January 17, 2008
Open Letter to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): What Exactly in the Clinton-Era '90s Did You Not Like? (Lanny Davis)
Dear Sen. Obama:
I admire your campaign theme that aims to look to the future, dedicated to real change, and to rising above partisan politics. The reason I am supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is that I believe she stands for all those things, too — but is more experienced than you and ready to be president from day one. Though I have doubts that you are as ready as she is, I certainly believe you are more ready than any Republican running.
But one thing you keep saying confuses me. As you campaign on the theme of change and looking to the future, I have heard you frequently say that you don't want the country to go "back to the '90s."
So my question is: What exactly about Bill Clinton's presidency in the '90s do you not want to go back to? Could you please be specific?
– Do you not want to go back to the days when Bill Clinton took billions of dollars of inherited deficits and converted them to $1 trillion of surplus?
– Or not want to return to the creation of 23 million new jobs and the most extended period of growth and prosperity in many, many years?
– Or not return to a time when America's relationships with the rest of the world were positive and inspiring — leading to peace in Ireland, the end of genocide in Bosnia and inspiration to the Third World for American values of human rights and democracy?
– Or not see the first Democratic president reelected to a second term since FDR; who had finally positioned the Democratic Party as competitive to win the presidency, winning over his two elections such "red states" as Georgia, Colorado, Montana, Tennessee, Arizona, New Mexico and Kentucky; and who transformed the Democratic Party from one that had lost five out of six presidential elections, mostly by landslide margins, to a mainstream party of the middle class that could compete for the presidency once again?
Most Democrats would love the next Democratic president to be as successful as Bill Clinton was. Do you agree? President Clinton's job approval rating when he left office in January 2001 was about 65 percent — one of the highest ratings for a second-term president since modern polling was invented. Is that what you don't want to go back to if you were elected as the next Democratic president?
I know you are referring to the "divisions" of the '90s that you don't want to relive, and there certainly were plenty of them. But do you blame Bill Clinton for the hyper-partisanship of the Gingrich-DeLay Congress? For the tens of millions of dollars spent by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigating a 20-year-old land deal, in which even Mr. Starr finally concluded after all that money and all those innuendo headlines that the Clintons were not responsible for any wrongdoing?
I hope you are not blaming the Clintons for the virtually entirely partisan House impeachment vote, resulting in Mr. Clinton's acquittal in the Senate — where even a Republican majority-controlled chamber could not muster a majority vote for conviction.
Yes, there was serious hyper-partisanship in the Congress in the '90s — mostly from the Republicans. But I assume you are not giving credence or blaming the Clintons, or specifically Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for that divisiveness? Or are you? If so, many Democrats would be disappointed to hear you say that explicitly.
I'm not saying all was perfect during the Clinton years. Sen. Clinton is the first to say many mistakes were made — for example, as she often says, she learned from her mistakes in the way she handled the national health insurance proposal. But Sen. Clinton understands and is committed to a campaign looking to the future, with the experience to make real change happen.
By the way, I was proud to be a Democrat seeing you, John Edwards and Sen. Clinton Wednesday night on the MSNBC Las Vegas debate. That high-level debate focused on the issues. This is what Democrats want. We also believe accurate information about each of your past records, statements and votes — and non-votes — is neither "negative" campaigning nor personal attacking. It helps voters make more informed decisions about each of you. Better now to air all facts about your records than let the Republicans use their attack and "Swift Boat" innuendo machine in the fall with just a few months till the general election.
Sincerely,
Lanny J. Davis
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 17 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
A real comedic statement. Both are better prepared than any Republican? What have they ever done? Tell me one thing they have accomplished anywhere. Give me a list of their leadership accomplishments in an executive capacity. It's bogus. Neither one of them or Edwards has that type of experience.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 17, 2008 @ 10:14 am
RR;
Look at what the Republican experience has brought us. Two wars, housing crash, dollar falling, an incompetent, drug and alcohol addict sitting in the oval office, republican corruption at every level, kinky congressmen and Senators, a debt that our great great great grandchildren will have to pay off, credit crunch, high fuel prices, lost of respect from around the world, a lost American City, more people without healthcare, homeless veterans, budget deficits a far as the eye can see and an economy that is about to tank. What part of the republican experience am I missing. You guys suck and a Democratic President is going to have to clean this up while you republican climb back under that rock that you came from. Next time you claim that your republicans have experience, it is only in fuc*ing up.
Comment by Mike Coleman — January 17, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Mr. Davis;
After reading you post, I was wondering, what are you drinking?
Comment by Mike Coleman — January 17, 2008 @ 10:48 am
I agree with you Mr Davis .They were good times but they were also stimulated by Bush 1's fiscal policies that were put in place before Clinton.Now we have a standard of fiscal insanity to resurrect ourselves above.The comparison is unfair.I am supporting Hillary because I think all around she is the best equipped to do the job we are interviewing for in our election but it sure is not going to be a throwback to her husbands opportunity receiving a healing economy from a sane president preceding her term.That is the flaw in the Clinton comparison here and for that matter the 2 Bush presidencies.Bush 1 also was a diplomat who had not destroyed our image prior to leaving.Hillary is also familiar to the world and has some standing to address that as well.Her knowledge serving on the armed services committee will be a leg up on that aspect of presidetial responsibilties so she is groomed well all around.
