It’s instructive to look at a detailed timeline of Bill Clinton’s major accomplishments. You’ll notice a spree of legislative activity in the first two years. As with Obama, one of Clinton’s first acts was to repeal the Mexico City Policy and allow stem-cell research. His first big bill may have been the best of his entire two terms: The Family and Medical Leave Act. He followed that up with Motor Voter Registration and his Deficit Reduction Plan. He finished off his first year by creating AmeriCorps, signing the Brady handgun bill, and enacting NAFTA. It was some pretty heavy lifting, much of which angered important parts of the Democratic base. He made it easier for states to throw people off welfare; his Reinventing Government initiative destroyed over 350,000 government jobs; many gun owners hated the Brady Bill, and NAFTA infuriated the labor movement. But he also revamped the student loans program, created Empowerment Zones, and launched an aggressive child immunization program.
It was weak tea compared to what Obama achieved in his first year, but it was nothing to sniff at.
Things slowed down significantly in 1994 as the health care plan dominated Congress’s efforts. At the end of March, Clinton signed the Goals 2000 Education Standards, which imposed new curriculum requirements on public schools. In May, he created the early Head Start program. September brought the Crime Bill that put 100,000 police officers on the street, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund was created. None of that put a dent in the Republicans’ momentum. The last legislation to pass before the bloodbath that brought Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole to power were the Improving America’s Schools Act and California Desert Protection Act, which were both signed in October.
Again, unless you are indifferent to labor, don’t care if people gain access to health care, and are really into gun control, you can’t remotely compare Clinton’s achievements to Obama’s over the same timeframe. But, Clinton did achieve a lot of good things. But then look at 1995 and beyond. In 1995, Clinton’s main achievements were accomplished by Executive Order. He bailed out Mexico’s economy without the help of Congress. He stood up for striking workers, got the FDA to crack down on cigarette sales to minors, went after deadbeat dads, and protected religious freedom in schools. No major legislation was passed and even the budget was only passed after a government shutdown.
By 1996, Dick Morris was firmly in control of the president’s agenda as he sought to tack right and win himself a second term. He came out of the gate with the tragic Telecommunications Reform Act. He then boosted school uniforms. After that he signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This was followed by Megan’s Law, Welfare Reform, and a bill to tackle Medicare fraud. He also signed bills to protect food quality and drinking water, and had a minor health care bill enacted. He finished strong in September by sticking it to Utah with the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
It wasn’t much, but it was enough to win him a second term, which he quickly squandered through his lack of discipline.
I want you to take two lessons from this recounting of history. The first is that a Democratic president who has a Democratic Congress can accomplish a lot of good, even if it isn’t all something to write home about. And, likewise, a Democratic president with a Republican Congress can’t do much beyond issue Executive Orders, tinker around the edges of liberal policies on the environment, and enact Republican bills that deregulate the economy.
The second thing I want you take away is that Obama has done much, much more in his first year and a half than Clinton was able to do. The most obvious difference is that Obama succeeded where Clinton failed on giving people access to health care. Clinton’s health bill would have been substantially better if it had passed, but it didn’t. They each made significant gains for women: Clinton with the Violence Against Women Act and Obama with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Clinton made major gains on gun control which is no longer a Democratic priority, but he had nothing to compare to the consumer-friendly legislation contained in Obama’s Credit CARD Act of 2009, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, or many elements of the stimulus bill. While Clinton deregulated telecommunications, Obama gave us the Wall Street reforms bill. And Obama has done no harm like enacting NAFTA, GATT, or ripping people of welfare. He hasn’t really created a rift in the party either like Clinton did with his gun, free trade, and welfare policies.
Clinton was blessed to have a cranky and past-his-prime Bob Dole as his opponent in 1996, yet things look even better from the field of Obama’s potential 2012 opponents. And there are two other advantages. Obama has no Republican-friendly DLC priorities (with the possible exception of entitlement reform). He isn’t trying to prove his bona fides by undoing New Deal and Great Society polices and sticking it to labor. And there are no Dick Morrises advising him.
