Obama Vs. Clinton (Both Of 'Em)

An interesting thing happened Friday at the joint press conference held by President Obama and former President Clinton. After making his opening remarks and answering a couple of questions, Obama gave the floor to Clinton so he could answer a few queries as well. Then, after a reporter directed a question back to Obama, the current President quickly deferred his answer, made a comment about not wanting to keep the first lady waiting, and then ceded the entire presser to Clinton. And for a few brief moments, it was 1994 all over again.

Clearly in his element, POTUS 42 took to the spotlight like Elvis in Vegas, holding the reporters in the palm of his hand and charming their socks off. I dare say, he did a better job of explaining the Obama tax cut compromise than the guy who had just exited "stage left."

As skilled a communicator as Obama can be at times, no one breaks down complex policy decisions quite like William Jefferson Clinton. He's "The Natural" when it comes to politics.

I bring this up not just because it was a fascinating moment, but because after the announcement of the tax deal between the Obama Administration and Senate Republicans, there has been a relatively significant amount of Clinton nostalgia (Bill) and buyer's remorse (Hillary) among Democrats and progressives.

Some Democrats wish they could have Bill back, and many are wondering if they backed the wrong Democrat in '08.

So is this mini-wave of Clinton fetishizing warranted? Or, even accurate?

I would say clearly and heartily, no.

Now, please understand, as a lefty myself, I voted for President Clinton in '92 and '96 and have no regrets. I also would have supported Hillary against McCain without (much) reservation. That being said, the perspective that we would be better off with a Clinton instead of Obama only makes sense if you take the rosiest of backward views.

Of course that's not to say that the Clinton Presidency was unsuccessful. There are a number of worthy accomplishments that one can point to during his two terms.

Here are some of the unequivocally positive measures created by the Clinton Administration:

--The Family and Medical Leave act of 1993 which required large employers to grant unpaid leave to their workers--without the fear of job loss--in the case of a serious medical condition suffered by themselves or a family member.

--The Brady Bill of 1993 signed by President Clinton required a 5 day waiting period for purchasers of hand guns.

--The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 created Americorps which paid for tuition costs for recent college graduates in return for a term of service in an area of need (inner cities, education, etc.)

--The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) of 1997 which provided states with matching funds to cover the health care of children whose family income was modest, but above the level required to receive Medicare.

--The air strikes in Yugoslavia ordered by Clinton in 1999 helped end the reign of Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, and his policy of ethnic cleansing.

--Clinton also played an integral part in helping Northern Ireland reach a peace accord in 1999 (known as The Belfast Agreement) that largely put an end to the years upon years of violence in the region.

--Clinton left office in 2000 with a domestic surplus and a balanced budget.

Clinton also had some "mixed" successes during his eight years as well:

--The Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy was implemented in 1993 allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they didn't expose their sexuality. While this policy has remained highly controversial since it's creation, it has laid the groundwork for the possibility of open service by homosexuals.

--The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 was hailed as a success at the time, but critics of the agreement will point to the job losses in the domestic manufacturing sector and the ongoing outsourcing of American jobs as clear negatives.

--While many will credit Clinton with being a "good steward" of the economy (and that is largely true), his signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which was created during the depression to keep depositor banks and investment banks separate. If you want to understand where "Too big to fail" came from, then start here. Clinton's signature upon this bill set the table for the financial melt down of 2008 and necessitated the very unpopular bank bail outs.

--There was also the compromise with the Republican majority on Welfare Reform that many progressives absolutely despised. This is where the creation of the Clintonian term "Triangulation" came from.

And let's not forget, Clinton was impeached in 1998 under charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance of office for giving false testimony to the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater Land Deal investigation. To be clear, that investigation was a bit of a witch hunt that resulted in no finding of wrong doing regarding the actual land deal, but because of Clinton's illicit behavior and attempted cover up of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the sitting President's second term became about survival and not about progress. Clinton's eventual acquittal was perhaps the biggest success of his final years in office. A sad truth.

And what of Mrs. Clinton? While the political career of Hillary Clinton has largely been represented by being the spouse of a well known politician, she has certainly stepped out on her own in the last decade.

Beginning with her election as the junior Senator from New York in 2000, Mrs. Clinton has certainly forged her own path. While in the Senate, Clinton was able to move past her divisive public persona and became known as a real team player. As effective as she may have been, further investigation of her senate career reveals considerable negatives as well as positives.

