Warren, Clinton, and the Demo divide


Talk about a contrast.

Tonight was all about the two sides of the Democratic Party, the two visions of how the party should approach policy, two utterly divergent approaches to the world that can hardly even be called "wings" of one party. And yet, they both got rousing cheers -- and even the progressives were all hot about ol' Bill.

Okay -- the guy's a pro. He's one of the best off-the-cuff, unscripted public speakers in America, even if he doesn't know when he's done. He had all the right talking points, all the great ways to demolish everything that the Romney team has been saying. He can talk about the "real world" from experience, since for eight years he sorta ran it.

But let's remember -- this is the guy who threw millions off welfare (and now brags about it), who was responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street and the telecom industry, a guy who the financial world loved and whose policies were pretty close to what the mainstream of the Republican Party supported just a few years earlier.

I got to meet Clinton a few years ago at an alternative newsweekly convention in Little Rock, and I asked him why he didn't consider same-sex marriage a civil-rights issue. He ducked and said in essence that America wasn't ready for it.

And just before he took the stage, Elizabeth Warren -- who talks seriously about regulating big business, who wasn't afraid to say "corporations are not people" -- was on stage. She talked like a member of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, like someone who believes that too few have too much at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not odd to have a wide spectrum of opinion in a major political party (except that the GOP doesn't allow that any more). But it's startling to see two speakers who might as well come from different planets, not just different parties, sharing the podium -- and getting the same wild applause.

I get it -- it's all about the show. But it's also all about people forgetting what Clinton was about.


Should have asked Clinton why he thought that gays in the military WAS a civil rights issue that America was ready for or why he abandoned the bread and butter civil rights issues that America WAS ready for, economic protections from discrimination in housing and the workplace.

The answer was that the gay ATM, wealthier more conservative gay white men, demanded that the HRC and Democrats meet their narrow needs, military and marriage, first or else no money.

Having filed lawsuits for marriage in the late 1980s, those lawsuits ripened during Clinton's term and having sold out the country to NAFTA and lost Congress, Clinton folded with DOMA. That was because marriage was not a priority for most LGBT in the 1990s and was not supported by the general public.

If Warren is having a tough time making a go of it in Massachussets against Scott Brown and if the Democrats could not appeal to Wisconsinites, then the party is dying, it is just a matter of time before it collapses on the savannah.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 6:25 am

The contrast is that Clinton got elected as President twice, and Warren is going to lose her Senate race by a considerable margin, before she sinks back into obscurity. (How **is** Martha Coakley doing these days, anyway?)

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Clinton was elected once on a center left platform. He then passed NAFTA and his base stayed home in 1994 costing Clinton the House and Senate. No problem for Clinton, he just triangulated himself into a victory over the hapless Bob Dole and was paralyzed for his second term into passing welfare reform, repealing Glass Steagall and passing the CFMA, what could possibly have gone wrong with that?

Posted by marcos on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 7:28 am

He was in Indonesia visiting with our nice friend General Suharto and responded to a question posed by a reporter there. The triumphant House Speaker (-to be) Newt Gingrich had made a statement about how we needed prayer back in schools here, and Clinton was asked what he thought: he had nothing but positive noises to make about the idea.

Really, it *is* a scam. *Only* local politics matters -- now more than ever.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 10:33 am