Clinton to Kerry: Support Local Gay Marriage Bans

[livius drusus]

It's in a massive Newsweek article on the campaigns. War Room has a blurb on the story citing a couple of the more compelling moments, including:

First, for any of us tempted to be nostalgic for the Clinton years -- and there's probably a lot of that going on this week as Republicans further tighten their grip on government, here's something to temper our longing for the '90s. "Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that.'" Being more Clintonesque on gay marriage may have won Kerry some swing votes, but that comes with a price, and one Kerry wasn't willing to pay.

Am I the only fool who was jaw-dropped by this, by Clinton's incredibly fine-tuned political whore instincts, by Kerry's principled stance? Not sure why I was, really; it just sounded a perfectly clear note, I guess.

Anyway, Newseek has the intro and parts 1 and 2 of the article online. I've only read the intro and I can see that this story is going to totally blow away some of my mental pictures of what happens on the campaign trail.

[LadyShea]

Wow! Shit! The only thing I can think of is Clinton (being Clinton) knew that what happened would happen because of the gay marriage thing. And, really, Kerry stated many times he was against gay marriage, and the bans (as far as I know) would not prohibit the introduction of civil union laws.

On the surface, yes, Clinton comes off like a whore....but maybe he was just being smart and figured getting through the door was most important?

[livius drusus]

Oh sure he was being smart. I honestly think he's something of an empathic genius. The way he knows what people want to hear, particularly on a campaign trail, is downright uncanny.

I do think the anti-gay marriage initiatives played a large part in drawing pro-Bush "moral values" voters to the polls and I know I didn't anticpate it, and I'd read nothing about it so lots of other people didn't anticipate it either. Clinton did, though, because he has a political mind of startling astuteness.

That's what makes makes his whoring possible: he uses that knowledge to fashion victories for himself. That doesn't stop with election, of course, so it's not like he only compromises to win and then says he's changed his mind after introspection and stands up for his original principle. Nope, he just keeps on whoring.

I'm writing this with a sense of wonderment, really. I'm not even judging, just absorbing. This article is a whole new perspective for me.

[Clutch Munny]

Clinton has a genius for hitting the rightmost point one millimeter shy of the Democrat gag-reflex. Make of the metaphor what you will.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Oh sure he was being smart. I honestly think he's something of an empathic genius. The way he knows what people want to hear, particularly on a campaign trail, is downright uncanny.

I do think the anti-gay marriage initiatives played a large part in drawing pro-Bush "moral values" voters to the polls and I know I didn't anticpate it, and I'd read nothing about it so lots of other people didn't anticipate it either. Clinton did, though, because he has a political mind of startling astuteness.

That's what makes makes his whoring possible: he uses that knowledge to fashion victories for himself. That doesn't stop with election, of course, so it's not like he only compromises to win and then says he's changed his mind after introspection and stands up for his original principle. Nope, he just keeps on whoring.

I'm writing this with a sense of wonderment, really. I'm not even judging, just absorbing. This article is a whole new perspective for me.

That's Clinton. He is astonishingly good at "feeling our pain," as in being almost perfectly in tune with the prevailing popular political pulse of the moment. Whoring is an apt term for what he does.

What surprises me is that you didn't know that about him until now. From the opposition side, I read about this sort of thing daily, mostly in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Many moderate Republicans, some moderate Democrats, and some independents saw through his insincerity as easily as liberal and moderate Democrats, and yes, even moderate Republicans see Bush's smugness and his self-righteous agenda. The chief difference is that your "elite ilk," as you put it yesterday or today, is the opposition for the moment. The other difference I see is that Bush, however misguided he is, does at least seem sincere about most of his beliefs and his policies which follow from them. The only serious misstep he has taken with his credibility is with his myriad pre-invasion and post hoc justifications for invading Iraq. As you might guess, I don't see this as anything remotely resembling treason, or any crime, as Godless Dave does.

Trust me, I understand the disgust one can have for an opposition President. Clinton's insincerity and lack of commitment to principle was evident from the earliest days of his first term, long before Monicagate and his lying in his Paula Jones case deposition. Many of Clinton's positions on issues were determined almost solely from poll results. That was disgusting to me then. We elect executive leaders to lead, not to serve as dutiful reflections of the ephemeral public sentiment on an issue. The public is often fickle. Principles aren't.

