Thirdeye Magazine header image 2

The Poison of the Democratic Party

Why Clinton Inc is bad news for the left

February 21st, 2008 · Written by · 5 Comments

Long Live the Witch

This current election is something else. The race between Obama and Hillary is a reminder of the absolute poison that the Clintons brought to the Democratic Party, and what a duplicitous and self-serving couple of thoroughly narcissistic people Bill and Hillary have always been. Bill Clinton, in campaigning for his wife, has degraded the institution of the Former Presidency down to the lowest common denominator. Case in point: His reference to Obama’s “fairytale” run for the White House and utilization of the race card – confirming what a classless individual ole’ Slick Willie really is.

The Clintons are a marriage (and a mirage) of a desultory individual from Arkansas and a conniving lawyer from suburban Chicago. The politics of this ghoulish combination in the 1990s are responsible for the rise and transformation of the Republican Party into the pro-rich, anti-everyone else party as much as any other factor at the time. If one wants to examine how the anti-progressive, anti-working class, pro-capitalist, and pro-corporate Republican Party was able to rise to the degree of power and popularity they did during the 1990s, he or she needs to look no further than Clinton Incorporated.

What do I mean by this?

The Clintons are a marriage (and a mirage) of a desultory individual from Arkansas and a conniving lawyer from suburban Chicago.

What I mean is that Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on a mandate to right some of the wrongs resulting from twelve years of Reagan-Bush. Clinton attempted to realize his electoral mandate, but his administration was as corrupt and scandal ridden as the Grant Administration. As a result, seemingly every action of the Clinton Administration created instant political fodder and opportunity for the Republicans, while simultaneously resulting in disgust among vast amounts of independent voters and “Blue Dog” Reagan-Democrats that helped put him into office. The opportunities the Clinton scandals offered the raging morality-hacks of the Republican Party were certainly not missed by that institution. Realistically, the eight years of Clinton Incorporated can only be viewed as a near-decade of squandered and destroyed opportunities for the Democratic Party.

Loyal Democrats, to their ultimate detriment, blindly followed him and his deleterious and unscrupulous bag of spin-doctor’s – men like Lanny Davis and the current carpet-bagging Senator “from” New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton (actually from suburban Chicago). Hillary’s own ineptitude is evidenced in her botched attempt at creating universal healthcare, an idea that most Americans thought was a good one. That is, until she became its spokeswoman and turned it into the greatest policy ever demagogued by, what Princeton economist Paul Krugman calls, the “movement conservatives” in the Republican Party. And yet, her leadership skills are what she is running against Obama with.

Poison. Poison is the only word that I can conjure up to describe the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

Poison. Poison is the only word that I can conjure up to describe the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Because the Clintons had their hands dipped deep in so many corrupt barrels of slush funds, kickbacks, and backroom dealings dating back to when they were the First Couple of Arkansas, they almost instantly lost all credibility among the vast swath of independent voters needed to ensure electoral success. Furthermore, the overtly crass, course, and uncivil nature of the dialog they offered to America in the 1990s, and continue to do so now, has only provided moral high horse conservatives unending opportunities to denigrate the Democratic Party, while giving progressive-minded Democrats all the more reason to stay at home on Election Day – or at least tune to uneducated, ignorant and laughable jingoists like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity for an alternative politics.

Today, nothing has changed. The poisonous politics of the Clintons have been brought full force into this campaign, ensuring their virus in the supposedly progressive and socially conscious Democratic Party persists. And indeed, the personal character assassination, diversion of the voters to petty issues, and the same sort scandalous corrupt money that pervaded the Bill Presidency are alive and well in the current presidential race. Just as poison spreads uncontrollably once it has infected a victim, much of the Democratic Party was infected with the Clinton serum during the 1990s, and today the malfeasance persists. This Clinton poison can be described as the politics of blind allegiance to a person or party, as opposed to following a set of ideals for the betterment of the country.

I myself have had it with the Clintons, and I have had it with the media complacently facilitating the poisonous, vociferous, and downright nefarious ambitions of Bill and Hillary. If there is a single person besides me in this country who is still a true, New Deal liberal, I suspect I am not alone in my absolute disgust with the besmirching of the Democratic Party that Clinton Incorporated has pulled off for the past 16 years. I am equally disgusted and frustrated with the blind loyalty once admirable Democrats such as Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, George Mitchell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and even the few remaining New Deal Democrats like Walter Mondale, have demonstrated toward the Clinton machine. Bill Clinton totally incinerated what was left of the New Deal and civil rights wing of the Democratic Party after Reagan-Bush spent 12 years picking away at this fragile allegiance. This was only achievable with the blind faith of much, if not most, of the leadership and influential members of his party.

