I Attempt To Jog Paul Krugman's Memory

Paul Krugman, in yet another Obama-basher, tells us why Clinton's attempt at bi-partisanship failed in 1993:

Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?

Geez, Jerry Falwell and the Wall Street Journal editors were against him!  How did Clinton contain his surprise and find the courage to go on?

Well.  As to the seemingly rhetorical question of whether everyone has forgotten what happened after the 1992 election, it seems that Paul Krugman has.  But I am here to help!  Let's crack open the Times archives for some insight into Clinton's early travail's:

1.  Zoe Baird.  Oops, the nominee for Attorney General forgot to pay her nanny taxes.  So did the follow-up nominee, Kimba Wood; eventually, Bil nominates the third most qualified Democratic woman, Janet Reno, who burns dozens of people to death at Waco.  Let's hear from the bitter partisans at the NY Times about Ms. Baird:

Ms. Baird and the Clinton staff said there were mitigating circumstances and an attempt to follow proper procedures that made Ms. Baird's conduct acceptable. If so, now is the time to make that case, convincingly and rigorously.

After 12 years of suffering with attorneys general who were insensitive to civil rights and often to legal ethics, this country needs the assurance that with a new President who has pledged that his government will be better, the Justice Department will be in the hands of someone with unimpeachable standards.

2.  Gays in the military.  Tom Friedman, reporter, provided lots of background; here is coverage from Adam (Not Yet Big Time) Clymer:

Congressional resistance to President Clinton's promise to let homosexuals serve in the military broke into open revolt today, threatening to derail Democratic plans for quick passage of family-leave and health legislation.

Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the minority leader, said Republicans would offer an amendment to affirm the existing ban on homosexuals in the armed forces, which has always been a matter of Pentagon directive rather than statute. He said the amendment would be added to the first bill the Democrats brought up.

Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the majority leader, said the amendment was likely to pass if Democrats like Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia remained opposed to changing the military's policy against gay men and women in the service.

3.  The Disappearing Middle Class Tax Cut:  A spin classic:

In selling his economic plan, President Clinton is gambling that voters never took seriously his campaign promise to lower the tax burden of the middle class and will respond favorably to an aggressive pitch based on equal measures of hope, fear and class revenge.

After months of polling and research, Mr. Clinton's top political advisers say they are convinced that middle-class voters will support higher taxes. The advisers say the voters will see the new taxes as the price of great improvements in Government service and as inflicting a just punishment on the rich who profited during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

...

"Voters never believed in the middle-class tax cut, because they have never seen anyone get a tax cut," said Mr. Clinton's chief poll taker, Stanley Greenberg. "They always believed their taxes would go up whether Bill Clinton became President or George Bush was President.

"They voted for Bill Clinton because they believed he was going to submit a program to change the direction of the country, to improve the economy and to create jobs. They will be mad as hell if their taxes go up and there's no genuine commitment to change. But if there is, they will be willing to contribute."

"It is critical," Mr. Greenberg said, that the rich be seen as punished most by Mr. Clinton's tax increases.

I love that spin - The middle class suckers always knew we were lying, and anyway, we're going to pitch this as punishing the rich.  But don't call it class warfare!

Well, that is a flavor of Clinton's early stumbles- for more, the NY Times editors looked  back on Clinton's first hundred days:

There have also been many missteps, beginning with his snakebit search for an attorney general and continuing on through the bungled sales job on his stimulus package. One result has been a flurry of articles bemoaning a lack of focus in the White House and a general dulling of the sharp sense of purpose outlined in Mr. Clinton's campaign.

...

Mr. Clinton won the election in part because he focused on one message ("It's the economy, stupid"), despite his policy-wonk tendency to move in a thousand directions at once. It's still early, and a hundred days really don't mean all that much, but one lesson he can learn from his slump in Washington and at the polls is not to confuse motion with progress.

And Tom Friedman looked back at the end of May 1993:

During the Presidential campaign, Mr. Clinton was hailed by friend and foe as a rare, natural politician who would never lose the populist touch. But now the biggest question consuming Washington, and particularly Democrats, is this: How could such a political thoroughbred seem to keep stumbling out of the starting gate in a race for which he seemed to have been bred?

