I have to take exception to the statement that the problem with the Clinton era was somehow the personalities of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I think the real problem was that they were not fully supported by the left and by members of their own party. In fact, in many ways they were not supported at all and were left totally on their own.

Remember how Molly Ivins famously declared the Clinton administration a 'failed presidency' in its very first month? And the left held no street demonstrations that I recall in support of the Clinton's health care initiative or even for Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays in the military. Democratic politicians were no better; they ran like hell from the Clinton initiatives (and still found themselves trounced by the Republican revolution of 1994).

As we all know by now, or should know by now, the Clintons were victims of a massive and unparalled smear operation by the right. Very few liberal intellectuals of the time spoke out against that smear operation, or even bothered to mention it. Many of them even joined in the frenzy--for instance, that fool, Christopher Hitchens.

IMO the Clintons 'triangulated' because they really had no choice. There was no support to be found on the left/liberal side, or from their own party, and thus they had to find their support in the center and right.

If the left really wants a better result from the next Democratic administration, then they had better be prepared to stand up and fully support the Democratic president in what he or she does. No more standing by waiting for the administration to fail, no more false cries of 'corruption,' no more being too pure to support an imperfect administration. And Democratic politicians as well need to stop looking out purely for their own hides.

nerdnam:

I have to take exception to the statement that the problem with the Clinton era was somehow the personalities of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I think the real problem was that they were not fully supported by the left and by members of their own party. In fact, in many ways they were not supported at all and were left totally on their own.

Absolutely. Additionally, the "Worst of the first Clinton era" was far better than the "Best of the second Bush era". Aside from the bitter politics you mention, those were 8 good years - especially bookended by 12 terrible years. Edwards and Obama do themselves and Democrats a disservice when they try to lump the Clinton presidency into the Bush years as the 'politics of the past'.

To blame bad policies of the Clintons on those who disagreed is laughable. They approved NAFTA, they went along with deregulation, they enabled the neo-cons of Bushes' presidency. Hillary's votes for the resolution authorizing Bushes' "blank check" is part of that legacy. We lost the majority in the Congress in 1994 because the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintons decided liberals were in the bag so they were free to move right and act tough to people like Sistah Soljah. Yeah, they get lots of money and support from the likes of Rupert Murdoch, but I can make some deductions from that alliance which are the opposite of any protestations that Hillary supports "change". Bill's philandering was grabbed by the conservatives and the corporate media- you don't attack them but those of us who thought the impeachment was a travesty. What are you doing in our party if you love the status quo that much?