The Clinton-Bush Legacy

Clearly, the Republican party is in trouble after eight disastrous years of George Bush. The Bush Administration has pursued policies which they believe will further their individual goals regardless of the long term effects on the health of the party as a whole. Now, the Republican presidential candidates find themselves in the unique position of being forced to embrace the unpopular policies of the Administration, distance themselves from the the Commander in Chief, and admitt that the American people want an immediate and drastic change of direction. A small group of radical self centered leaders have wreaked a measure of destruction on the Republican party that its enemies couldn't have accomplished in a hundred years.

Enter Bill and Hillary Clinton with their scorched earth primary campaign. They found themselves behind in a policy and issues driven campaign and decided to follow their instincts. The results are creating, or more accurately "have created" what will prove to be a radical realignment of the Black vote. Mis-judging Black voters to be similar to the white voters, they have embarked on an attack campaign of historic proportions against the first viable African American presidential candidate in U.S. history. Labeling this a miscalculation would be the equivalent of referring to a tidal wave as "moisture". The Clintons appear to believe that they can use character assassination, distortions, and outright lies to eviscerate a Black man of great dignity and integrity and that if they win, African American voters will forgive them and support the Democrats in the general election. These miscalculations will not only cost them dearly, but their party is in jeopardy of losing the African American vote for the foreseeable future. In growing circles within the Black community, the Clintons are as hated as the most right wing ideologues. The Democratic party is being viewed as an accomplice, either by commission or omission, and will pay a dear price in the long run.

The appearance is that the Clintons used the Black Community for votes and now have not only abandoned them, but turned into the virulent racists that they always were to achieve a political goal that they could not otherwise achieve. The Democratic party's refusal to condemn these tactics, rightly or wrongly, drags them into the same paradigm. This creates a racial fault line in the Democratic party which can't easily or quickly be repaired. Far better to be a far right wing enemy of the Black Community than to be a viewed as a cunning deceptive backstabber. In the upcoming elections, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, I predict that the Democrats will see the lowest percentage of Black votes in the modern era. Black voters will simply look for an alternative, or stay home.

Low Black turnout equals nationwide disaster for the Democratic party and that disaster will be well earned. The Clintons will do anything to achieve their goal, including destroy their own party.

George Bush has destroyed his party, how fitting that the Clintons should return the favor by following suit.

One Note Johnny

Reality Hits the Clinton Camp (and friends)

The Hillary Clinton political machine has spent the last year trying to convince the Nation that the Democratic primary race is over before the first vote is cast. Their "inevitability" strategy has worked quite well amongst their comrades in the media. The pundit round-table discussions on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox revolved around the various Republican primary candidates chances against Hillary in the general election. Barack Obama and John Edwards haven't been acknowledged as legitimate candidates, much less potential Democratic nominees. One has to wonder why three mainstream media outlets with overwhelmingly conservative right leaning on-air personalities would be so obliging to portray the image that the Clinton Camp wishes to create.

Regardless of the reason Hillary has had so much right wing cooperation with her inevitability strategy, the voters have thrown a major monkey wrench in her strategy. The latest polls show that Barack Obama is running four points ahead of Hillary, John Edwards is four points behind Her, and most importantly all candidates are within the margin of error. It is increasingly difficult for the Hillary people to argue that she has the Iowa race won when the polls show a three way tie. The pundits present the poll numbers to give the appearance that she has a significant lead in New Hampshire, but the reality is that approximately 50% of the voters are undecided. Hillary's 12 to 14 point lead seems much less impressive when we take into account that half the voters have yet to commit.

It has been obvious during the debates that Hillary has played to the pundits while Obama and Edwards have directed their remarks to the voters. Unfortunately for Hillary, her hawkish right wing foreign policy has been extremely successful in both endearing her to the conservative media and alienating her from the progressive democratic base.

A Poor Argument Against Impeachment

The question of impeachment is becoming a problem for the Democratic Congress. The Democratic base, a majority of independents, and a rising number of Republicans are unhappy over the failure of the Congressional Leadership to act decisively on this issue. The Democratic Leadership's argument against impeachment is universally accepted by the right wing corporate media and the right wing Democrats masquerading as progressives. Since the argument is so closely linked to the Clinton impeachment, I believe that a contextual comparison is the only method of reaching an objective conclusion about its credibility. Let's take a look at the argument and the numbers, then and now, which make the argument work...or not.

• The Republicans instituted impeachment procedures against President Clinton in 1998 and suffered a significant political backlash, the Democratic Leadership is wary of facing a similar backlash today should they impeach Bush and /or Chaney.
  

The Republican Congress instituted impeachment procedures against a president with a 63% approval rating in defiance of the an overwhelming majority of the American people. The predictable results were that President Clinton's approval rating increased 10% to 73%, a number which beat the highest approval rating Ronald Reagan ever had.

A CNN poll taken on September 25, 1998 revealed the following data:

Which of the following possible outcomes of the investigation of Bill Clinton would you most like to see happen?

No action         34%
Censure           29
Resignation       23
Impeachment       12

Take this online MSNBC poll and observe the results.

Still not convinced by the numbers? Time/CNN provides the clearest contextual comparison:

Currently

* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

* 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Clinton Impeachment)

* Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%

* Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%

Meanwhile President Bush's approval rating hovers around 30% and has for better part of the last year.

The polling numbers reveal no contextual basis for any legitimate argument that the political climate during the Clinton impeachment hearing procedures compares in any manner to the political climate today. In fact, the numbers reveal that the position of the American people towards both the President and the impeachment procedures are statistically the exact opposite.

Furthermore, the so called political backlash that the Democrats currently fear never happened. Two years after an extremely unpopular impeachment, the Republicans lost only one seat in the Senate and won the White House.

The Democrats are playing what they believe is a safe hand of inaction. Their logic is that the Republicans are so inept and out of touch with mainstream America that any controversial, or bold, action in Congress risks losses which otherwise will not happen. They have not taken into account that they may be held accountable by an angry public for a crime of omission, just as Bush and Chaney should be held liable for a crime of commission. In many legal instances, failing to act or report a crime creates complicity to the crime.

President Clinton's action's were clearly wrong, but it was the position of the American electorate that impeachment and removal from office was not warranted. This is clearly not the case with the Bush White house.

The issue of impeachment should be determined by the whether the evidence exists of a crime and whether the crime in question fits the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

If you still have any doubt whether the President and Vice President deliberately mislead Congress and the American people into war, watch this video.

Sadly, it appears that the Democratic Leadership prefers what they perceive to be the safety of inaction to the inherent risks of performing their constitutionally mandated duties to the American people.