Hopefully Obama will continue to point out what the first Clinton Administration did on "day one" and in the first 100 days, and the first year to achieve those stunning losses. HRC was there on "day one" then when the Administration decided to take on the "don't ask/don't tell" policy on as one of the most pressing issues of the day.

Before we knew it we had the "Contract for America" and the "government shut-down" and the evening news hour filled with Newt's legislative war coverage. The Democrats could only take cover and lob the occasional grenade; the progressive legislative agenda was in a body bag in the Potomac...with healthcare reform inside.

That's why electing a consensus-builder and a movement-builder like Obama is a good idea. We, America, might actually get something done.

You could also make a case that the example of Clinton shows just how little quarter the GOP will give to any Democratic president, even one who's consciously presenting himself as "The Man From Hope," the choice of a new generation, or the embodiment of the Third Way.

That's a lesson Obama needs to keep in mind, too. Republicans aren't going to let Pres. Obama have a "working majority," either, not without a scorched-earth battle.

With friends like these, and idiots like Michael A. (Who from past posts probably wasn't even old enough to vote, maybe not even today). Obama wants to rewrite history, destroy the Democratic party using Republican talking points and propaganda. His campaign of hope is on par with Bush's compasionate conservatism. This is not a winning candidate, definitely not one of substance. Get you F'n heads out of the sand! You folks are so desparate for your 'change' that you want to believe anything. What you will instead do is give us McCain on a silver platter this fall. (Which in the balance, as someone old enough to have voted since the 80s, will get a yawn and 'Oh well, in 2012 we can again maybe look for a real candidate.' Heck the whole recent history of the Democratic party, except for 2-term Clinton, has been picking losers--Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern... (Have any of you, obviously too young to remember Clinton, folks ever read history? Why was Clinton so hated? Well, how about because he opposed Vietnam and avoided service, he started out his administration by taking an new look at homosexuals in the military, he took a stab at fixing health care, he turned around our national debt and unlike any other president in any of our lifetimes, left office with a surplus, and much more. All you folks instead remember is the Republican-inspired hate.)

I also think in the end you'll see a lot of independents and traditional democrats opting for McCain over Obama. He may be a Republican, but he is a moderate, he is a military war hero, he is able to govern and compromise, and he doesn't count slumlords as 20+ year personal friends and benefactors. And, very much unlike Obama, he is ready to govern with substance on day one. But, sorry, he doesn't have a pretty face.)

Matt,

Take a breath. Obama didn't run over Buddy the black lab. He merely pointed out Bill's record as a party builder. Faur game as we contemplate Clinton 2.0.

Michael A,

You really come across as a one-track, pathetic and shallow idiot. Do you get paid for each referral you regularly make to your Web site?

If I might suggest, why don't you reread my post and the other, mostly thoughtful posts in this and other threads. Then, once you see the substance and depth of the conversations, why don't you take some time off, go grow up, and return with a post when you have something meaningful and intelligent to say?

Barack Obama is absolutely right. The 90's are looking pretty good in retrospect, and Bill Clinton did some good things, but his administration was a disaster for the Democratic Party, if you go by the results. Two years after he took office, Democrats all across the country were absolutely crushed by the Republicans. And if Hillary Clinton is going to run on Bill Clinton's record, you must include that in the calculation.

Any Democratic politician who is not in a solidly Democratic district must be terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton on the ticket in November. She is popular among the Democratic base, but definitely NOT with part-time Democrats, to say nothing of Independents and Republicans. And her nomination would ensure a HUGE turnout of Republican voters in November, just to vote against her. Maybe she could get herself elected. After all, Bill Clinton got himself re-elected, but it was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Obama can't say that, but I can. And what Obama is really saying is also true. He has - by far - the best chance of getting a huge working majority in Congress, since people LIKE him and because he can turn out Democratic voters like crazy. Presidents don't rule in a vacuum. They need a strong working majority in Congress, too. Do we WANT to lose? Or do we want to take advantage of this enthusiasm?

PS. I remember how disgusted I was in 1993 with Bill Clinton's timid, slow, secretive approach, which completely wasted the new president's traditional 'honeymoon.' He won the election, and he could claim a mandate (far more than Bush ever could), and he largely wasted it! If he'd shown some real leadership - even half of the leadership Barack Obama demonstrates - we might not have been in this fix ever since.

Damack: Thank you for your civil response.

