Let’s face it – President Bill Clinton deserves full credit for having the courage in 1992 to step up and run for President. In late 1991, President George H.W. Bush looked unbeatable that year and Clinton took a risk and was rewarded. But it can be theorized that if the more liberal Mario Cuomo had run he would be President or the more conservative Sam Nunn had run he would have won also. The poor economy combined with Ross Perot’s candidacy and general voter fatigue toward the GOP meant probably anyone the Democrats nominated would have become President.
But since November 1992, the Clinton’s have exhibited an arrogance and a sense of entitlement – and each time they’ve been up against it they’ve used the instruments of power and intimidation including the mechanisms within the Democratic Party, as well as fear. This week, with Senator Clinton’s poll numbers sagging and the narrative about general election strength being refuted by recent surveys.
Bernie Sanders views on various issues and his record are being very clearly skewed by Clinton, her family members, surrogates, other Democratic Party insiders and those feeding at the trough of the establishment.
Chelsea Clinton’s claim that Sanders wants to “dismantle Obamacare” or surrogate attacks that Sanders doesn’t care about minority voters, or the claims of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (a prototypical establishment Democrat) on CNN the other day that nominating Sanders “would put a Republican in the White House,” with the implication that American society would be destroyed by the election of a GOP President.
These fear tactics have worked before – the GOP’s overreach when it comes to scandal has led to a “rally around the flag” mentality among many Democrats through the years when it comes to the Clinton’s. The reality remains President Clinton lost both house of Congress for the Democrats in his first midterm election, engaged in a scandal around campaign finance that very much might have cost the Democrats an opportunity to retake Congress two years later and eventually was impeached. Clinton it is claimed by Democratic loyalists was less corrupt than any recent Republican President. It depends on your perspective of course, but given the great responsibility thrust upon him, Clinton proved arrogant, reckless and ultimately selfish in making so many Democratic elected officials walk the plank for his political survival.
Today, more so than in the 1990’s we have higher-information voters on the left, as sources of media outside of the cozy liberal-corporate establishment networks (more on this in a post coming tomorrow about the collapse of Al Jazeera America) are available for those who seek a different perspective or more information. Additionally, political participation no longer rests entirely these days on the party or entities that frame themselves as activist organizations but are in fact party-connected front groups.
Ultimately though the establishment knows they will pull through – they always do using the mechanisms of the Democratic Party, which works more like a private club than an instrument of democracy. But that does not change the reality that the arrogance of the Clinton family and the machine they control is once again rearing its ugly head.