From the first week of the new Administration, Clinton supporters have been waiting for this young White House to turn a corner and build some consistent momentum toward its main objective of healing the economy.

After the flap over homosexuals in the military dominated the first two weeks, officials said they would turn the corner. After the flap over the abortive nomination of Zoe Baird as Attorney General, officials said they would turn the corner. After the failure of Mr. Clinton's stimulus package, officials said there would be a little shake-up of the White House staff, but now they would really turn the corner.

But after last week's White House news was dominated by the President's pricey haircut, a revolt among Democrats on taxes, more groping for a workable policy on Bosnia and the messy dismissal of the White House travel office amid accusations of cronyism, many Democratic supporters of Mr. Clinton are beginning to whisper the previously unwhisperable: What if this White House never turns the corner? What if the real problem is not focus, or staff, or organizational charts, but somehow the President himself?

Ahh, well.  George Stepanopolous wrote in his White House memoir "All Too Human" that the real reason the press hostility towards the Clintons was much more prosaic - the incoming Administration restricted the space available to the White House press corps.  From the Times:

SETTLING IN: The Media; Outdoing Bush, President Keeps the Press at Bay

...In another break from decades of custom, Clinton officials have barred reporters from the area behind the press briefing room that holds the offices of Mr. Stephanopoulos and the press secretary, Dee Dee Myers. This decision brought tense exchanges between Mr. Stephanopoulos and the White House press corps at his first briefing this week. The public could witness the exchanges because, in another departure from past practice, Clinton officials have opened the daily briefings to television cameras.

Now, I am not going to pretend that Republicans simply tossed rose petals at Clinton during his first months in office.  However, a lot of his problems were self-inflicted, so ti pretend, as Krugman would like to, that Cinton's early problems were all due to Evil Republicans is absurd.

But let's press on with Krugman for a moment:

So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

Well, so what? Does he seriously think it was the only the wild charges leveled by the Wall Street Journal that gave Clinton so many problems?  Hmm, does he also imagine it was Michael Moore's films that ruined the Bush Administration?  In the case of Bush I am quite confident Krugman believes there were fundamental problems of mis-management; is he able to entertain the notion that the early days of Clinton I were also chaotic?

More Krugman:

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Time will tell, but we have seen the real Clintons in the last week in South Carolina - they will bring the nasty as quickly as anyone, and won't limit themselves to Republican targets.  President Hillary's honeymoon will be over before she finishes taking the oath; for a lot of obvious reasons a significant portion of the country (and media) will be committed to seeing her fail from Minute One.

But President Obama?  Of course there will be some unpleasantness - that would be true even if we elected George Washington or Elvis Presley - but Obama really does not bring the baggage or demeanor of the Clintons.  I think it is highly likely that he would get a reasonable opportunity work his magic in Washington.  Folks hoping to avoid all unpleasantness had probably better avoid politics (and stick with rooting for the Pats); folks hoping to dramatically improve the tone in Washington have a good chance of being pleased with a President Obama but no chance of seeing an improvement under President Hillary.

So if you have enjoyed the political theatre of the last 15 years, Hillary is an excellent choice.  And since Paul Krugman never disagrees with someone without demonizing them, I can see why she is his choice.

Comments

[Neo]

You left off Craig Livingstone and the Travel Office.

[Clarice]

Very impressive take down, TM.

[Alan Gunn]

Kimba Wood didn't fail to pay taxes or do anything else illegal. Her problem was that one of her former employees had been an illegal alien (when employing them was legal) and the administration feared, perhaps rightly, that the public wouldn't be able to distinguish that case from those involving illegal behavior by the employer. She would probably have been a much better AG than Janet Reno.

[Rick Ballard]

"She would probably have been a much better AG than Janet Reno."

So would Lucretia Borgia, who never killed indiscriminately.

[Rich Berger]

Eh, Tom, aren't you being a little harsh? Consider PK's loyal readers who treat his pronouncements like the word of God. If they suspected that not every word he writes is true, what a terrible burden they would have to bear. They would have to weigh his words against other sources and actually decide what was true and what was not. Do you really want to take up so much of their valuable time?

