Bill To Barry: Shut Up Whining—1990s Partisanship Was Worse!

It's fair to say these two needed to work on some bipartisan cooperation of their own. But at this point, Bill and Hillary don't need to worry about Barack Obama. Barry's sinking popularity just fuels nostalgia for Clinton-era prosperity. Of course, the problem for Hillary is that Bill was the guy credited (fairly or not) with enabling that golden (bubble) era. People mostly remember Hillary now (fairly or not) for Benghazi and being the drearily perennial first woman President in waiting.
This morning, in the NY Times, the preparation for Hillary Clinton’s coronation as Queen of America continues, as the Times runs an article explaining how Bill Clinton was such a better and more effective President than Barack Obama. As Clinton and his gang put it, partisanship was far worse in the 1990s (hey, they impeached Clinton—Obama not so far), and yet Bill got things done, like destroying welfare, with a highly partisan Republican Congress.

Back in 2008, so many dumbasses were blathering about how Barack Obama would end the partisan divide in Washington DC. The Republicans, we were told, were terrified of Barack Obama because he intended to compromise with them and work with them. How would their fear-and-hate mongering schemes work if America liked (or loved) the guy who was trying to get along with them?

As we know, that part of the political calculation was answered by the American people as they came to more and more despise the increasingly insane Republicans. But, since the GOP figured the way to defeat Obama’s kumbaya program was to just keep going further to the right, dragging the determined compromiser with them, eventually the American people started disliking Barack Obama also.

In fact, we saw a pretty good analysis of Obama’s problem with the Republicans, made by Paul Krugman in November, 2007, when he explained that because Obama wanted to appear “bipartisan”, and at the same time he was wanted to distance himself from Hillary Clinton on the Social Security question (i.e., whether it was heading towards a “crisis”), Obama had adopted the partisan Republican position:
“Why would [Obama], in effect, play along with this new round of scare-mongering and devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years? [i.e., the Democrats defeating Bush-GOP moves to gut Social Securuty] I don't believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times—and in this case, that turned him into a sucker. Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton—and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason ‘we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions’ is that ‘politics has become so bitter and partisan,’ joining in the attack on Senator Clinton's Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.”
As Krugman said, anybody who in 2008 really thought he was going to transcend partisanship, was being stupid, and was begging to be played for a sucker by his opponents. And that is just what happened to Barack Obama.

While Obama preached at people about “growing up”, something he assumed he had already done enough to be President, he was amazingly naive to think his opponents in Washington would just accept his victories at the ballot box as any obligation on their part to join with him and the Democrats to pull the nation back from the brink (or way past it) of fascist oligarchy.

Obama spelled out in one early 2008 debate how his bipartisan coalition (including “moderate” Republicans)* would come together to make big changes in America:
*—kind of like “moderate” Syrian rebels.
“I think that there are a whole host of Republicans, and certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who don't believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, don't believe what politicians say. And we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change.”
YAY!

Except, all the people Barack Obama was describing there, in 2008, by 2010 had joined something called the Tea Party, whose mission was to destroy Barack Obama’s presidency any way they could. Talk about completely misreading the situation.

Indeed, as time went on, and the American people discovered the extent of Democratic Party collusion with the Republicans on countless fascist policy initiatives, like the massive NSA infringement of the constitutional liberties of Americans, the assumption that the Dems were the better of two evils became more difficult to accept.

Weren’t, in fact, the two parties just a choice between corporatist swine in the DP and batshit-crazy corporatist swine in the RP?

As Americans watched the "recovery", and watched who was benefitting from it—just the rich and the corporations—and at the same time as Americans realized that Barack Obama was often doing more to aid and abet Republican schemes (like the amazingly stupid Sequester compromise), than he was to fight for the rights and betterment of most Americans, the perception that Obama's brand of maturity was just another name for cowardice became widespread, even among Democrats.

Now we have a situation, in the 2014 campaign, where when it comes time for struggling Democratic candidates to call upon somebody to come to their aid in their races and make the case for why Democratic policies are better than those of the GOP, DP candidates do not call upon President Obama. In fact, he is the last person they want around them. Instead, the call goes out to that lovable old creep, Bill Clinton, the guy you wouldn't want near your daughter but who just might be able to work with the GOP to carve out a tek-bubble boom.

As Hillary gets closer to running for President, and Obama's poll numbers continue to sink, expect the Democrats, and especially Bill Clinton, to push Barack Obama closer to the exit door. If the GOP wins the Senate, the Republican base will push their party to achieve two goals:

1. Overturn Obamacare.
2. Impeach Barack Obama

Neither one of those things is likely to happen. Obama will veto any move to dump Obamacare. And the GOP leaders are just fine continuing to keep an unpopular Democrat in the student-driver's seat in the White House. In fact, if anybody should really want Barack Obama to be impeached, or to resign for the good of the nation and his party, it would be Democrats.

Meanwhile, you have to wonder what it is like in Barack Obama's mind right now. The American people don't like him. The Democratic Party doesn't like him. His Obamaite supporters make new enemies every time they inform the American people they are not good enough or smart enough for Barry—or worse that they are too racist for him. Even if that is true, you need those racists to vote for Democrats in a few days. That galling fact must be eating away at BO. Certainly, along with other things, it is graying him really fast. 

Comments