He needs Democratic majorities or he won’t be able to accomplish much going forward. But, if he loses them, he won’t be doing the equivalent of repealing Glass-Steagall or giving us the Telecommunications Act. However, if he loses his majorities, we’ll see some Crazy that compares or even exceeds what we saw from the Republicans in the 1995-2000 era.
Republican-friendly DLC??? Give me a break. This would be funny if it weren’t so wrong on several levels. So Boo-Man, all those so-called DLC types are really Republicans in Democratic clothing?? I just wonder if Obama would be president if it weren’t for those DLC types you keep railing against!!
Well, Harold Ford might be a senator from New York….
The main thing Obama has to worry about are the 38% of independents think he’s doing a good job. Down significantly from just last year at this time. He’s leaking all over the place poll wise.
So, he should really focus on welfare queens and Medicare fraud and illegals using our medical system, right?
Maybe he can make it so the world is safe for hate radio and Fox News while letting the banks get taken over by speculative traders. If he does all that, maybe the independents will love him and we won’t suffer any losses in the midterms.
BooMan got jokes.
Get real, Eastie, what Booman says about the DLC is hardly a novel idea. For years, DLC has been popularly known as “Republican Lite.”
Leonard Lopate used to refer Bill Clinton as a moderate Republican–slightly to the right of Richard Nixon. I think he was on to something.
But BooMan’s main point is quite right I think. Obama has been extraordinarily successful from a progressive stand point. And he’s done it without supporting hideous legislation like The Defense of Marriage Act.
“However, if he loses his majorities, we’ll see some Crazy that compares or even exceeds what we saw from the Republicans in the 1995-2000 era.”
Oh, is there even a doubt? Forget about subpoena power…I can’t possibly see a Republican majority in Congress NOT trying to impeach Pres. Obama before the 2012 election. They’ll see it as a win-win, since even if they can’t actually get him out of office, they can attempt to drag him through the mud with it before the election.
I can only hope that someone can egg on a GOPer enough to get them to say it aloud before the mid-terms. It just might be enough to get all those chicken-littles to stop whining and get into election mode until Nov. 6th.
outside of him being BLACK, what is his “impeachable offense?”
Oh, don’t worry, they’ll think of something. How about acting as president although born in Kenya? Remember, the validity of the charges make no difference whatsoever, as long as there are charges. Then they can drag it out as long as possible and make a lot of noise.
As I said earlier, he is proving worse on education policy than Bush’s NCLB.
And just today I read this story where the person speaking is David Obey:
In what universe do you ever cut food stamps in the face of 9.5% unemployment?
Really? He’s proving worse than Bush on education policy? Care to find one educator in the country to back up that statement who isn’t a partisan Republican?
Umm, Boo, in your haste to glorify Obama again you forgot this. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20100319obama_effigy_hung_at_ri_school_with
_fired_teachers/
Let’s ask those fired teachers in RI if they wish to wash Obama’s robes with their hair, too.
NCLB was not that bad of a law, it just didn’t get the funding that it was promised. I don’t trust the pols, but Ted Kennedy was willing to attach his name to that piece; he unfortunately was stabbed in the back on the funding issue.
Why the comparison with Bill Clinton? Two different times, two entirely different set of circumstances etc. You begin from a false premise, that a comparison can be made between what Obama has accomplished and that which Obama has done.
You also overlook the times. Clinton’s win was seen by many as a screw-up in the system and he did not have a huge win; Obama won decisively (against a weaker opponent, by the way, than Dole) with a clear mandate to change. He also had bigger margins of support in the House and Senate than Clinton had, thus making his job much easier.
Given Obama’s near landslide win and control of the presidency, the House and the Senate, what should be compared is the campaign promises Obama made with what he’s achieved. He began early on (even while a senator) in flip-flopping his position on FISA. His first selection to his administration was none other than Rahm Emanuel, corporate-centrist par excellence. His second pick? Timothy Geithner and we know what a good job Timothy has done on the economy and on Wall St. don’t we? Obama DID NOT EVEN REPLACE W’s Robert W. Gates for the most important position in the administration, Defense Secretary. He also promoted most of W’s generals, including McCrystal.