For you and I presume most of the posters here, Bush's holy roller self-righteousness, his intolerance, and his disregard for the civil rights of common individuals, among other things, disgust you. Believe it or not, they disgust me too. I won't be emigrating in the near future, however. This is my home, and there may be plenty of things I don't like about the U.S., but it remains the best place for me to live. It is quite telling that for the vast majority of Americans, and particularly for millions of immigrants, it remains their chosen place to live on the planet as well. I regard most of the talk of leaving I see here and hear elsewhere as reactionary puffery. I cannot recall an instance that I know of personally in which anyone actually did move strictly out of disgust with a President's policies. I'm not saying there haven't been any, but I'm not acquainted with any such cases. I am fully aware that there are American ex-patriots living abroad who do so out of a dislike for what they see America has become, and Gore Vidal immediately comes to mind. His leaving is quite an aberration, however, even among the strongest American critics of this nation.

As a pre-emptive declaration, for the record again, I am not a Bushie. I just don't see his Presidency as the Apocalypse. For that matter, I didn't see Clinton's two terms as the Apocalypse either. I just didn't like him at a gut level. His obvious lack of commitment to principle and his insincerity were the two qualities which turned me off the most. Many of his policies were actually quite moderate, although some irritated me. I didn't leave my home because of them, however.

Cool Hand

[Corwin]

This is an example of why I and a lot of other democrats, while we supported Clinton, resented the hell out of him and his DLC buddies.

Bowing and scraping before the right wing only strengthens their position. Dean had it right.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

What surprises me is that you didn't know that about him until now. From the opposition side, I read about this sort of thing daily, mostly in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Oh I knew it alright, not only because during the nineties I read the WSJ regularly (best writing in the mainstream press, imo), but because I was the opposition too just from the other size. Znet Sustainer, donchaknow. The daily commentaries I received from Chomsky and Zinn and Choudry and Wise et al were not Clinton fanmail, I assure you.

No, what I meant but did not explain at all well in my OP was that this story illustrated in a way nothing else has just how razor sharp those instincts of Clinton's really are. It's just such an amazingly accurate call in hindsight, and so gelidly cold my eyeballs frosted over from the reading.

Also, whenever I hear a social liberal claiming to be opposed to gay marriage, I always assume they're just saying that to appeal to the majority. As far as I was concerned, Kerry had already sold out what I imagined was his personal support for the issue, so to find out that he drew the line at selling it out all the way was surprising to me.

People are crazy nuanced. It's awesome.

Trust me, I understand the disgust one can have for an opposition President. Clinton's insincerity and lack of commitment to principle was evident from the earliest days of his first term, long before Monicagate and his lying in his Paula Jones case deposition. Many of Clinton's positions on issues were determined almost solely from poll results. That was disgusting to me then. We elect executive leaders to lead, not to serve as dutiful reflections of the ephemeral public sentiment on an issue. The public is often fickle. Principles aren't.

Amen, brother. I voted for him twice, even campaigned for him in 92 when I was in college, but by the second time he was miles away from anything I believed in. Much like Kerry, really. It's just that the other dudes are even farther away and now there's a war.

For you and I presume most of the posters here, Bush's holy roller self-righteousness, his intolerance, and his disregard for the civil rights of common individuals, among other things, disgust you. Believe it or not, they disgust me too.

He he... Who you talkin' to, son? I believe it.

I won't be emigrating in the near future, however. This is my home, and there may be plenty of things I don't like about the U.S., but it remains the best place for me to live.

Italy would probably be the best place for me to live in terms of contentment, but I'm American, a genuine left-winger in the deep south, and I'm staying because it matters to me. A lot.

It is quite telling that for the vast majority of Americans, and particularly for millions of immigrants, it remains their chosen place to live on the planet as well. I regard most of the talk of leaving I see here and hear elsewhere as reactionary puffery.

I'd probably use more charitable terms keeping in mind how my tummy felt on Nov 2 -3, but yeah, I don't think there's going to be a wave of emigrants. It's mostly venting.

I am fully aware that there are American ex-patriots living abroad who do so out of a dislike for what they see America has become, and Gore Vidal immediately comes to mind. His leaving is quite an aberration, however, even among the strongest American critics of this nation.

Gore Vidal came to speak to the American Women's Association of Rome when my mom was president. I sat a couple of people away from him at the luncheon. He's a brilliant man, and yes, his departure is remarkable, particularly considering how invested he was in this country: running for office as well as writing.