TheraP: The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's supporters will move, en masse, into the Obama camp if Obama takes the primaries. I don't think the conventional wisdom is correct. I don't think anyone is being candid on the record about this issue (with the possible exception of M. Obama, who has indicated her reluctance to support Hillary is she becomes the party's nominee).

This anecdote is telling:
“I voted for Obama, but it was mostly an anti-Hillary vote,” said Bill Duffy, a police officer who was picking up his children from a parochial school in the northwest Bronx. “I mean, Obama’s got some good things about him, but the experience is a question. So I might end up with McCain.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/nyregion/09about.html?_r=1&em&ex=1202706000&en=eb7aeb297f04a585&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

It is interesting that Obama is using this now, but there is little doubt among Dem's that remember 94 that he is correct. I was working on a Dem congressional campaign in 1994. That election night was the worst in modern history for Dems. We lost Mario Cuomo, Ann Richards , etc. and gained the Contract on America.
Inside our campaign and everyone I knew blamed it on the Clinton administration. The first two years of that administration was the most progressive, but managerially and politically, they really damaged the Dem majority.

Of course, Bill went on to embrace the Rep's because he had no choice. His triangulation on domestic policy and better management of world affairs ended up giving him good ratings.

the reason Bill Clinton lost the congress in 1994 was because he raised taxes. The republicans , having no policy other than cutting taxes, pounced on this as a campaign issue and rode it into control of congress. It is generally agreed the increase of revenue was what allowed him to reach a balanced budget. The elder Bush basically did the same thing, alienating his own party. It was the probable reason Bush lost to Clinton in 1992.
To criticize Clinton for an act of political courage simply demonstrates how uninfomed the Obamites are.

some of us liked the 90's, unprecedented economy, safer streets, poverty down and peaceful times ..

Republican majorities, impeachment, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Harry and Louise, Monica Lewinsky, and the election of George Bush.

Bill Clinton was, and is, a talented politician. He had pretty short coattails, when all is said and done, and no matter how fab the 90s were, and how wonderful people may thing he was, this election isn't just about the presidency. Hillary = catnip for the Republicans. Bill's coattails will look mighty long by comparison.

Matthew:

I don't know if you saw today's New York Times, but Paul Krugman raises the same concern that you have noted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?em&ex=1202878800&en=9a6981c0dc78aaa8&ei=5087

Obama fails to recall that the country was riding the conservative wave in the early '90s. Bill only got elected because Perot took votes from GHWB. Even the fabled Clinton triangulating could not forestall the Repugs taking control of Congress in '94. It was not a party-building time for the Dems - they were barely holding on for dear life. It was not until recently that the country has finally seen that Republicans do not know how to govern - and now, after seeing the Dem congress in action, they are not so sure about them either.

The way to build the party is from the ground up, not the top down. I applaud Obama if he is indeed doing that and not just building a cult of personality around himself. By the way, if he IS doing that, the party he is building should be able to get Hillary elected and keep congresss as well.

The fundemental argument of the Obama campaign is that an opportunity to break that paradigm is within reach. The Reagan coalition is crumbling, many Republicans and most Bush voting independents are heartsick at what they did to the country and the world by submitting to the counsel of fear in 2002 and 2004, and a strong majority of the voters are sick to death of the ceaseless, pointless food fight.

TCFKANCS, well put. The worst thing we can do as a party right now is to give the Republicans a partisan fight behind which to rally. Let them splinter upon the ashes of Bush.

PS What happened to "NCSteve"?

Obama sure doesn't sound like he wants to unite the Democratic Party, with his bashing of Bill Clinton. What's interesting, if Bill were to defend himself, the media would jump up and down and go nuts.

I'm really fearful if Obama is the nominee. Let's look at the current coalition of voters that each candidate has:

Obama:
- african-americans
- college-educated, affluent liberals
- young voters
- independents

Hillary:
- women
- lower income, blue-collar working people (or the so-called Reagan Democrats)
- Latinos, asians

The problem Obama faces in a general election is keeping the Reagan Democrats and Latinos with the Democrats, and so far he's shown no ability to connect with these voters. This is why Hillary has been consistently winning the big states. I'm not saying that he couldn't get young voters to turn out for him, but they are historically unreliable. Independents are a wild card. Nobody knows if independents voting for him now would stay with the Democrats in the Fall.

And please folks, don't believe the Republican talking points: that Hillary is the person who would unite and energize them. I truly believe the opponent they really want is the more untested Obama. When the Republican attack machine gets done with him, he will be a much different candidate in November.