Since the Senate was controlled by the right side of the aisle, and the sitting President was George W. Bush, Clinton's best votes were typically the ones she made against Republican initiatives.

Mrs. Clinton--quite rightly, I believe--voted against both major tax cut initiatives introduced by the Republican leadership--calling them fiscally irresponsible. She also voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it lacked sufficient environmental and labor standards. And she voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that prohibited same sex marriage.

As for items she was in favor of, those included the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, the Dream Act, and TARP.

All of the preceding for/against votes were quality positions taken by the Senator.

However, it's also important to mention two particular votes taken by Senator Clinton that were as wrong headed and anti-progressive as any Democrat could have made.

In 2001, Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of the Patriot Act that resulted from the terrorist attacks on 9/11. A law that resulted in unwarranted wire tapping of American citizens (including soldiers), and a general reduction in the freedom of privacy. This knee-jerk, fear based vote compromised our civil liberties as Americans, and has set a dangerous precedent.

The second unsavory vote was her support of the authorization of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. This measure allowed the United States to pre-emptively strike against a sovereign nation that did not attack us, was not involved in 9/11, and did not have weapons of mass destruction. This war devolved into a quagmire that we have only recently begun to remove ourselves from. The cost to this country measure in lives and treasure--not to mention our international standing--has been enormous.

While it is fair to say that both measures would have likely passed without her support, they are two votes that she would soon live to regret.

When Senator Clinton decided to run for President in 2008, she held every possible advantage a candidate could ask for. Name recognition? Check. Cash on hand? Check. Overwhelming polling differential over her adversaries? Check. A high level of experience? Check, again.

What she also had was the vulnerability of casting a vote in favor of the Iraq war. This didn't hurt her against the person who was originally considered her main adversary, John Edwards, who had voted for the same, but it did create an opening for a charismatic Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Obama had given a speech very early on during the lead up to the Iraq War that was a clear, full throated denunciation of the military action. This was his "in" with voters.

Coupled with his soaring rhetoric, appeal to minorities, fund raising ability, and just the sense that he was...different, the Obama campaign caught Clinton and her supporters flat footed.

What followed was one of the great, slow burning melt downs in modern campaign history. After losing the Iowa caucus, Clinton broke down in tears prior to the New Hampshire primary. One of her main advisers, Mark Penn, devised a plan to take her appeal to low-income whites as the African American vote began to move to Obama. This direction resulted in some extremely unpleasant race baiting by the Clinton campaign as well as the candidate herself, and even her husband (see South Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky). It got so uncomfortable that former Clinton advisor and current CNN analyst, David Gergen, made an on air plea for Clinton to reject such methods. There were staff shake ups and backroom drama. Mismanagement of funds and a sense that the candidate had lost control of her own campaign. She even went as far as to give a half-assed endorsement of Republican nominee John McCain's bona fides over her democratic challenger (she would later reverse herself).

Hell, she couldn't even admit that she had lost. Her continually divisive campaign kept going way past the point of mathematical delegate count relevance.

Now, I'm not saying that poor campaign management would result in the leader of said campaign being a poor President, but it sure as hell doesn't help.

So, that brings us to President Obama. What has he done to support my hypothesis?

--We can start with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that made it easier for workers to seek equal pay redress against offending employers.

--He not only reauthorized SCHIP in 2009, but expanded it to cover an additional four million children.

--He signed into law the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which expanded upon previous legislation to include crimes based on gender and sexual orientation.

--He ended the subsidizing of private banks in the administering of student loans, allowing a more streamlined process for students by cutting out the unnecessary middle man.

--Also in 2009, the President stepped in to save (or bail out) the struggling auto industry. While this effort was met with a chorus of boos, the result has been a major success. The big three automakers have begun to show profits, and are paying back their government loans with interest.

--In August of this year, the President began the orderly withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. While there is still much to be done to extricate ourselves from this folly, this does qualify as a promise kept.

--The President also negotiated a new START Treaty with Russia in 2010 that commits to further reducing nuclear arms and help with the prevention of loose nukes.

While START has yet to be ratified by congress, it is my belief that the Republicans in congress will come to their senses (yes, I'm a dreamer) and vote in favor of a treaty originally negotiated by their President Reagan.

