If we want to win in November, it won't be enough to offer the American people Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and expect to him or her to stand on his or her own.
It won't be enough to point out the fact that George W. Bush has been the worst president in American history.
We're also going to need to tell a story about the Democratic Party, and a key part of that story is going to be the Clinton years -- and how much better they were than the Bush years.
I made a simple chart with a few key stats to illustrate just how much better things were from 1993-2000 than they have been since.
Sure, this chart isn't perfectly comprehensive, nor do I mean to gloss over the fact that there were things undone, but the reality is that the following table probably understates the extent to which things were superior back then than they are now.
My point here isn't to anoint Bill or Hillary Clinton to sainthood. I'm sure we could rattle off a list of twenty things we'd have like to have been done differently.
In fact, as I've said before, I lean towards Barack Obama (although I'm an Edwards delegate here in Nevada).
My point is that the Clinton years present quite a clear contrast to the Bush years.
It's a contrast that works in our favor, and we need to embrace it, because when the election rolls around in November, we're going to need it.
::
I was struck by the Republican presidential debate last week, once again held at the Reagan Presidential Library.
They lionize that guy. To borrow some famous political words, it's the biggest fairy tale ever. But sometimes fairy tales are useful.
The problem the Republicans have is that George W. Bush killed their storyline. The last Republican presidency that the American people would agree went fairly well lasted from 1981-1988. Since then, we've had almost twelve years of rule from the Bush dynasty, and those twelve years have been pretty brutal years indeed.
Under the Bush family's reign, We've engaged in not one, not two, but three wars (or four, if you count GWOT as a separate conflict).
The economy under a Bush? Anemic.
No wonder the last thing the GOP wants to talk about is a Bush presidency. No wonder the Republicans seek to embrace a different legacy.
::
As they do, no matter what your feelings are towards Hillary, we must also remember that the story of the Clinton years will be our friend.
Not only would it be historically wrong, but it would be a huge political error for us to concede to the Republican narrative about the Clinton administration.
Yes, he was impeached, but it was for parsing words in relation to oral sex. It was a political witch hunt, conducted by a zealous prosecutor appointed by right wing federal judges.
It was an expression of the very Conservative Movement that gave us George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, Reagan and Bush I had Iran-Contra, and Bush II lied us into war, broke surveillance laws, and had so many other smaller scandals I can't count.
As far as whose administration was more scandalous -- it's not even close.
That's one contest a Bush could beat a Clinton in -- and by a landslide.
::
Elections are about the future, but as in all elections, voters will look to the past when making judgments about whats best for the future.
Regardless of whether we nominate Hillary or Obama, if this election is a referendum on whether the Democratic approach of the Clinton years is better than the Republican approach of the Bush years, we'll win hands down.
If we decide to make this election purely about the future, and allow John McCain to define himself without respect to the Bush years, and define ourselves without respect to the Clinton years, November will be a total crap shoot.
We've got to remember, we'll win this by running against John McBush.
We must embrace the successes of our past -- that's how we demonstrate that we are worthy of trust.
It's not enough to say yes we can -- we also must say, yes we did.