Recall too that Rahm and Obama wanted the neanderthal Republican Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary: a blunder of monumental proportions. Obama made other major mistakes in putting together his cabinet, including putting Ken Salazar, a cheerleader for offshore drilling, in as Treasury Secretary. Rahm and Obama also froze out virtually all progressives from his cabinet. The one progressive he did chose, Dawn Johnsen, he nominated but let her appointment “twist in the wind” with no support.
Poor cabinet, poor administration, all picked by Obama. Now turning to policies, look at the huge mistakes Obama has made on the economy: an inadequate stimulus bill WHEN HE HAD THE VOTES BUT NO WILL to get far more. All of this was criticized by Stiglitz and Krugman at the time. Obama still has no job creation programs of any significance.
Look at the debacle on “health insurance” reform when Obama early on discarded the best program, taking them “off the table”, namely single payer and the public option. Skilled bargainers and negotiators do not throw in their strongest cards at the outset of the game like Obama did. He got a horrible bill and Russ Feingold has pointed out that is precisely what Obama wanted all along.
Ditto on financial reform. Weak bill.
Look at the environmental problems this administration created. Obama himself on April 2, 2010, reversed a 27 year ban on offshore drilling. He said “oil rigs are safe nowadays”. Right! We all know the BP blowout came 18 days later. No change in policy, no blowout. Salazar’s Interior Ministry gave BP waivers for filing environmental impact statements that also allowed the catastrophe to happen.
Turning to foreign affairs, he has a slightly better record but likely only because Hillary is there. Yet, the Afghanistan escalation is turning out into a disaster: bleeding money from the country and bleeding Afghan citizens and our soldiers.
The key question you might ask is this: who do you think most people would rather have serving in office today, Obama or Clinton. I would bet that most Democrats (and independents overwhelmingly) would chose Bill Clinton.
Obama needs to shake up his administration to survive.
Jesus christ, between this post and your screed about “Who will primary Obama?!?!?!” I’d think you were Peter Daou.
Primary Obama? People are actually thinking of primarying Obama? Wow! You learn something new every day. I know this is off-topic but 1968 and 1980 didn’t exactly work in the general favor of the left in this country.
Although I agree that the idea of primarying Obama is totally ridiculous — and will never happen — I feel like screaming every time people compare the Left of today with 1968. The comparison is formulaic and superficial at best. In 1968 there was a national draft and a huge war, large sections of many American cities were being burned down by rioters, and the Left’s presidential candidate, Robert Kennedy, had just been assassinated. Humphrey had no youth constituency, he was the candidate of Democrats who mostly supported the war, and he was not a president running for a second term. The equivalent youth factor today strongly supports President Obama.
I agree, 1968 was a pretty crazy year. The country was falling apart at the seams. I’m just saying that a primary never seems to help the party in power. Humphrey in ’68, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, and Bush the First in ’92. Hell, I can’t figure out who you primary Obama with in the first place that makes logical sense. I was 22 when Clinton first became president and had a lot reason to be disappointed four years later. But, then I looked over at Newt and his boys and the choice was pretty easy. Sarah and her minions make that period seem to me almost like an age of innocence.
No question that primarying the mainstream candidate has not worked out well for the Democratic Party. That much was true in 1968 — Nixon was the result. My point is that what happened with the election of 1968 was a symptom of a profound internal malaise within the Democratic Party, and violent turmoil in the nation, for which the Left of 1968 by mo means bears the major share of responsibility. Within a few years, the Left had, at least in broad terms, been vindicated, and the US got out of Vietnam. The Right never forgave them for it, and that is why we still have about 25% of the American public believing the DFH’s and the “minorities” destroyed America. The pewling, cynical, ill-informed anti-Obama Left of today bears little resemblance to the Left of 1968.
Wow. The PUMAs come up for air I see. You are caught up in some serious delusion.
One of the more ridiculous posts I’ve seen in a long time. First Salazar is not, as you say, the Treasury Secretary – I mean get your facts right if you’re going to rant!!
Second, as for progressives/liberals in the cabinet, what about Solis as Labour Secretary? What about Holder as AG, what about Lisa Jackson head of the PA, what about Romer on CEA, what about Susan Rice as UN Ambassador?
