I agree that people who want to reform the Democratic Party away from what Bill Clinton helped it become -- the junior corporate party -- shouldn't be be hanging on him like 5 year olds on Mickey Mouse.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I got my single effort deleted and a stern warning for saying pretty much the same.

"We are all Republicans only not as much," hasn't been a real catchy message.

It is leadership, like that from John Murtha and Russell Feingold, that has put some life in the party despite initial howls of pain from the usual suspects and mass condemnation by the popular press.  

Anybody here really wonder today why John McCain holds appeal despite sucking up to the most reactionary section of the Republican Party?

How the hell can we even be discussing "alternative interrogation methods?"

Thanks again.  Hope we both don't get banned for being liberals.

Best,  Terry

Uh, you're bringing up Whitewater and the Lincoln Bedroom, and not as a joke?

Clinton was far from perfect, but you clearly have issues with him that go well beyond the bounds of rationality.

My problem isn't with them meeting Clinton. That's reasonable. My problem is that the entire event was organized by (and probably paid for by, although admittedly I have no proof) by one of Hillary Clinton's campaign accounts. I've read that Hillary's folks even paid airfare to fly the various luncheon participants to NYC.

What's amazing is that this blatant attempt by the Hillary folks to court "net-tops" support seemingly raised not the slightest hint of ill-ease among any of the attendees.

But, but, it was only about opening channels of communication. Oh, yeah, sure it was.

was leave the door wide open for a new wave of progressive, liberal activists to form their own unique bond and perhaps compete with todays "top bloggers".

I see this new group of people standing arm and arm with teachers, union members, nurses, building maintenance workers, first responders and tradespeople.

I love Clinton.  I think he was the best president in a long time.  I think his political skills were superb and I think he did a lot of good in the policy areas that I care about.

I wish he hadn't lied under oath but other than that I love Clinton and I think Gore would be president today if he hadn't run away from everything clinton.

I don't blame the problems of the dem party on Clinton.  I blame them on the weasels and wimps in the Senate and House who capitulated to George Bush after 9/11.

I love Clinton.

I would meet with him any day any where.

It was just a meet and greet. It's no different from an athlete who wins a championship but may be a democrat who gets to meet President Bush and beams like a kid. It's about the office, not the person.

I was pretty disappointed with Clinton on many issues but he did do some good things too. I don't see anything wrong with bloggers standing next to Clinton and smiling even if some of them may not like a few things during his tenure. It's just human nature. It's not an endorsement of all his policies.

Your concern becomes important only if the said bloggers skew their coverage of Clinton in his favor just because he granted them access.

I'm pretty torn on this, so I'll just throw down some ideas -

1. I think Clinton was a did more harm that good as a President. Not only were his policies pandering, many of them were downright wrong (NAFTA/Rwanda), and as a result he not only harmed the country, but also the Left as an entity.

2. I got pretty freaked out at Yearly Kos by the 'blogosphere in the stratosphere' thing where Mark Warner threw this MASSIVE party for us all. At the time, I remember thinking, 'Huh, so this is what if feels like to be lobbied'. It's an intense experience, and not a little daunting.

BUT

3. Clinton is a powerful guy, and having access to him is a good thing. Being able to present the concerns of the progressive blog movement to one of the most powerful people in the world is pretty badass.

I guess in the end, I agree with Pravin - this is only going to be a problem if all of a sudden the A-List bloggers become Clinton apologists and/or shills.

But we can keep them honest on that front.

Thanks, Micah (btw, I've always enjoyed your watchdog work, ever since you appeared in my campaign blog comments inquiring as to whether I was running as a Maine Clean Elections candidate (which I wasn't, btw, but for what I still view as valid reasons related to how the program is funded.))

Power and celebrity are funny things; they are amazingly seductive, even to those we think to be cynical enough to be above their pull.  I, and others with whom I've spoken who came from politics into blogging (unlike the majority of the attendees, who approached politics through their blogging efforts,) were somewhat dumbfounded that the attendees didn't seem to have a clue as to the underlying goal of making Hillary more palatable (or at least, less a target.)  It seemed so obvious to us.