Comment by Linda M — January 17, 2008 @ 11:36 am
They things I do not like about the '90s are; nafta, cafta, MOST FAVORED NATION STATUS FOR CHINA, THE WTO, the missile tech given to China, the scandals, the slander of women by a supposed femininst, the use of the Black communtity to further ambition, the shame brought on the office of President, taking credit for a good econony that was Bush1's legacy, the gutting of the military and CIA to 'quote' balance the budget. That is the short list.
What I find fascinating is people who really believe that hillery has any experience other than 'PRESENT" -she could not vote on National Security Council because she had no security clearance, she has been an elected official less time than Obama, she has never taken on the feminist cause UNLESS it suits her cause- to the point of slandering bill's many paramour's,she has her supporters/surrogates bring union busting lawsuits when she does not get endorsements, she has not sponsored a signed bill in the Senate, nor does she chair a committee, she voted for Iraq with the Bushes.
I could go on but YOU DO GET MY DRIFT.
Comment by docb — January 17, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Excellant!! I'm also looking foward to another CLINTON cleaning up after a deranged bush. HIllary 08!!!!!
Comment by nathan Smith — January 17, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
She is not looking to the future for Americans –she is looking to the future power of herself…
Comment by docb — January 17, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
It's amazing that no one can tell us what experience these Democratic candidates have, they can only tell us what they don't like about our current administration. That shows what a vacuous lot these Democrats are fielding.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 17, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
I REMAIN confused. Who is seeking the democratic nomination:Bill or Hill? If media reports are accurate, Hill is seeking the nomination. I DO NOT understand how you are equating Bill's successes with Hill's POTENTIAL for success in the 21st century.
I DO NOT understand how Hill's so-called experience is SUPERIOR to either John Edwards or Barack Obama. According to The White House website (First Ladies), Hill began her "active role" in 1993, 7 years prior to her election to the US Senate. In essence,Hill's experience totals 15 years.
I DO NOT understand how Hill moved from being a GOLDWATER GIRL in 1964 to "love/respect" for MLK,murdered in 1968. When did Hill have her epiphany?
I DO NOT understand how you expect African-Americans to accept Hill's constant refrains about "false hope" to a people whose ONLY option remains hope. How else would we have survived "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and "still we rise".
Comment by dmjwhayes — January 17, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Mr. Robert Rosencrans, your first post had some merit as it did ask what credentials or accomplishments the Democratic front runners have. Your most recent post however:
"It’s amazing that no one can tell us what experience these Democratic candidates have, they can only tell us what they don’t like about our current administration. That shows what a vacuous lot these Democrats are fielding" shows that you are grasping and pretty much on your last leg of any relevant argument. I think the USA, along with most of the world, is rejoicing in the end of the present regime. Simply put, we liked what we had before Bush. If we can get back to that, great. Regardless(or, irregardless in Huckabee language), we don't want more of what we now have.
Comment by andy42302 — January 17, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Lanny,
I just wanted you to know that you're unrelenting support of Bill Clinton during throughout this campaign is doing a major disservice to the country imho. You are certainly smart, and know how to make a rhetorical point but I wasn't impressed with your overall demeanor - I listened to you take the majority of the talking time, cut people off more than Bill O'Reilly, and just be rude in general. That program was live on the air and when you decided to waste a minute complaining about not getting to talk I thought it was pretty low class of you. You didn't make for a very nice guest, and basically came across as a self serving asshole who's only happy to hear his own voice. It's people like you and Bill O'Reilly who are going to continue to drive this country into the ground. Your "words matter" speech really bothered me. If you basically agreed on Obamas intent then why make a big deal about the minute details to try and turn around what he said to mean something else. Cause from I gather Lanny, thats basically what you specialize in Lanny. Well great, use that skill cause you are good at it, but please do not continue to use it slandering Baracks character and his Presidency campaign. If you really care about the direction of the Country - then please reconsider what you're purpose is and what the consequences will be if you are successful in doing this. The Clintons are the past. Barack is the future. Do you want to bring back the past or forget about it and start over? We need a new start, and your slanderings are standing in the way of this Lanny. Please, I beg you, consider what you're doing here.
Comment by Dan Driesen — January 24, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
BTW, I was referring to your performance on the radio program ON POINT.
Comment by Dan Driesen — January 24, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Dear Lanny,
Next time you have lunch with Bill and Hillary, could you pass on a message?
Please thank the Clintons for me. For being so far-sighted back in the 90's. For reaching across party lines to pass some of the most sweeping deregulation of the banking industry in U.S. history. (See:1999 Financial Modernization Act. Many good provisions, many bad ones.)
Thank you so much, President Clinton, for this deregulation. Without it, I probably never would have been approved for this mortgage that I'm about to foreclose on.
