Clinton thread
Out of context: Reply #165
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- ********0
"Within the Democratic party, the President is the head of our party. That means something profound here in the netroots, especially when we think of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their opposition to the reform movement headed by Chairman Howard Dean.
In all fifty states, Bill and Hillary Clinton know the top donors and they know the people to talk to "get things done": the insiders, the poohbahs, the wheelers and the dealers. Through eight years in the office of the President, Bill and Hillary Clinton developed a powerful network of elected officials and friends.
If Democrats choose Hillary Clinton as our nominee, especially through back channel lobbying of Super Delegates by former President Bill Clinton, we are, in effect, reinforcing that network and choosing to make the Clinton network of influence the de facto machine within the Democratic party for the next generation as well. If that happens, party reform as conceived within the netroots will die. That's worth thinking about.
Our experience of the GOP version of this kind of concentrated power under President Bush should serve as a cautionary lesson in that regard. Is there any indication that Bill and Hillary Clinton will run the Democratic Party differently than they did in the 1990s? I would argue there is none whatsoever. Their campaign has been the antithesis of the reforms enunciated by Howard Dean and netroots activists. In fact, if anything is clear, Hillary Clinton is just as opposed to the 50 State Strategy and party reform as her husband was and has made that clear in the conduct of her campaign.
Terry McAuliffe is her campaign chair. Mark Penn runs her strategy. Harold Ickes is the Clinton backroom "arm twister." And James Carville is their public enforcer.
Do we want more of this? Is this what the Democratic Party stands for in 2008? Will we have any kind of "vital check" if we hand the Presidency and control of our party back to the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
The answer is clear: no.
::
Bill Clinton and the 22nd Amendment
Bill Clinton opposes the 22nd Amendment:
"Shouldn't the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him?"
Those aren't my words, Senator. They're Ronald Reagan's, who said in 1986 that the term limit on presidents was "a mistake." Now, I wouldn't go as far as President Reagan. I think presidents should be limited to two consecutive terms, then after a time out of office should be able to run again.
Don't worry. I know I won't be running for president again. It takes too long to change the Constitution, and I don't believe in human cloning! But in the future, our country might face a crisis that a former president is uniquely qualified to help solve. The American public should have that option.
-Bill Clinton, 60 Minutes, 2003
This is not an infrequent subject for President Clinton, he's joked about it numerous times:
I remember about three years ago, President Clinton would frequently make jokes about the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits a president from being elected more than twice, and how much he resented its presence in the Constitution. There was probably a kernel of truth in his jokes, but no one seriously ever talks about repealing the 22nd Amendment, right?
In effect, Bill and Hillary Clinton, while within the letter of the law, are, in accord with Bill's oft-stated thinking, side-stepping the spirit of the 22nd Amendment.
They are side-stepping the "vital check" and the "two-term tradition" established by George Washington and running for the Presidency again. They are clearly a team. President Clinton makes news as many days as Senator Clinton does. They are both on the campaign trail and echo each other's points and attacks. Many voters have no problem with that. If you are a voter who perceives the Clinton years to have been in your economic interest, there is a natural appeal to a kind of "two for one" return to the Clinton years.
And that's exactly the kind of politics the 22nd Amendment and the "two-term tradition" was meant to combat. However appealing the prospect of a return to Clinton rule and Clintonian policies in the White House in some quarters, the American people have made our Constitution reflect that our values preclude keeping the White House in the control of any one person for an extended period of time.
We have good reasons to be wary of concentrated power within the Executive Branch.
::
There are significant unanswered questions regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton returning to the White House
Senator Clinton has not sufficiently answered legitimate questions about what Bill Clinton's role would be in a 2nd Clinton White House. We simply don't know what he would do or how he would conduct himself. We don't know if Bill Clinton would be a part of hiring and firing, regulatory policy, lobbying, law enforcement and whether he would be seen as "speaking for or as" the President of the United States. We don't have any indication of whether there's been legal preparation to answer questions about the role of an ex-President in the White House given the 22nd Amendment.
And there are a host of further legitimate and serious political questions that go beyond that specific lack of transparency about Bill Clinton's legal role in the executive branch.
Why should we return control of the Democratic Party to one political family? How can we be sure that the corruption, the lack of any "vital check" on the Bush Administration's conduct in the Executive Branch will not be replicated with the return of Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House?
Have Bill and Hillary Clinton answered tough questions about transparency regarding their finances and their donors? No. Have they answered tough questions about how they would staff their White House and prevent a "return to power" of selected friends over the interests of our party and our nation? No. Have they given any indication that their mode of operation will represent a change from how they conducted their affairs in the 1990s or post-presidency? No, in fact, quite the opposite.
What we do know is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are just as secretive, just as reliant on their political machine and their network of powerful friends as ever; and they are just as insistent on the same cast of political characters playing the same destructive politics of spin.
At some point the Democratic Party has the right and responsibility to say enough is enough."