[Clarice]

Chris Hitchens reminds us of the many times in the past the Clintons have used racial politics for their own advancement, and concludes:

[quote]

Many of these same people do not like it now that they see similar two-faced tactics being employed against "one of their own." Well, tough. And many of the most prominent and eloquent black columnists—Bob Herbert, Colbert King, Eugene Robinson—are also acting shocked. It's a bit late. I have to say that Bob Herbert shocked even me by quoting Andrew Young, who said that his pal Clinton was "every bit as black as Barack" because he'd screwed more black chicks. How is Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton, supposed to feel on hearing that little endorsement? One gets the impression, though, at least from the wife, that anything is OK as long as it works, or even has a chance of working. When Toni Morrison described Clinton as "black" on the basis of his promiscuity and dysfunction and uncertainty about his parentage, she did more than cater to the white racist impression of the African-American male. She tapped into the sort of self-hatred that is evidently more common than we might choose to think. Say what you will about Sen. Obama (and I say that he's got much more charisma than guts), he is miles above this sort of squalor and has decent manners. Say what you will about the Clintons, you cannot acquit them of having played the race card several times in both directions and of having done so in the most vulgar and unscrupulous fashion. Anyone who thinks that this equals "change" is a fool, and an easily fooled fool at that.[/quote]

http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/nav/tap3/

As for Krugman--Instapundit cites to some poor guy who actually went thru all of PK's columns to show how wrong he's consistently been.
Perhaps there's a volunteer who'd care to document Andrew Sullivans many mood swings?

[MayBee]

From TM's link at #3:

To this end, the campaign will play off voters' fears that the nation has reached a crisis point, which, unaddressed, could lead to disaster.

"What I'm trying to get people to focus on is the thought: If you don't do this now, think of what the country will look like in five years," Mr. Carville said.

James Carville circa 1993.
Everything old is new again.
----

Part of Clinton's package was the http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DC1F38F931A15757C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 >$19.5 billion economic stimulus plan, which the horrible Republicans filibustered.

And yet the economy recovered, the jobs came, and Clinton took the credit.

[Jane]

Perhaps there's a volunteer who'd care to document Andrew Sullivans many mood swings?

Speaking of Sullivan, (ahem), I just advised Amy that Clinton is planning on implementing counseling for all those "poor gays" like her. It actually might help Andrew.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Remember poor Billy Dale?

David Watkins lying to his diary?

The Arkansas State Troopers?

[Jeff]

I think it is highly likely that he would get a reasonable opportunity work his magic in Washington.

I think you are seriously underestimating the Republicans in DC (most of whom I take to have roughly the demeanor and respect for political adversaries of Rick Ballard) here. But I do think, given how moderate Republicans have felt treated during the Bush administration, that Obama would have more opportunity to make his own opportunities than Clinton would.

[MayBee]

The Arkansas State Troopers?

And yet, Patrick R, the Clintons have found a way to forgive David Brock.

[MayBee]

I'm sure Paul Krugman has made a personal pledge to treat a new Republican president with respect and steer clear of bitter partisanship. I equally certain he has demanded his editorial board do the same.

[Rick Ballard]

My respect for Copperheads is every bit as great as was Lincoln's. I do admit to having somewhat less respect for progressives though. I've just never cared for slavers.

[MayBee]

But I do think, given how moderate Republicans have felt treated during the Bush administration,

I'll bite:
Which moderate Republicans?
How have they felt they've been treated?
Treated by whom?

[JorgXMcKie]

Anyone who doesn't know that Paul Krugman is a politician wannabe just as bad as the actual politician Clintons just hasn't been paying attention. He'll say anything to win (an argument). I wonder if he'd like to revisit that prediction that Enron would be seen by history as being worse than 9/11. (Well, perhaps, if you count Sarbanes-Oxley, then it is pretty bad, but not worse than 9/11. Otherwise, Enron was hardly even a blip for most.)

[Larry]

A big factor in the WH staff dysfunction was that an unusually high number of staffers were unable to get security clearances. Some for years; some forever.

The Clinton administration set the women's movement back decades. Hill's bungled health care fiasco. No coherent foreign policy Mady. Killer Jan.

[Fisher]

Paul Krugman: Never has a bigger boob been given a bigger stage.