Now of course there are things left undone. The President has not been able to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. DADT faces an uncertain repeal in congress. Immigration Reform is unlikely to pass anytime soon. CAP and Trade is effectively dead. And the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high. One could certainly argue that this President is too quick to compromise and doesn't get enough when he does.

Which brings us to the four most thorny accomplishments of Obama's half term, Health Care Reform, Financial Sector Reform, the Stimulus Bill, and the recent compromise on tax cuts.

In three of these four measures, most republicans were squarely against them and many Democrats and progressives feel that they all fell short.

While Health Care Reform was passed in 2009, the President never pushed for single payer, and the bill passed without as much as a public option. However, these criticisms ignore the political reality. There was never--and I mean NEVER--a chance for single payer. And thanks to members of the democratic caucus such as Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, there was never a filibuster proof majority for a public option either. But there are things that we did get. An end to coverage denial due to pre-existing conditions. A measure of control regarding the raising of insurance rates. The end of getting dropped by your carrier for getting sick (seems so obvious, doesn't it?). A closing of the Medicare "doughnut hole." And extended health care benefits to children and those with low incomes. It's not perfect, but it sure is better than what we had.

The Financial Reform Bill is largely criticized for not breaking up the banks and reinstituting the Glass-Stegall Act (which would have fixed Clinton's error). While that's true, the bill did create a Consumer Protection Agency, a Financial Stability Oversight Council, an Orderly Liquidation Authority, and numerous other regulations that banks weren't crazy about. Once again, better than what we had before.

Perhaps nothing has created more criticism on the left than the Obama Administration's tax cuts deal with congressional Republicans. The compromises includes two admittedly noxious pieces--an extension of the Bush era tax cuts for the rich, and a reduction of the estate tax for the wealthy. That's the bad. And it's pretty damn bad for sure. But that's not the whole deal. Despite having a weak hand due to congressional democrats dragging their feet until after the mid-terms to address this issue, the President got 13 months of unemployment benefits for the out of work. A payroll tax holiday. And a variety of measures that essentially create a "back door stimulus" for the economy. This last bit is particularly significant, as most democrats and progressives believed the original stimulus to be too small to fully address the financial crisis. Conservative estimates by a wide spectrum of economists have stated that they expect these steps to add 2.2 million jobs over the next two years and decrease unemployment by 1.5%. Lefties have been crying out for a second stimulus all year and now they got it. Even noted liberal critics of the Obama administration such as Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman have expressed a begrudging support of the compromise. Noted conservative David Brooks has done the same, and right wing Obama slammer, Charles Krauthammer thinks the Republicans absolutely got bamboozled.

Certainly, one could argue that this Obama vs. Clinton argument is largely an academic one. No one can really know how one person might perform in the shoes of another. But on health care, I think we have a pretty good idea.

In 1992, President Clinton's signature goal was to bring universal health care to the masses. When looking for a point person to craft this bill, he chose his wife, Hillary. There were several clear advantages the President had going into the debate. A Democratically controlled congress, general favorability among the public, and a far less intractable Republican opposition. And boy did they manage to screw the pooch. They were criticized by the left side of congress for being exclusionary in the crafting of the legislation. When the Republicans--led by Bob Dole--offered a compromise, it was dismissed out of hand. And in the end, they got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Less than zero.

17 long years had to pass before another President would have the courage to take up the issue. Like Clinton, he had a Democratically controlled congress and general public approval on the issue. Unlike Clinton, he had a completely obstructionist Republican opposition that made up lies (death panels), and went forth with the intention of making HCR "Obama's Waterloo." Still, the President persisted. He included congress in the writing of the bill, attempted to reach out (futilely) to Republicans, and ended up using the reconciliation process to pass the most sweeping health care reform legislation in a generation.

What we got in the end was a bill very similar to the Republican authored compromise in 1992. Is that great? No. But if the Clintons had swallowed hard and accepted some variation of that alternative in 1992, we would be much further along then we are now.

And to be honest, when you stack up Obama's two years against Clinton's eight, he's already ahead of the former President (at least legislatively). Sure, we may not know how all of these accomplishments will work out for several years to come. But what we do know, is that if you want something done, if you are seeking some true measure of forward progress, then Obama is your guy.

Sure, many democrats and particularly progressives will argue otherwise. But if not Obama, then who?

Who do you have that can get elected that would be better?

I will patiently await the generous sounds of crickets.