To me, there's always been a mis-representation of the Clintons representing the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party. This is not true, and hasn't ever really been true. Bill Clinton is a former chair of the DLC, and was always the DLC's man.
To me, there's always been a mis-representation of the Clintons representing the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party. This is not true, and hasn't ever really been true. Bill Clinton is a former chair of the DLC, and was always the DLC's man.
Lets go back a bit. At the 1988 convention, where Bill Clinton made his 'memorable' (because of a combination of length and mass boredom) speech, he was speaking as a big-wig in the DLC. And the push that was behind him as one of the rising stars in the Democratic Party was coming because of the backing of the DLC. Remember, this was the year of Jesse Jackson's high-water mark as a Democratic candidate. Bill Clinton was the southern governor and DLC big-wig that was being pushed forward as an alternative rising star.
The Clintons were actually liberal during their first two years as Arkansas governor. They pushed a lot of liberal reforms. And promptly got defeated in their efforts at re-election.
They came back and re-won the Arkansas governor's office, but with a new real-politic. They were now tightly allied with the corporate and development and good-ol-boy interests in Arkansas. And this set the formula for all their winning campaigns ever since.
Basically, the Clinton's were always very pro-corporate. And very friendly and in-tune with the DLC's agenda and interests. What Bill Clinton, and to some extent Hillary, could do very well is that they could make wonderful speeches to the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party'. Bill Clinton could always make outstanding speeches on progressive themes. But the policies and legislation never matched those speeches.
A few brief examples. While Bill Clinton could make wonderful speeches to something like an AFL-CIO convention, it was Bill Clinton that pushed through passage of NAFTA and the GATT/WTO agreements. Republicans had wanted both for years before Clinton came to office, but didn't have a prayer of passing them. Also note that there really wasn't any reform of labor and organizing laws during Clinton's years. Yes, his picks for the NLRB were better than either Bush's, but its not like there were any major efforts to refrom labor law to make it easier to organize.
Clinton was also great about talking about the environment, but then cutting deals with corporations (like Pacific Lumber) that gave them pretty much what they wanted anyways. And for stuff like the environmental tack-ons to NAFTA that sounded ok on the surface but have proved to be worthless.
Same on race relations. I heard Bill Clinton make an outstanding speech one year at Ebeneezer Baptist Church on MLK day. But he would never do basic things like sign an executive order outlawing racial profiling.
And don't forget health care reform, which again sounded great on the surface, but which was basically a protection scheme to make sure that the profits of insurance companies and HMO's weren't harmed.
For a while in the Clinton years, Hillary played the role of trying to keep the liberal base happy while the Clinton's pursued their pro-corporate, DLC-inspired policies. I think this is where the myth that Hillary was the more liberal of the two comes from.
And basically, I feel the far right spewed out so much BS about how socialist the Clintons were that it appears that some of the Democrats are believing this. Either that or the Democrat Party has moved so incredibly far to the right that these center-right, pro-corporate, pro-DLC Clintons actually do look a bit liberal in comparison.
Since 2000, if you look at Hillary's record as a Senator, I don't think you'd feel she's very liberal based on it. I know the impression I have is that on almost every cause I think is important, she seems to keep voting with the Republicans. (wars, trade agreements, Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc).
This little rant was inspired by the article on CommonDreams about Hillary's call for unity at the DLC corporate schmoozefest. Given the Clinton's track record of being pro-DLC and DLC-sponsored and promoted, along with the fact that she gave this speech to the DLC schmoozefest without in anyway noting the many DLC efforts to attack everyone to their left, it seems a very reasonable inference to draw that Hillary was also attacking the left part of the party and basically calling for everyone to unite behind yet another DLC-sponsered attempt at the White House.
And not only do I disagree with almost all the policies such a candidate would espouse, but its also an effort that is almost certainly doomed to failure. It would be a repeat of the last two failed campaigns that spectacularly failed to connect with the American people. And given Hillary's negative baggage, if Hillary were the lead on the ticket, it would likely be an even bigger disaster than the last two efforts.