And the final joke of it is that you claim to be a progressive and a liberal and that Obama isn’t doing enough and then you say he should be more like Bill Clinton! I loved Bill Clinton but he didn’t achieve in 8 years what Obama has done in 18 months unless you are a big fan of school uniform, or DOMA, or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or Welfare Reform, or repeal of Glass-Stegal or any of the other so called centrist things he did (mind you I’m not saying that they were all wrong or anything just using the comparison you’ve put forward).
What a load of tripe.
I love this comment. You start out with an admonishment that it makes no sense to compare Obama and Clinton and then you write a lengthy comparison of Obama and Clinton.
Racist PUMA Alert!
What are the consequences if a Republican congress again shuts down the Government by approving a budget? Is there a workaround? Can Obama approve a multi-year budget after the election but before the inauguration of the new Congress? Could Obama be held to ransom indefinitely by a refusal to pass a budget?
Obama has accomplished something amazing. Just two years after the country said good riddance to Bush and the Republicans Obama’s indecision and half-stepping are about to put them back in the driver’s seat.
I don’t think it’s Obama that’s achieved that – remember it hasn’t happened yet. If it does happen that will be more to do with childish and immature ‘democratic’ voters than anything else.
I don’t think he’s achieved that either even if it happens. Consider this:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/the-need-for-comparisons/
You’ve got to be kidding! Or that’s really good pot.
Yeah, keep it up with the negativity. This isn’t a close argument.
Maybe you aren’t familiar with many of the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Look them over. They are mainly the work of liberal lion, Rep. David Obey. All the things he wanted funded over the years got funded in the stimulus. It’s truly one of the biggest liberal achievements in the last 40 years. For just one example, the government bought $600 million worth of electric cars for state and federal employees.
The Lily Ledbetter Act assured women equal pay. The CHIP reauthorization added 4 million children and pregnant women to the list of people with access to health care. The Omnibus Land Management bill protected two million acres of wilderness, and much, much more. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was a beautiful piece of liberal legislation. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 was a badly needed reform that will save us a lot of money over time. The Credit CARD Act was an excellent piece of consumer-friendly progressive legislation that should not be ignored. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gave the FDA power to regulate tobacco products, among other things. The Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 extended unemployment insurance and helped first-time home owners buy a house. And then there were the two biggest progressive reforms since LBJ was our president: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Notably absent are any anti-gay laws, efforts to make it easier to consolidate media empires, legislation to throw people off welfare, new anti-labor free trade agreements, or the sacking of anyone for discussing mutual masturbation.
BooMan, I really appreciate the effort to persuade but it’s always going to fall on deaf ears. I am constantly amazed by the high proportion of progressives who are disappointed by Obama but who loved and still love Bill Clinton when a fair objective comparison is that Obama has pursued (and achieved) a far more liberal agenda that Clinton ever did.
Are you referring to DADT as anti-gay? If so, you have no idea of the policy that proceeded it. I hear a lot of bashing of DADT, but it sure beats active witch hunts for gays and actual physical attacks, which were not officially condoned but were winked at during cover-up investigations. Bill Clinton used a lot of political capital on DADT and it was courageous for its time.
S-CHIP re-authorization? The original authorization,yes, but continuing an existing program? Credit Card Act seems destined to cost me money and limit my use of the card for small purchases. It was good for deadbeats that don’t pay their bills on time, I’ll grant you that.
Lets also look at the massive bail-out of Wall Street bankers and their mega-bonuses which give one person more money in a year than ordinary people earn in a century or even a millennium. Let’s look at continuing the Crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s look at ending the manned space program. Let’s look at destroying all those small business GM dealerships.
Bill Clinton took a floundering economy and turned it into the best economy my Uncle, who remembers the Great Depression , had ever seen. Bill Clinton balanced the budget and did it without screwing Social Security. Granted, Obama hasn’t torpedoed SS yet and he hasn’t extended the Bush tax cuts yet, but do you honestly doubt that he will bow to Republican pressure and do it? Bill Clinton fought Republicans instead of giving in to them.
I’m referring to the Defense of Marriage Act.
According to Wikipedia
.
