Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Until the impeachment got well under way, American liberals and progressives were vociferous in their criticism of Clinton - for NAFTA, for ending "welfare," for triangulation, for selling out environmentalists, for proposing policies that hurt children.  For example, Marian Wright Edelman of The Children's Defense Fund is a liberal - and she excoriated Clinton.  

Similarly, non-liberal "centrists" like the New Republic (which we liberals call corporatist or conservative Dems), harshly criticized Dean in 2003 for rejecting Clinton's attack on liberalism.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031229&s=lizza122903

Calling Clinton "liberal" is both historically and ideologically inaccurate.  He illustrates PRECISELY the kind of muddy thinking you correctly criticize.  My point is simple: legions of activists and writers have pointed this out consistently.  The fact that they are ignored by American elites does not make them less real.  To call Clinton - or the New York Times - "liberal" is to repeat Republican talking points.  

Cui bono?

by cambridgemac on Thu Jan 11th, 2007 at 08:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

kcurie 4
rg 4
r------ 4

Display:

Occasional Series