Speaking of Oliver...

...he takes me to task in a comment on the post below about Bill Clinton, saying that "...you've gotta be nutty to think he did nothing for the party."

I don't disagree, but my argument isn't that he did nothing for the Party. I agree with Pierce when he says that "...his primary accomplishment over his two terms was keeping the real wingnuts at bay..." and I agree that that accomplishment "...is not an inconsiderable one, given the present state of things."

It's probably worth noting his prodigious skill as a fundraiser, which has benefited the Party significantly.

It's also true, though, that Bill Clinton pursued a program that, for the most part, could have been embraced by, say, Dick Nixon. It can also be argued that much of his troubles were the consequence of losing Democratic control of the House of Representatives for the first time in a couple of generations, and that part of the blame for that loss could be put at the feet of an Administration that asked for support without providing much political cover. My biggest personal gripe is over his bungled attempt to develop a health care proposal that sold out the single payer constituency in an attempt to satisfy the private insurance industry, which ended up stabbing him in the back anyway. The drive for real health care reform was set back a couple of decades (which, in my view, is as good a reason as any to disqualify Hillary for a Presidential nomination).

But I don't really want to devote a lot of attention to dumping on Bill Clinton, who did, after all, serve a purpose and whose considerable personal appeal makes him a popular figure in Democratic circles despite his ideological inconsistency. However you feel about his role in Democratic Party history, I simply don't think he should play a significant role in crafting the Democratic future. Bring him out for special events, especially when there's money involved, if you like, but keep him away from the platform, please.

It's time to trade in the Big Dog for Big John...