It’s apparent that it was passed by a veto proof margin. Perhaps Clinton should have vetoed it anyway as a moral stand, but it would have made no difference. I can’t blame DOMA on him. Unless you have evidence that he pushed for it. Also, I haven’t checked, but wasn’t Congress in Republican hands at the time?
Let’s not disrupt the pep rally. We’re negative and childish to not revel in the Magic and Mystery. (Never mind that childish would be to blindly follow, but I digress.) We’re so Unserious. How dare us see things differently? Obama only promised change. We’re such sore sports to not witness the succession of half-step “successes” that we don’t see all the change. I still don’t see any “change.” The health-care “change” Boo is championing is so far off into the distance that I don’t see voters roaring to the polls about that. The only change I see has been purely cosmetic and shallow to the core, ironically.
W?o question I think you overrate what the President has accomplished. Given that he is President during unprecedented economic crisis, it’s a depression, the majority of the legislation, the health insurance reform act excluded, leave intact the status quo.
To address your point about Democratic majorities you fail to address the on going institutional problem(elections of Senators is such that they have the ability to distance themselves from responsibilities of their votes) of that Democratic Presidents go to the House to create and submit legislation that starts as very liberal legislation. The House of Lords then sits on their asses and act like asses watering down the legislation to placate their national masters. Pelosi’s pique at Gibb’s statements two weeks ago was not a matter of pride but fact. The WH does not support those who doing the heavy lifting and have to look at the results every two years. So the question becomes when does the Democratic Party begin to realized that they need to propose legislation like a parliamentary party. Other wise the crazy will continue to occur w/ Democratic majorities.
The overuse of the filibuster is a relatively new problem, but all presidents have had to deal with the Senate. You don’t judge presidents by what they sign into law compared to what the House proposed. That isn’t a fair metric. You judge presidents relative to each other. What did they accomplish? Did they sign a lot of bills into law? Were they good bills or bad bills relative to the status quo? Obama is crushing all competitors on that scale going back to at least LBJ.
Were they good bills or bad bills relative to the status quo?
This!! This is what the argument really should be about. The amount of bills mean shit. Anyone could pass 50,000 bills(because that would include naming post offices and all that other nonsense Congress does that no one cares about). If all Obama passed was single-payer and brought back Glass-Steagall he would be celebrated. Sadly, we won’t really know how HCR/HIR works until 2014. Financial Reform? Is there anyone who thanks it’s worth the paper it is written on?
Yeah, I think it’s worth the paper it’s written on. Maybe you should print it out on some paper and read it.
So then why did Chris Dodd admit it will do nothing to stop the next crisis?
Link for that, please. He admitted the obvious: NO ONE KNOWS IF THE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY WILL WORK. You won’t know if it will work until the crisis happens to test it out. That’s a fact of life, and no one has a crystal ball.
And that he isn’t bullish on it tells me something.
Yes. The only people who don’t either:
a. Didn’t get their pony (make Wall Street pay vengeance style with idiotic populist measures, nationalization, huge tax increases on Wall St).
b. Don’t know shit about finance.
Letter a doesn’t really have anything to do with what we did get.
Look, I find it agreeable that it didn’t go far enough, but it did go pretty damn far within the context of this Congress. In fact, I’d argue that some of the legislation was weakened by the DFH, specifically the Volcker Rule, because they didn’t put the context of Congress within their sights.
Either way, this is legislation that should be championed, and the implementation of the CFPA would have been worth voting for alone.
So you are saying that Simon Johnson and James Kwak(sp?) don’t know shit about finance? Glad to know that.
Actually, yes. Simon Johnson has proven to be a fucking moron throughout this entire process.
And speaking of those two, they undoubtedly think it will do nothing to stop the next crisis because it didn’t adopt their prescription to stop TBTF: breaking up the banks. I don’t even read them anymore and I know that’s probably why they think it will do nothing to stop it. I don’t know how many times this needs to be said, but I guess not enough because Kwak and Johnson are paraded around as experts in finance: you can’t solve TBTF by breaking up the banks. It’s not only stupid, unworkable policy, but it doesn’t address the problem.
Glad to see you are such an expert. Can I ask where you gained such a superior knowledge?