Hmm... I wonder if he's said anything about the election yet.

As a pre-emptive declaration, for the record again, I am not a Bushie. I just don't see his Presidency as the Apocalypse. For that matter, I didn't see Clinton's two terms as the Apocalypse either. I just didn't like him at a gut level.

Oddly enough, I liked him at a gut level. I thought he'd be a great guy to have over for dinner and tall tale telling. I just thought he was an unprincipled whore at the same time.

Bush evinces a visceral hatred in me, otoh, and I don't think he's an unprincipled whore. On the contrary, his principles are the ends, his policies the means. I hate most of those principles though, hate them hard, and I hate his lack of intellectual curiosity and I hate the look on his face. If I had him over for dinner, it would be all I could do to refrain from slapping him every other minute.

His [Clinton's] obvious lack of commitment to principle and his insincerity were the two qualities which turned me off the most. Many of his policies were actually quite moderate, although some irritated me. I didn't leave my home because of them, however.

Many? I can't think of one Clinton policy I would consider non-moderate, but I'm still here too.

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Am I the only fool who was jaw-dropped by this,

Nope. I have always despised Bill and Hill for being the poll watching, stand for nothing idiots they are. Never understood what the left saw in them.

Under Clinton there were more pot smokers arrested than under any president until Bush. After getting out of office Clinton publically stated he felt pot should be decriminalized.

Just another example of Clinton being a superb political survivor, at the price of standing for anything remotely controversial. Do the winning thing, not the right thing.

[LadyShea]

Oddly enough, I liked him at a gut level. I thought he'd be a great guy to have over for dinner and tall tale telling. I just thought he was an unprincipled whore at the same time.

I loved the man. I do not think I will ever see a better speaker in my lifetime, nor anyone better at playing the unfortunate, but necessary game.

I never saw him as a whore per se, but I always knew he was so razor sharp that he could see all the implications of everything way before anyone else. I assumed though, that instead of "pandering" he was distracting/placating them at the front door, while carting in the good stuff, the stuff I wanted, into the back door. Just as I do in business.

I may have been and continue to be wrong, but politicians will never, ever be able to get up there, say what they REALLY think, be unwilling to compromise to get "something over nothing", and remain in a position to do anything about it.

[Clutch Munny]

I dunno. Maybe we're finding it a little to easy to forget the conditions under which at least much of Clinton's presidency was conducted. Didn't he make a serious attempt at a national health plan, for instance, though he knew it would be opposed and undermined? (And it was.)

I mean, he was dealing with Republican houses that at one point shut down government altogether rather than play ball. Blanket assertions about his not putting his principles into action strike me as likely minimizing the extent to which this was determined by circumstance.

Indeed, it looks somewhat like the Fundamental Attribution Error.

The point is not, of course, that Clinton was a committed idealist; just that he might have been no more a whore than most politicians, but perceptive enough not to bother (often) with attempting what he knew he would not be permitted to complete.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by dantonac

I have always despised Bill and Hill for being the poll watching, stand for nothing idiots they are. Never understood what the left saw in them.

May I just say, once, for the record, that the use of the phrase "the left" in an American's mouth is usually unintelligible to me? (Nothing to do specifically with you, dantonac.)

I know it's supposed to be a context-relative designation, so there's no expectation that the left in one nation should much resemble the left in any other. But there's also supposed to be something contentful in there, too -- something recognizably leftish, surely. But few American contexts, in particular not the Democrat platform, hold enough that's recognizably leftish to warrant that term over any number of more accurate ones.

Consider a metaphor that is doubly a propos: Something strictly relationally true might be expressed by "Turquoise is to the red of navy" -- but only someone with a weird-ass preoccupation with redness would choose such an uninformative way of putting things. It's fair to say: Well, sure -- but neither of them has anything interesting to do with red.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I dunno. Maybe we're finding it a little to easy to forget the conditions under which at least much of Clinton's presidency was conducted.

I don't think I am. From my perspective at the time, Clinton was not even remotely left wing, and all of his policies reflected that.

Didn't he make a serious attempt at a national health plan, for instance, though he knew it would be opposed and undermined? (And it was.)

Sure, but the plan was a classic example of how Clinton's desire to please everybody ended up satisfying nobody. Another example of that was the icky "don't ask don't tell" policy. It seemed to me that the inception of both those plans was as close to liberal as Clinton ever got and their failure ensured that he would never go down such a road again.