'Obama's real point was that Bill's presidency shows that her both her premise and her conclusion are flawed.'

Pffff

If Obama wins the presidency...

I anticipate apologies all around when the Blue Dogs nuke all his bills.

Which they will.

Either Obama knows this and is simply blowing smoke to win the nomination, or he doesn't. Which would be an even bigger problem.

We shall see.

Yeah... the fact that it was a bipartisan effort to turn an entire branch of government into a full-time Clinton investigation, the rise of Drudge, talk radio, conservative think tanks, and the OJ Simpson trial mindest on cable had nothing to do with Dem losses. Nor the fact that Republicans blocked everything Dems were trying to do, as they are today, to make Dems seem ineffective, nor taking the high road in reinstating the independent prosecutor statute, nor the Dems in Congress's unshakeable belief they could compromise with a group who saw anything short of your total irradication as an unpatriotic sin. Nor the fact that every Dem was so open-minded, they automatically assumed Clinton was guilty of whatever they charged him with, and the prevailing wisdom that to suggest people accusing someone of scandal might have political motivations was blind and naive support for the accused. Nor the fact that after 25 years of Republican Administrations, with a brief Carter intermission, the Washington elite felt like some Bubbah had crashed the country club. Nor the animosities for "payback" over Nixon, or an MSM terrified of appearing liberal. Nor making the tough vote to raise taxes and cut spending that gave us our surpluses. Nothing to do with it.

What lost Congress was the fact that Republicans hate us, and they couldn't possibly hate us unless they have a very good reason to do so.

I'll tell you the reason: we're not them.

Yeah... the fact that it was a bipartisan effort to turn an entire branch of government into a full-time Clinton investigation, the rise of Drudge, talk radio, conservative think tanks, and the OJ Simpson trial mindest on cable had nothing to do with Dem losses. Nor the fact that Republicans blocked everything Dems were trying to do, as they are today, to make Dems seem ineffective, nor taking the high road in reinstating the independent prosecutor statute, nor the Dems in Congress's unshakeable belief they could compromise with a group who saw anything short of your total irradication as an unpatriotic sin. Nor the fact that every Dem was so open-minded, they automatically assumed Clinton was guilty of whatever they charged him with, and the prevailing wisdom that to suggest people accusing someone of scandal might have political motivations was blind and naive support for the accused. Nor the fact that after 25 years of Republican Administrations, with a brief Carter intermission, the Washington elite felt like some Bubbah had crashed the country club. Nor the animosities for "payback" over Nixon, or an MSM terrified of appearing liberal. Nor making the tough vote to raise taxes and cut spending that gave us our surpluses. Nothing to do with it.

What lost Congress was the fact that Republicans hate us, and they couldn't possibly hate us unless they have a very good reason to do so.

I'll tell you the reason: we're not them.

Independent Ben says

And please folks, don't believe the Republican talking points: that Hillary is the person who would unite and energize them. I truly believe the opponent they really want is the more untested Obama. When the Republican attack machine gets done with him, he will be a much different candidate in November.

If I hear this one more time, I might lose it and start spewing personal attacks like all the hillbots and obamaniacs. Everyone seems to spout it as if were some little known yet very obvious fact, instead of the oldest and most common anti-Obama line relied on by the most self-righteous Clinton supporters without a shred of evidence to back it up. When I was canvassing for Obama, an angry, crazy woman would not stop lecturing me about she liked Obama better but the evil Republicans were going to chew him up.

1) Unless you're in on secret meetings between Limbaugh and Coulter, you don't know what Republicans "really want" so stop pretending that you do. (I, in turn, will not pretend that I do either).

2) I don't care which candidate Limbaugh and Coulter thinks can they can beat in any case. Those people are idiots. I don't listen to their inane opinions on any other matter, so why should I give a flying f-ck about their election analysis.

3) If Obama has proven anything in this primary so far, it's that he's made of teflon. Despite a formidable oppo research team, the Clinton campaign hasn't been able to make anything stick. When Bill Clinton, one of the best Democratic campaigners in recent history, when after Obama, he got his big ass handed to him, and we haven't heard a squeak from the guy since. Now the Republicans will certainly go after Obama the way no one has before, but that is true for any candidate, not excluding one Hillary Clinton.

