As the presidential campaign unfolds, it’s striking to note that the main Democratic storyline is the rejection of Clintonism. Even as the party seems poised to nominate the wife of the former president, the Democratic candidates are rejecting Bill Clinton’s tone and policies. Where Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 on welfare reform, law enforcement, tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts to spur economic investment, and cuts in federal spending, the candidates in 2008 are essentially ignoring all those ideas. It’s almost as if Clinton was not the only Democratic president since FDR to be elected twice. You would think the candidates would be tripping over themselves to embrace Clinton’s policies. Instead there’s lip service to the Clinton legacy, combined with an attempt to emulate Howard Dean’s failed 2004 bid. Writing in the Politico, James Kirchick, assistant editor of the New Republic, points out that in their rush to reject Clinton (and George Bush), Democrats such as Ned Lamont are now embracing the ‘realists’ that they criticized for decades:
While military action is the most costly and least desirable way to resolve international conflicts, it is one that the nation must keep ‘on the table.’ When they recoiled against the Iraq war, Democrats didn’t just say Iraq was a mistake; they’ve become unwilling to take military action against any bad international actor. That’s simply reckless. How long will it take Democrats to rebound from the ‘Bush hangover,’ and can their candidate win the presidency while the party is still in detox?