But then, even supposedly hardened operatives are vulnerable; when I worked for KE04 in Maine, Senator Edwards made a visit to Bangor.  Our office was in Portland, 3-4 hours away, and so I expected the local office would handle staffing the event.  However, our state field director (my boss), completely star-struck, arranged for the entire office to attend the event, leaving our headquarters staffed only by volunteers.  Now, I've been a fan of Edwards for years (was one of the few Edwards delegates to the state convention), but I declined, citing too much work, and stayed behind to staff the office.  Ironically, Republicans understood the seduction of celebrity, as they used that day to attempt to infiltrate the office and hack the computers.  Not surprisingly, the campaign staff which should have known better, never understood the seriousness of the incident, and derided those who criticized them as being envious of their access.  Having met privately with Edwards during the primary, I found that laughable.  For some, it's hard to get past their defensiveness and understand we have valid criticisms of their actions.

My more cynical side wonders if Daou and his employers understood that just holding this meeting would have an insidious effect, one perhaps not even measurable, yet profound.  Before this, many of us, even veteran operatives, still trusted our A-list bloggers to be equally jaded when it came to inside-the-Beltway politicos, even the top dogs.  Despite all our squabbles, there was still a sense of unity that we were all in this together, that it was us against them, and together, as we saw in the Connecticut primary, we represented a truly powerful force.

But now, there is that niggling bit of doubt - who really knows how many it infects, but it is there.  And I suspect it will grow, as there will no doubt be more attempts to "build bridges" between the Clintons and the blogosphere - that why Daou was hired, neh?  It's not really Chris and Matt and all the others' fault - they're only human, as Markos says, just a guy with a blog.  It's a good reminder of that, really.  A lesson perhaps all of us should take to heart, to recognize that we, not only our blogging betters, have the power for change, and we should utilize it appropriately, in our best interest.

Does anyone really think a Dem is going to be elected in 2008 without the direct financial and political support of the Clintons?

We all have some (or many) problems with the Clinton presidency. One thing I don't fault him on is the lack of building of the democratic infrastructure. I seem to remember Dems running AWAY from Clinton as fast as they could - even running away from Gore because of Clinton. IMO, both Gore and Kerry made fatal mistakes in waiting too long to bring in Clinton people and advisors in their campaigns.

I think at some point, our expectations have to be based more in reality than in principle. IMO, a democratic administration with heavy Clinton influence is going to come one hell of alot closer to the policies I believe in and want than any republican administration.

Getting back on topic, the blogging phenomena is amazing and a true common grass roots revolution. Some Dems have embraced it, and I won't criticize the Clintons for reaching out to it. If the distrust is there for them - fine.

Let's wait and see what they want. The biggest point is to ensure an administration is elected that will have policies closer to what we believe in - let's not turn on ourselves.

I tend to think so, and to follow is my argument.

In 1992, this is how things played out:

1. even though unseating a sitting President is not easy, and Bush-I seemed invincible in early 1991, recession hit the country hard later that year and only got worse in 1992.

2. Perot was generally against Bush, and his rhetoric exposed Bush as an out of touch elitist.

3. Bush-I was a lousy campaigner all around compared to Bush-II equipped with and well-coached by Karl Rove (Bush-I has actually fired Rove from his 1992 campaign staff, from what I've read, and probably regrets it now).

4. Clinton got a solid bump from in polls from picking Gore, and gained the lead shortly thereafter which he would maintain till election day.

5. When Perot dropped out while mildly endorsing Clinton, Clinton got a substantial bump from it, which Perot never fully regained once he re-entered the race later.

6. He didn't have a serious attack from the left by Nader or a Nader-like candidate

i.e. Clinton had several factors in his favor, yet he managed to pull only a 5.6% popular vote win over Bush, which would have been narrower (probably +0--2%) had Perot not been on the ballot. Numbers don't really show an extra-ordinary prowess in Clinton's part.

