Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:25 AM Feb 2016

The Democratic Presidential primary is reminiscent of the George H.W. Bush versus Bill Clinton race

Running for his second term in 1992, George H.W. Bush was riding high in the foreign affairs arena. The salient issue I remember propelling him to that high was his decision to ride his horse into Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. With a coalition behind him, ride he did and win he did. The Kuwaiti people to this day regard him as a hero.

That invasion was labeled "The Gulf War" at that time, and some say set the precedent for George W. Bush's* later invasion of Iraq, subsequently called "The Second Gulf War."

But in 1992, Bill Clinton was popular with a certain sect of the voting public, most of whom I remember being much younger than George H.W. Bush. Those who argued against his election said he could never win, always pointing to his lack of experience on an international level.

At one point in time, Bush aides perceived Clinton might in fact overtake Bush and deny him his second term. One Clinton biographer wrote that Clinton had been privately approached by Bush aids to let Bush in fact serve a second term. After that second Bush term, Republicans would lie down and virtually give Clinton a free ride to the Oval Office in 1996. Clinton declined. He felt his chances were pretty good because the economy was not serving well many people in this Country, and those people favored Clinton.

"It's the economy, Stupid."

Many people were stunned to see George H.W. Bush lose to Bill Clinton who in their perception had zero political gravitas. What those people failed to grasp that given the choice of voting for a President who fought to save a foreign country at the expense of allowing this Country to vastly deteriorate was a no-brainer. They chose to vote for the candidate they thought would pay more attention to the condition of this land than the land over in the Persian Gulf. Clinton was the one who would improve their everyday life, and thus he prevailed.

(Side note: Ironically, in 1993 it was President Bill Clinton who defended George H.W. Bush against Saddam Hussein's plot to assassinate him.)* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

I see a lot of similarity in that race and the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. And for the same reason Bill Clinton prevailed over George H.W. Bush, voters will ironically choose Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. He is the one who will put food on their table and keep a roof over their heads.

Politics is after all personal. JMHO

Sam


*not supported by later Pentagon report....

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
3. I started thinking this a couple of week ago
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:37 AM
Feb 2016

and tonight while watching the debate, I started thinking it again!

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
4. I am sorry, I don't know what you mean
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:38 AM
Feb 2016

James Carville was a Clinton supporter, and he coined that phrase.

Sam

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
6. and he ran left after Perot's goading (then governed right)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:14 PM
Feb 2016

that was actually the first New Dem betrayal, before '08

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
8. He was a fine role model for candidate Hillary Clinton, wasn't he?
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:23 PM
Feb 2016

Bill Clinton struggled with finding a term to describe his type of politics during his presidency. Either he or someone on his team coined the phrase "Third Way." A Third Way politician was a Democrat who could find middle ground with the conservatives and by compromising, get things done.

Eventually, when the DLC withered up and died, that crowd just became a part of the Third Way.

Today's vocal members of Third Way describe themselves sometimes as socially liberal but economically conservative. I do not consider them real Democrats, but more like a herd of Trojan Horses.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

thesquanderer

(12,149 posts)
7. And unlike Bill Clinton, in the general election...
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:57 PM
Feb 2016

...Bernie would not be running against someone with superior foreign policy experience, either.

In a way, though, your post just gets back to the old saw, all politics is local.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
10. I wrote this thread late last night because there is a distinct resemblance to the
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:28 PM
Feb 2016

George H.W. Bush/Bill Clinton contest and the battle going on now between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

I am not impressed with Hillary's foreign affairs expertise. Bernie is correct when he says "judgment is more important." I personally believe he has already proven that.

Thanks for posting on my thread, and yes, all politics is local, of course.

Sam

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
9. The most salients things about that race as I recall: 1) "Read my lips, no new taxes" became
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:26 PM
Feb 2016

history when GHW Bush raised taxes (oops!); and 2) there was a bad recession during which he VETOED extension of unemployment benefits and THE VERY NEXT WEEK he signed off on guaranteed loans to Israel to the tune of $5 Billion.

I was out of work briefly during that time, and I recall how I felt about that, can't forget it.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
11. That is exactly how George H.W. Bush made many, many people feel
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:23 AM
Feb 2016

It was as if he only cared about problems outside the Country and was usually willing to jump in and help while being oblivious to the needs of people at home. That was a large part of why he denied a second term. And, of course, the "Read my lips, no new taxes" clip was replayed over and over when he did exactly that.

But when I read your post, it reminded me of how I felt during a good part of the Clinton administration. There was frequently a soap opera playing. There were the scandalous, vicious things Republicans simply made up about both Bill and Hillary Clinton. I think it was retaliatory for his not standing down and giving the elder Bush a second term. But one thing turned into another and after awhile, it just this general malaise that seemed to settle over the Country as if blue skies would never appear gain.

And here is the worst part I have to admit. I was a Republican during this time. Eventually, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal hit, that malaise turned into an everyday nightmare. I cannot describe the depression. But when Ken Starr issued his report and later put the evidence on the Internet for the whole world to see (complete with pictures of then President Clinton's private parts) as an embarrassment to the President, I resigned from the party and came on over to the Dems. I could not allow my name to be associated with the Republican party. After a short while I realized, this was the party where I should have always been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

At the time it was released, the report was criticized for making controversial accusations about exactly what Clinton did.[3] The report claimed "the details are crucial to an informed evaluation of the testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of other evidence. Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential."[3] This accusation was proven to be false.[3][4][5] Because Starr regularly leaked tidbits to press about the lurid, lengthy sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver[4][5] and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing.[4][5] Also, it is unclear whether Starr had the legal authority to ask Clinton questions about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, as the OIC was convened solely to investigate Whitewater and Paula Jones' claim that Clinton sexually assaulted her. Questioning about a sexual relationship void of assault appears to be both irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as a whole and under Rule 413, which allows questioning about separate allegations of sexual assault (which was never asserted about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton).[6]


The reason I am bring this up, is that a few weeks ago I started feeling that same sort of malaise and mentally reached to identify when it was I felt this way before. And then I remembered.

I am thinking that when Republicans do not electorally speaking "get their way" they make the whole Country miserable. I hope we are not sliding into another era of that dimension....

Sam
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Democratic Presidenti...