4) I fail to understand why the dubious distinction of being crapped on by more Republicans than any other living Democrat is an election attribute. Hillary Clinton's big moment in the national spotlight was her original health care clan, during which she allowed herself to be smeared so completely by the Republicans that the measure failed abjectly, and the Administration removed her from high profile initiatives for the remainder of the presidency. Since running for Senator, she hasn't faced the Republican attack machine in all its glory. As nominee, she would get it much harder than she has ever received it before, and though everyone says that she has learned from her mistakes, know one can tell me exactly what she learned from her mistakes.

Look, if you can give me a well-reasoned explanation for exactly what Republicans are going to do to poor, pathetic Obama that the fierce warrior-queen Clinton can easily smash with her incredible experience as taking Republic shit, I welcome the discussion. But please don't spout it at me anymore as if it were the most obvious thing in the world.

Like most politicians, Obama is full of crap if it means power can be taken. As someone who remembers the 1994 election, it was about the public perception of the DEMOCRATS being as corrupt THEN as the REPUBLICANS are NOW.

In the late 1980's and early 1990's scandal after scandal rocked the Democrats, culminating in the House Banking Scandal that lead, directly or indirectly, to 77 Congressmen (mostly Democrats) losing their seats. And while there was quite a bit of time in between, there was the ABSCAM scandal in the late 1970's where a lot of other Democrats were tarred and feathered and that perception of corruption became overwhelming when the firebrand Newt Gingrich comes in with his "CLEAN GOVERNEMNT" platform.

BOOM, out go the Democrats as people were tired of the corruption.

Sadly, four our Government, the Democrats aren't nearly as good at exploiting scandal as Gingrich and the Republicans were in the 1990s. Because Abramoff, Cunningham, etc., should have netted a hell of a lot more seats.

So many of these postings claim that Obama is out of bounds for pointing out the flaws of the Clinton presidency, but I think it's only fair. Hillary is using those years as a big chunk of her "Day One" experience, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to in turn question the successes (or lack of) in the 90's. I would also point out that if roles were reversed, Hillary wouldn't be just pointing out policy limitations or election statistics. She'd "go the whole hog" and start attacking on the big scandals of the 90's: Marc Rich, TravelGate, FileGate, Lewinsky and Co., cattle futures, Lincoln bedroom visits the whole shebang. I think Obama is showing un-Clinton restraint by keeping the subject focused on a refutation of the resume she keeps bringing up. Honestly, I really admire him for it.

Actually, I believe Bill Clinton did NOT have a mandate in 1993. While he won a majority of electoral votes, he won a plurality, not a majority, of the popular vote.

Which perhaps is why he did not storm into Washington and say, "I have political capital, and I'm gonna spend it," like other presidents we know (and thankfully, will soon be rid of).

Obama's just saying what's obvious. That doesn't mean Clinton wasn't a much better President than W (unless you are Osama bin Laden, then the GWB administration has been a recruiting dream). Hillary is running in large part on her experience as First Lady and the accomplishments of the 1990s, which include turning a deficit into a surplus and the like.

It's fair game for Obama, however, to question why the D's lost seats in Congress during the Clinton Presidency. I think it's because Clinton was too much out for himself and unwilling to be bold. In fairness, it's also because Tom Foley and most of the D Congressional leadership was ethically challenged, and because Newt Gingrich did express bold (though misguided) leadership with the Contract with/on America. It was also because Clinton had learning pains, especially the first two years. But Clinton's DLC leanings are not the thing to lead a party to great accomplishments - it reminds me of the tepid Pelosi/Reid Congressional leadership we have now.

It's too bad there's so much nastiness between some on this blog - I support Obama, but I'll happily support Clinton if she's the nominee. The question that Obama raises is a critical one for the D's - do we want a Presidency like Bill Clinton, very competent but very cautious, not one to rouse the public and energize the electorate? Or Obama's, which I think would be bolder, but is unclear how effective he'd be at getting his policies passed into law.

I think it is fair for Obama to go on the offensive regarding the bipartisan progress (or lack thereof)in the Clinton administration. Stating a fact that Democrats lost ground under his watch is certainly fair because it is true. Bill went for Obama's jugalar. I think that when Bill decided to shed that mantle of elder statesman and move onto attack dog he opened himself up for criticism and put himself directly into the fray. If he can dish it, he better be willing to take it. Democrats have to be honest about the successes and failures of their candidates so that they can LEARN from them as Obama is clearly trying to do. He is pointing out the we should learn from Clinton's blunders as much as we should praise his accomplishments.