I think that Clinton was more “Progressive” than he gets credit for from a lot of Democrats, but as Emma pointed out he was basically on the defensive for the majority of his presidency with the Republicans in control of Congress. His choice was either compromise or stick to his original principles and become unable to accomplish anything. In those days I was a confirmed Bill Clinton hater (to the extent of half-believing the rumors that he had dozens of people killed to cover up evidence of various criminal activities), so I thought that his being forced to the right was only for the good. I have my doubts about that now.

I’m not sure how the US is an Empire, except in the sense that all very powerful countries are “empires” almost by necessity.

Wow. I don’t consider him conservative at all, in terms of much of the legislation he signed or military actions he ordered. I wont go down the list here, but the Telecommunications Act of 1996 radically altered one of the most important industries in the United States – I would have rather have had a conservative President who understood that the status quo was preferable to deregulatory madness. Its amazing how descriptive terms can be confusingly conflated with partisan political labels. The 1994 Republican “revolution” and Newt Gingrich were – by any definition – “radical” not “conservative.” Under the guise of restoring some non-existent order they proposed some crazy laws – what’s “conservative” about trying to establish 12 year term-limits on members of Congress? (We already have terms limits: they are called “elections.”) Everytime Clinton pivoted, triangulated, found common cause with Gingrich or sought to out-flank Dole, he moved further towards their lunacy and away from a conservative endorsement of the status quo.

Ask yourself this: wouldn’t a true conservative have been more obstinate and less amenable to the kinds of changes brought forth from 1993-2001? Look at the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment under Janet Reno and Clinton! How can anybody say those changes were “conservative”? [/rant]

In fact, there was one allegation of rape against Clinton and one allegation of forcible sexual contact.

But I will say that she seems particularly suited to these times. She provides a certain authenticity and clarity of self in a time of uncertainty, projecting a casual grace onto a world of amplified anxiety. She has become a powerful symbol of fearlessness, refinement, frugality and frivolity, managing to be both fun and serious simultaneously. She’s genuinely human.

Regardless of what the fuck that ridiculous glurge could possibly even mean, could Blow be any more transparently pleased that Michelle Obama is playing the “oh, I don’t involve myself in the MANLY MAN ROUGH AND TUMBLE POLITICS stuff” dutiful wife role???

I agree that he was a good conservative president; policy-wise, I’m no fan of the guy. But the crazy hatred directed at him makes me feel some kind of solidarity anyway; sometimes I think he wasn’t just the “first black president” but the “first woman president”, too, in a funny way.

Just a quibble, but I don’t know if that’s accurate. Americans did elect Bill Clinton twice, and Hillary Clinton did get more votes than Barack Obama in last year’s primary.

So it seems that Americans were comfortable enough to elect folks from their own class. Now, it is attributable to the media that the American people don’t get the opportunity to vote for more people of humbler beginnings.

Also, to Clinton’s credit,(and I don’t actually recall this, I was 12, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), but it seems that the Republicans weren’t totally given over to the obstructionist batshit insane wing of their party in 1992, yet, so the argument could be made, that there would be a benefit in moving to the center. And, that whatever liberal instincts he may have had, were blunted by the loss of Congress in 94.

From the Bromwich article I linked upthread:

“Malthus’s doctrine on population and the necessity of many living in adversity, Hazlitt wrote, was a gospel ‘preached to the poor’. Equality in the United States in the early 21st century has become a gospel preached by the liberal elite to a populace who feel they have no stake in equality. Since the Reagan presidency and the dismemberment of the labour unions, America has not known a popular voice against the privilege of the large corporations. Yet without such a voice from below, all the benevolent programmes that can be theorised, lacking the ground note of genuine indignation, have turned into lumbering ‘designs’ espoused by the enlightened for moral reasons that ordinary people can hardly remember.”

I’m not sufficiently learned to get the Malthus reference, but I think the remainder is a good point and probably part of what you’re talking about.

Historiann,

Thanks for the comments. It’s just that whenever I hear Clinton characterized (or dismissed, not that you do) as conservative, I get the same feeling about gay rights I get about women’s rights: passe without ever having been achieved. Scares me.

Joan’s comments also succeed in showing, not on purpose, that our “liberals” are a lynching mob guilty of racism, discrimination, bad mouthing, denigrating, and dismissing the poor, the Southerns and anyone who has a questionable pedigree (according to them). How do we know all the latter? The media was widely supported by The “Liberal.”

The U.S. is more of an empire than a republic, and it always has been, which is why I don’t hold out great hope for a progressive president. (I still think it’s important to have Dems in the office, since they’re not anti-government nihilists and for the most part try to appoint competent people to run the federal bureaucracy.)

I also appreciate your reminders of the context of DADT and DOMA. You’re right: no one gives Bill Clinton credit for trying right off the bat to desegregate the U.S. military. (That’s what he tried to do, until faced with the backlash led by conservaDems and generals who forced the compromise of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.”)

And, thanks for that link (above) earlier–I enjoyed that article.