Clinton IS a gifted policy wonk (so is Gore, and he is more progressive and populist, and I think he has a better overall vision), an effective communicator (Gore much improved on this front, and now in fact communicates in a powerful and lasting manner), Clinton is "street smart" but I'd take higher principles, greater moral clarity, and steadfast courage of conviction over street smarts.

One question I have for Bill Clinton: exactly what were you doing when Hillary decided to support the war, and hence both of you effectively led the caving-in of the party on the war?

Notwithstanding, I like Bill Clinton because I think his net contribution to the country and the society is positive (I think that he is even on the party front: Bill Clinton hurt the party as much as he helped it). However, it is time to wrest the de-facto leader of the party role from him.

That mantle belongs with Al Gore at this point of time. Watch the video below for one more reason as to why:

Former Vice President Gore Gives a Major Policy Address at the NYU School of Law
(Video of Gore's speech at NYU)

In a speech cosponsored by the Set America Free Coalition and the World Resources Institute, Gore urges a bipartisan approach to solving the climate crisis

Not that it's my job, but:  Welcome

In response to the post:  Why not raise these issues at the second lunch.  Wouldn't that make more sense?  

Frst time around,  sip the man's iced tea and listen to what he has to say.  

-Under Clinton, the Democrats went from having a majority in Congress and in the statehouses to a minority.

I've never been a great fan of Bill Clinton, except for his amazing combination of wonkiness and political skills.

But I'm reading a lot of self-serving tripe in this post and comments.

Let's examine some reasons why Dems lost Congress in 1994:

1. Although the country was coming out of the post-87 crash recession, it had not impinged on the popular consciousness yet, so people were POed at their perception of continuing recession.
   
2. The Dems passed Clinton-Gore tax hikes in 93 without a single Republican vote.  These tax hikes set the stage for lower interest rates and the boom in the economy in the 90s.  The tax hikes were predominantly on the well-off.  But stupid voters just saw tax hikes.
   
3. The culmination of the Southern realignment that began with the passing of the Voting Rights Act in the 60s.
   
4. Democratic corruption that was ably publicized by the DC press corpse.
   
5. The failure of the HRC healthcare initiative, which was betrayed by the small business owners it sought to have as allies.  Next time a Democratic administration won't make the same mistake.
   
6. A basically chaotic Clinton administration.   Some of this was Clinton himself and his lack of discipline (there are stories of Bentsen and Gore pleading with him to "get with the program").  But a large part of it was an immature staff that just loved seeing what they leaked showing up in the WaPo.  Policy discussion and score-settling via leaking is not a way to run a WH.  Why do you think Clinton brought Gergen in?
   

Frankly, I hope that none of the whiners here end up in the next Democratic WH.  I can just see them leaking their pet whine to AdNag in the interests of "transparency."  Please.

Grow up.

Problem was the bloggers were being manipulated. It was all a ruse to try to get the bloggers to "be nice" to Hillary when she runs for President.

Don't expect either of them to actually do anything about anything once she has the nod and then loses us the election.

That's all.

I have always thought Clinton got a bad rap.  Was he perfect?  Hell, no but he did some good things.

1 - He tried to make the tax code more progressive by raising the top rate to 39.5% from the low 30s.

2 - He greatly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit which puts money into the pockets of the working poor.  It is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs out there.

3 - He helped pass the Childrens Health Insurance Program.  It is not universal coverage but he didn't give up on expanding coverage after 1994.

4 - He pursued a progressive foreign policy including stopping the genocide in the former Yugoslavia (albeit a little too late) and pushing hard for a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

5 - Expanded Medicare to cover preventive care for the first time.

These are just a few of the good things he did.  My biggest problem with Bubba was that the Monica Lewinsky scandal stopped the momentum he had developed in 1996-1997.  Look at the 1997 budget bill - he gave a few bones to the Rs but it is chock full of Dem priorities.

I know people mock his small ball solutions but he had to adapt after the 1994 and he did.  Let's not forget it is not as though he didn't try big solutions.  He did and was unsuccessul with them albeit partly because of poor execution.  Regardless, it didn't work and he adapted which is what successful people do.

The guy is not perfect but look at what we have experienced in the past 6 years.  I'd happily take Bill Clinton over this any day.