Clinton’s own policies as president facilitated the rise of movement conservatives. Movement conservatives represent only the wealthy, unabashed pro-market capitalist wing of the Republican Party, and offer the average working class American nothing more than the do-nothing Social Darwinists of the Gilded Age. Clinton entered office with a Democratic majority in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governors. He left office with the Republicans in control of the majority of these aforementioned bodies and positions. NAFTA, Plan Columbia, Iraqi sanctions and bombing runs, corporate consolidation run wild. This is the true Clinton legacy and the true failure of the Clinton administration. A Hillary presidency would only complete the thorough, toxic poisoning of the Democratic Party.

Pages: 1 2

Tags: Current Events · Opinion · · ·

5 Comments so far ↓

  • art4life

    but if Clinton is elected president, i believe she has the best chances of getting the USA universal health care, and even if she is an awful present and does nothing else but that, i dont think it would ever be reversed. And 4 years of a shitty clinton, is worth free health care for my children.

  • Ramla Alethea

    Neither Clinton or Obama are advocating true universal healthcare — a single payer, everyone is covered system.

    Obama wants to subsidize insurance and Hillary is simply going to mandate that you have to buy insurance, much like auto insurance. Both take contributions from the medical-industrial complex so I wouldn’t expect free health care for your children regardless.

    It’s going to take a lot of grassroots pressure not a Democratic president to accomplish that.

  • cvmacek

    I like your article, however, it could be noted like you point out Hillary represents New York in the senate though she’s not from there, Obama represents Illinios and he’s not from there. It’s easy to attack the Clintons because there is an eight-year presidential legacy to scrutinize, but scrutinize Obama and you’ll see Barack accepts dirty money, and has been given a ridiculously unbalanced amount of media coverage. Obama has been set-up by the media to be where he is now. If you read Barack’s “Blueprint for Change”, Clinton is dead-on when she attacks his lack of specifics, and there is no way he could implement everything he says. If Barack was really all that change-a-riffic, he could be writing and proposing legislation right now in the senate, but he’s not. Barack’s call for “change” is very appealing, and the Bush administration really helps that sentiment, but other democratic candidates that actually affect positive change, like Dennis Kucinich (who introduced articles of impeachment, drafted a non-profit universal healthcare plan, and drafted a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq), as well as Mike Gravel (who started the National Initiative, and who loudly opposed the Vietnam War while in the senate many years ago), these guys who actually do stuff to affect positive change for the good of the American people are shut out by the mass media, and we’re fed Obama’s bullshit change message. There is nothing in Obama’s “Blueprint for Change” he couldn’t try implementing now as a senator, which is why I doubt the integrity of him and his message of “change”.
    -Curtis Macek


    To: ‘cvmacek’

    You attack the attackers over their membership in the Corporatocracy, but offer only alternatives which are already quitters/drop-outs. Which in effect is no-solution at all!

    Then you lie about Obama taking ‘dirty money’ when he returned the ‘dirty money’ he’s received while Clinton continues to take any she can get.

    Then you lie about Obama’s ‘blueprint’. I’ve been to Obama’s web-site and I find plenty of detail.

    As for ‘democratic candidates that actually affect change’ you name totally ineffective examples. What EXACTLY has Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment actually accomplished? Where’s the House of Representatives actual IMPEACHMENT stand today??? Nowhere. Where is his ‘drafted’ universal health-care plan TODAY?

    Apparently, you are satisfied with ‘inititives’, ‘drafts’, ‘plans’ because not a single example you provided have made an ounce of difference to date.

    Clinton is entirely OWNED and OPERATED by the Corporatocracy. A Rupert Murdoch shill. A real Republican “Goldwater Girl” in college; a board member of Wal-Mart for years. Clinton is a FREE-Trader versus a FAIR Trader. Clinton is a liar (sniper fire? what sniper fire?), Hillary has belonged to and been praying with the Senate’s ULTRA-Conservative breakfast club for years.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for lying-Republican-lite.

  • Jolly Lama

    Very interesting article… leaves me wondering if we’ll ever see a genuine cadidate in the White House ever again. Yes, I do believe we’ve had some (come on, he wasn’t perfect but, Carter was and still is a very genuine man).

    When you reach this level of power will you be entirely free of corruption? If so, you will die.

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.