I mean, he was dealing with Republican houses that at one point shut down government altogether rather than play ball. Blanket assertions about his not putting his principles into action strike me as likely minimizing the extent to which this was determined by circumstance.

Indeed, it looks somewhat like the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Perhaps, but the very definition of a Clinton Democrat is one who, though putatively liberal, holds right-wing positions, particularly on economic issues, drug laws and Southern Strategy code like "welfare reform". Perhaps he genuinely believed in these positions as a matter of principle, but that just doesn't seem likely to me, just like it doesn't seem likely that he actually thinks local gay marriage bans are the right the thing to do on principle. It seems more likely to me that principle matters less to him than winning, be it in elections or legislative battles.

The point is not, of course, that Clinton was a committed idealist; just that he might have been no more a whore than most politicians, but perceptive enough not to bother (often) with attempting what he knew he would not be permitted to complete.

I don't recall calling him more of a whore than most politicians; I just think he's more of a genius in his whoredom than most politicians. I don't agree, however, with such a passive description of his choices. He didn't just avoid advocating for genuinely leftish (lost) causes; he advocated and implemented genuinely rightish ones.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

May I just say, once, for the record, that the use of the phrase "the left" in an American's mouth is usually unintelligible to me? (Nothing to do specifically with you, dantonac.)

I know it's supposed to be a context-relative designation, so there's no expectation that the left in one nation should much resemble the left in any other. But there's also supposed to be something contentful in there, too -- something recognizably leftish, surely. But few American contexts, in particular not the Democrat platform, hold enough that's recognizably leftish to warrant that term over any number of more accurate ones.

Amen, brother. Clinton would have been a Christian Democrat in Italy while I would have been off voting for the Socialists, or Radicals or possibly Ilona Staller's Radical splinter group, the Love Party.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't think I am. From my perspective at the time, Clinton was not even remotely left wing, and all of his policies reflected that.

Ah, the importance of identifying interlocutors. Sorry. I was addressing myself to those who do indeed seem to think that Clinton is more of a political whore than most politicians. It's unclear to me that the evidence supports that judgement over, say, the judgement that he was more perceptive than most politicians in scrying the strongest form of some principled stand that could be executed in his political context. The DADT policy, for instance, might be explained as an unprincipled attempt to please those polled as supporting gay rights and those polled as opposing them; but an equally apt explanation, to my mind, has it being principle plus realism.

[LadyShea]

I was only 22 when Clinton took office, but I was already very active in Pro-Choice causes....in fact at that time it was my ONLY issue. One of the first things Clinton did was remove the ridiculous Title X gag order, that barred clinics even mentioning abortion as an option in the case of unwanted pregnancy, that had been in place since Reagan. I got pregnant under that gag order, and if I had not asked for information on abortion, I would not have been even informed of my legal options.

I was also impressed that he even attempted a National health care campaign, and DADT was at least better than the "gayhunts" that had gone on previously.

I do understand and agree, livius, that some of his policies, like the drug issue, were decidedly pandering. But I just feel that overall he made an attempt with most of the issues important to me, and I had never seen that before, and I haven't since. It was the only time in my life I didn't feel like I was totally outside of the mainstream, that some leaders did care about those same issues.

BTW, thanks for linking the article, I stayed up late reading it. And thanks for the interesting discussion, I had never really examined WHY I liked Clinton other than he wasn't Reagan or a Bush.

[Corwin]

Ok.... I think the problem here isn't exactly Clinton himself so much.... it's the baggage he brought with him.

I'm not sure how 'leftist' Clinton would have been left purely to his own devices. (Myself, I'm thinking not much more than he actually was. He's the classic adult child of a bad family situation, trying to please everybody.) The problem now is the DLC that got him elected. The power structure in the Democratic party needs to change. They're the ones who have been putting up 'centrist' candidates and running to the right in an attempt to get votes. They just don't realize that this isn't going to WORK.

Running to the right gets votes for the Republicans.... not because running to the right gets votes, but because it energizes the Republican base. The Dems are trying to get the same votes, but they aren't going to be able to take them from the Reps, and all they're succeeding in doing is alienating their OWN base. (The left. As a lifelong Democrat, and in recent decades a very reluctant one, believe me, I know.)