Once again, Thank you.
Comment by Tara — January 25, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
I’m just but one voice… and have no affiliation with the Obama campaign, but please allow me to answer for Mr. Lanny Davis his question about the good ole Clinton years, which I personally was a strong supporter of the former President. The Author of a completed book I wrote beginning 6+ years ago and soon to be “Self-Published” titled “With One Black Voice… I Yell” … if you would please allow me to share a short excerpt from a chapter called “Sex Lies & Government Duck Tape”… that I believe answers your question about “What exactly about Bill Clinton's presidency in the nineties do you not want to go back to”?
… If you can remember where we were as a country the years, months and days before 9/11…we were fed by the media on a daily basis the disappearance of Chandra Levy and whether the Congressman, Tom Condon, had anything to do with her disappearance. Years before that we were witnessing the Presidency as an institution on the verge of being destroyed, as we know it, because of the ongoing hatred for the then President… Bill Clinton. It was as if they had gotten him mistaken with a character on General Hospital, by revealing his extra-marital affairs and the appointing a special prosecutor to investigate family scandals that were constantly force-fed to Americans on a daily bases. Members of the Republican Congress would give twenty seconds of “Lip Service” in support of the sanctity of Presidency… and then lecture about morality and catching the commander and chief lying on a civil deposition about sex and the drum roll to impeachment of the leader of the Free World. A Right wing conspiracy was a correct statement made by the then first lady and wife… Hillary Clinton, that fueled the fire of the media with a slow drip of revealing tidbits about Clinton’s extra-marital affairs and then the appointment of an independent prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, to investigate Whitewater, suicides and any other scandal possible was the icing on the cake for Conservatives.
The entire eight years of the Clinton Presidency was marred by continuous investigations that seem was criminal and treasonous especially when compared to the lack of oversight on the Bush administration by the Republican Congress in its duties and responsibility they swore to protect and uphold for all Americans. It shouldn’t matter who is in office… it is too dangerous a proposition to place the hatred or dislike for a sitting President above our “Love of Country”. We on the other hand should not confuse the word “Patriotism” or allow it to cloud our sense of right and wrong either though… it’s way too dangerous to the future of our democracy. (Excerpt from “Sex Lies & Government Duck Tape”)
Americans, and more specifically the Democratic Party, need to ask themselves the simple question… is this the time in our history to go back to the paralyzation that was endured for the whole eight years of the last Clinton presidency? The balance of right wing “Zealots” and their conservative movement are just about bankrupt and have exposed their fraud for all caring Americans to see.
Mr. Davis, a better question is whether this opportunity to make real change is but one more thing the “Spineless” Democratic Party screws up? We all applaud what the Clinton’s have done for this country and his stamp and legacy in history, a history that I believe will prove him to be one of the best presidents in my lifetime… but in my opinion the time is now to change the whole dynamic of politics & government and renew a new hope in America and the world that we are yet again a “Great” nation.
Comment by Cary Jeurould — January 28, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Look Hillary Clinton will be a fine President, and will be inheriting many, and I say many major messes from Shrub.Hillary could become one of our finest Presidents.
Obama has to be vetted and for some reason the Media does not really want to investigate the Rezko connection.
But they will do it and it may very well be to late, many of the States have voted and delegates already distributed, but Obama will be vetted by the Republicans come the fall. When they are through with Obama,the Democrats will have been swift boated again.
Actually I want to understand who I am voting for, and am resentful of our media and our Democratic Party for not doing their job! But he will be vetted and then the media will make honest McCain look like honest Abe!
Comment by diane b — February 7, 2008 @ 2:50 am
I've grown of supplicants, like Mr. Davis lauding the merits of the Clinton administration for IT'S THE STOCK MARKET, STUPID.
If presidents' could control the economy why wouldn't they? the truth is they can not and I do not give credit to Bill Clinton for a booming economy any more than I blame Herbert Hoover for the dismal economy that spawned the depression.
The market is where the roll of the dice comes in not in electing a president for when entering their first term they are all tyros except of course, for Hillary. For she has experience and if you don't believe this, just ask her for she was a co-president just like Edith Wilson and White House was just as secretive about it. And while Mrs Wilson was thrown in to the position due to the incapacitation of her husband Hillary and Bill planed their mutual presidency and now we are seeing part two of this plan emerge. I think it wonderful that these two were so forward thinking and have done much to realize this plan: but it doesn't have to be, and isn't, my plan. I don't believe Hillary's stories (fables?) about her experience as no records have been released to substantiate it and until I do my mantra will continue to be: Hillary's experience lies in lying.
Comment by james d granata — February 14, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
'Excellant!! I’m also looking foward to another CLINTON cleaning up after a deranged bush. HIllary 08!!!!!
Comment by nathan Smith — ' who obviously doesn't understand spell check.
But you won't have a Clinton doing the cleaning up, sir, you'll have a Rodham, and that will never do.
Comment by james d granata — February 14, 2008 @ 7:13 pm