Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
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.

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


Occasional Series