our country’s history and by far, the biggest disappointment. Despite his charisma and nearly unparalled ability to suavely articulate the pants off nearly anyone, he was after all a colossal bold faced liar and deceiver. However, all that is despite his politics, which were moderate at best and mostly downright conservative. In fact, it could rightfully be argued that Clinton was more conservative than W. It’s no wonder he gets along so well with Senior.

Now many of your initial inclinations to these statements may be shock but when you throw out Clinton’s rhetoric and look solely at his record it’s hard to discern the liberal pariah that the Right tries to make him out to be.

I dare you to name an example of a successful Clinton backed “liberal” policy? “Don’t ask, don’t tell?” Universal health care that he pawned off on his wife because he didn’t want the political failure on his record? Clinton’s real legacy is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act where the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also know as “welfare-to-work,” a euphemism that merely hides how hard politicians have made it for the poor to climb out of the doldrums, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which essentially destroys the notion of fair use of media that you already own, the Telecom Reform Act which has allowed for greater monopolies of all forms of the media (newspaper, television, radio), the Communications Decency Act which attempted to infringed on the right of free speech, the Defense of Marriage Act which denies the equal protection of the law to homosexuals and let us not forget, probably one of the most disastrous in U.S. history, the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for regime change and was used by W. and Congressional Democrats and Republicans to find an excuse to use force to invade and occupy the impotent country.

All of this is Clinton’s true legacy; presidential signatures on bills that later George W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress didn’t have to find a way to pass.

But the most profound failure of the Clinton years, besides taking credit for economic successes his administration had absolutely nothing to do with, was the facade that all these half-measures represent not what they truly are, that being political expedience and the embodiment of the societal wide conservative harshness and intolerance that has swept our nation anew, but that these policies, these lies, these deceptions and the smooth-talking and cheating attitude in some way represents that what it means to be on the Left.

Clinton and the New Democrats are “What’s Wrong with Kansas” and the reasons why this country has such a resistance to turning as decisively Left as it has turned Right. When history eventually paints its picture of the Clinton’s legacy it should be as a continuation of what came before it; it should include the fact that the country’s hemorrhaging started with Nixon, accelerated under Reagan, continued through Bush and Clinton and was taken to a further extreme by George W. Bush. Hopefully, this country never again aspires to the true legacy of William Jefferson Clinton and the rest of the other Right-wing presidents.

Super-Delegates vs. Delegates, Clinton vs. Obama, Party vs. The People

In a nutshell, super-delegates were created after the chaos ensuing after the 1968 Democratic convention because (mostly) the conservative southern Democrats (who ran the party) got worried that the people, who after ‘68 started to look more black and Hispanic (and not like the typical white southern Democrat) and leaned decisively more liberal, would nominate a liberal candidate or God forbid a black or Hispanic liberal candidate! These Party bosses (Democratic Governors, members of Congress and elected members of the Democratic National Convention) didn’t want the people screwing up their nomination process, so in 1982 they created these “super-delegates” that had huge block of votes. Basically (but not always) delegates just represent the proportion of the population of a given state that voted for a particular candidate and they are bound to be pledged to that candidate who won. Super-delegates on the other hand pledge their votes (after being offered “bribes” by the candidates) but they don’t actually count until pledged at the convention. They can change their minds.

Right now Hillary has more super-delegates because she (and Bubba) are obviously very strong in the Party, have a lot of connections and power and can offer the super-delegate Party insiders a lot of favors. Obama’s a newcomer without a lot of intra-party clout but the people’s votes in the primary’s and caucuses can sway the super-delegates, especially if they believe a candidate has the potential to become President (and that’s the way it looks right now with Obama). Super-delegates would rather have the guy (or gal) they backed sitting in the White House looking favorable on them than having gone with the loser who promised a lot of favors.

Basically, I wouldn’t worry too much about what’s going to happen with super-delegates. The controversy about them has been media created, partly due to sensationalism and mostly due to ignorance.

If the people nominate Obama, political pragmatism says that the super-delegates are gonna switch their votes because while these Party insiders are politicians through and through, they’re foremost opportunistic and fundamentally practical. If they don’t pledge their votes for Obama even while the people have, and they instead nominate Hillary and she loses, there’s going to be major hell to pay. Frankly, the Party could fracture over it because people on the Left would observe that the super-delegate Democratic system couldn’t beat the Republicans even though they have been so blatantly screwing up this country. The people are crying out for a change and if the Democratic Party system fails them by electing an insider (Hillary Clinton) who then loses (especially in this environment), it’ll be obvious that it’s a failed system. If those benefiting from the system don’t change things, the true power of the Party, the people, will.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the Democrats side with the people or if they act just like the Republicans and side with their Party above all else.

Thanks Laura!

Next Page »