The shame of Blair is he had a huge majority; most of whom believed in old Labour principles where Clinton never had a majority in Congress. Of course the reason Blair was leader of the party is because he was electable and was originally a conservative in his developing years which meant he was easily maleable to the elites of which he considered himself a member. Even when Clinton had a majority in his first two years in the Presidency; it wasn't an ideological majority meaning there were the Southern Democrats who would always side with the Republicans.
No doubt Clinton will triangulate but had he had the permanent majority Blair had; he would have been a very progressive President instead of one whose first priority was reelection.
The shame of Blair is he had a huge majority; most of whom believed in old Labour principles where Clinton never had a majority in Congress.
This is simply false and nothing but a convenient excuse. Clinton entered office with increased majorities in both houses. He then failed (thanks, in part, to his wife's incompetence) miserably to pass anything but NAFTA, and then had to bend over for Gingrich for the rest of his presidency, essentially becoming a somewhat responsible Republican.
That's to say nothing of Clinton throwing the state parties to the wolves, and then raping the DNC and our congressional and senatorial committees, essentially turning them into wholly-owned subsidiaries of Dow Chemical and Goldman Sachs. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
They had included vague promises of universal health care in their campaign, but had no plan, so their failure was over-determined ... it needed to be presenting in the first six months to have a chance of passage, the bill they presented was compromised up front so that the elements of the for profit health care industry that the Clintons considered to be "on board" could just sit back, with a worst case scenario something they could live with, and if they were lucky the whole thing would fall apart, while the elements opposed to it could go after it full throttle ...
... it had too many fatal flaws for any one to be pinpointed as "the" fatal flaw.
That wasn't the question I was addressing, but rather the point that a successful health care plan would have been a creator of political capital, while the two big political battles that they did take seriously and fight to win, balancing the budget and NAFTA, where successes that consumed political capital. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
Clinton did some policy, but he wasn't much of a leader. There was a token pro-Democrat thing happening, but the big moral (in the widest sense) issues happened around him.
Bush has been tremendously successful as a leader. We've had endless waves of crap from him about Iraq, terrrism, patriotism, America, Bin Laden, 9/11, and Christianity, all of which have persuaded people - at least for a while - that he's talking about issues that really matter.
Blair was trying hard to be a leader, but because he was such a lying git he didn't really have an honest narrative to push. His leadership appeared to be all over the place, but if he hadn't been Tony Blair, and if he'd concentrated on rebuilding the progressive consensus - as voters expected him to and wanted him to - he could have done great things.
As it turned out he was really more interested in Catholicism than progressive values, and so here we are.
Brown is a bank manager, not a leader. Even when he occasionally does the right thing he has no idea how to craft a narrative, or any understanding why a narrative might be necessary. He's about 50:50 on policy - some good, some bad. But he's so lamentably unaware politically that he'll be forgotten soon after he's out.
Hillary has tried to do leadership and failed. 'Gimme the Presidency because I deserve it' isn't a narrative anyone can lead with. It makes her look ridiculous - real leaders don't need to persuade, they just need to lead.
Obama and McCain are currently the only headline Anglo politicians who are showing signs of leadership. Obama is looking good - he has a story, and it seems to be coherent. I'm not sure it's the right story, but it's something voters can understand.
McCain is promising Bush 2.0, so voters know where they are with that - temper tantrums, flag waving and bombs. Some people get off on that, so he'll have solid support.
Obama has certainly started to make people talk about - something. It's not quite clear what it is yet, but he does seem to be tacking to the left. And he's proven that he can spin a good yarn and get people to sit up and notice.
The right wins so often because it's so much better at this kind of simple-minded participatory story telling, and it has so many more ways to get the story out. But Obama has shown he can at least put up a fight. I'm not clear what that's going to mean for policy, but I think at worst we can expect Obama to be a Clinton 2.0 - much more so than Hillary would be. At best - we'll see.
As for the UK - Brown is out. No question.
The LibDems are kinda sorta beginning to have a narrative, but they're still too diverse internally and too focussed on specific issues, so there isn't anything coherent there to excite anyone who isn't already interested. Also, they remain too prissy and middle class to get their hands dirty with an appeal to the proles on Old Labour issues. So they'll continue along in their rather marginal ghetto - unless perhaps there happens to be a hung parliament with the LibDems as deciderers.
Cameron is doing his populist schtick, which is fake but fun to watch, and that's likely to win him the next round, if only because a big part of his story is that he's Not Labour. Of all of the prospects, he probably has the strongest story at the moment - not that that's saying much, because the competition isn't impressive. But I think it's going to be enough for him to win.
