ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



1994 Flashback

Posted: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:08 AM by Huma Zaidi

NBC's Chris Donovan points out that on the day after the 1994 midterm elections, President Clinton held an afternoon news conference in the East Room.  He said he was reaching out to Republicans and asking “them to join me in the center of the public debate where the best ideas for the next generation of American progress must come.”  When asked by a reporter if the election was a repudiation of him, Clinton responded:  “Well, I think that I have some responsibility for it.  I’m the President.  I am the leader of the efforts that we have made in the last two years.  And to whatever extent that we didn’t do what the people wanted us to do or they were not aware of what we had done, I must certainly bear my share of responsibility, and I accept that.” 

Writing about the 1994 election 10 years later in his memoir “My Life,” Clinton pointed out that “we got the living daylights beat out of us.”  He wrote: “The Republicans were rewarded for two years of constant attacks on me and for their solidarity on the contract.  The Democrats were punished for too much good government and too little good politics.”   “I was profoundly distressed by the election, far more than I ever let on in public,” he said, noting that he believed some of his “hard decisions” on policy issues cost those Democratic members who supported him their seats.  And he wrote that “on the day after the election, I tried to make the best of a bad situation, promising to work with the Republicans.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Eloquent words from Clinton. I wonder how idiotic Bush's spin will be.
I imagine Bush ate crow this morning for breakfast. Go Democrats!!
Jeanie has it right. I would not be surprised if idiot Bushie were to tell the country that he has always done the right thing, he will continue doinig what he believes to be the right thing and DEMAND that the DEMS join him in the continuation of his (failed) policies.
Chill Jeani; we won, now act like a winner instead of a barebones trailer trash hooker seeking a fix.
To Jeani O: I agree. Bill Clinton was a realist (unlike Bush) and he was a skilled political operative (also unlike Bush). In addition, he always knew how to phrase his words in such a way that the public was always pulling for him. He was booming with confidence (as all good Presidents are), but he also had an air of humility. I think the Clinton quote which Huma Zaidi references in her writing, shows a very good human quality. He gave it his best efforts. He did what he thought was best for the country. And, yet, he's able to acknowledge that he bears responsibility for the voter's dissatisfaction. I, too, am looking forward to Bush's statement today, the day after the Republican's took a drubbing. I expect he'll be arrogant, agressive, defiant, and wholly unyielding in the notion that his current policy or stance on the Iraq war is completely correct. He seems to continually confuse intent with results. He figures he and his administration had good intentions when they decided to go invade Iraq. I, too, don't doubt their intentions. However, if the results are poor, and show no signs of improving, then a good leader would admit failure; re-group and start looking for new options. This President insn't just confident. He's arrogant and lacks the ability to self evaluate and self criticize. As such, he'll always be a slave to his "first policy" regardless of how flawed it's proven to be. It's a shame 7 Nov 06 wasn't a Presidential election. He'd be removed in a landslide.
Having been on the loosing side of this fiasco, I have to say that it will be refreshing to be able to sit back and throw rocks for a change. The Dems remain morally bankrupt, they have just managed to convince a majority of the country that their immoral positions are acceptable.
Amazing that Clinton feels he can re-write his own history so easily. Even more amazing that his Dem. buddies are so ready to buy it. Civility is not a weakness but partisanship based on hate is.
sounds like kathy is also in a state of denial. to call democrats morally bankrupt after the many republican scandals is just a big bowl of wrong. sour grapes kathy! at least have the dignity and decency to admit defeat and offer hope that both parties can unite for the good of ALL americans.
Didn't realize that raising the minimum wage was immoral.
I'm constantly fascinated with the image of Dems being "immoral" or "Godless" or - the one I read yesterday - "low-lifes." The quote from Clinton sounded downright classy to me. And I'm sorry - who has been in the middle of all these scandals lately? It's time to stop throwing stones and work to return our country and our government to being "for the people, by the people."
The CNN commentator had it right. The PUBS strayed too far from the center and got hammered. Now they will have to join Pelosi in the center, for she is too smart to be any kind of left wing zealot. Watch her and wish she was on your side McPUBS. A minimum wage increase, tax breaks for the middle class, lower prescription drug prices will the centrist-ageless- genderless-policies she will push. A series of smart small gains is all they need to keep the ball rolling. Can you say Clinton-Pelosi in 08?
Kathy, we're all on the loosing side of this. Until our country decides to work together, one policy at a time, and abandon party for principle, no one wins. I'm tired of the fact that nothing truly gets done because of partisan politics. Control of the House & Senate is a farce, as proven by both parties in the past 2 administrations. Our reps need to vote on principles and not on party lines. They also need to be representatives of integrity and moral standard. I don't think that's what we've just voted in. God help us if we're to spend the next two years in the blame game, rather than finding real solutions to real problems.
Kathy, we're all on the loosing side of this. Until our country decides to work together, one policy at a time, and abandon party for principle, no one wins. I'm tired of the fact that nothing truly gets done because of partisan politics. Control of the House & Senate is a farce, as proven by both parties in the past 2 administrations. Our reps need to vote on principles and not on party lines. They also need to be representatives of integrity and moral standard. I don't think that's what we've just voted in. God help us if we're to spend the next two years in the blame game, rather than finding real solutions to real problems.
To Kathy: I've learned over the years to beware of people who tell you how moral they are.
To kathy: The fiasco to which you refer was no less than a complete renunciation of not only the failed policies of a Republican-controlled Congress but of that group's moral bankruptcy as well. How can you deny the obvious moral bankruptcy of the Republicans in the face of the Delay & Cunningham falls from grace, as well as the Foley debacle and subsequent cover-up. It is always easier to criticize than create but if you wish to spend your time throwing rocks, go right ahead from that glass house of yours. Accountability is imperative for any branch of Government and it is time that taxpaying, country loving Americans get answers, not excuses or deflections. The truth is more than just what you can't prove to be a lie: it is what we are owed and must demand of all leaders... Republican, Democrat, and Independents alike.
<> ...So, the Dems are the morally bankrupt ones, while the party that gives us torture, lies to us about reasons to go to war, covers up for pedophiles, and takes away the right to Habeus Corpus has the high moral ground? Are you insane, blind, or just plain stupid?
To Kathy: I've learned over the years to beware of people who tell you how moral they are. And, by the way, that was an awful lot of convincing wasn't it?
Kathy, your party has seen many of its leaders on their way to jail, one Congressman preying on teenagers, and a few who beat their wives. So even by the s*xual standards conservatives use as the ONLY benchmark of morality, the Republicans are in the sewer. The biggest difference you're going to see is that we Democrats aren't mindless, grinning bulldogs marching in blind lockstep with our leaders the way Republicans are. We are going to hold our leaders' feet to the fire and fight to keep them honest.
To Kathy: What "immoral" positions are you talking about? Is it "immoral" to question the conflict we created in Iraq? I do believe that the U.S. Constitution gives each citizen the right to question the decisions and policies of our lawmakers. In fact, you could say that it is un-American not to question our leaders...maybe even "immoral" not to! Is it "immoral" to support a women's right to choose? Well, we can debate this issue forever, BUT I do believe that each individual in society should have the right to decide that issue for themselves! Each and every person should have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do with THEIR bodies...not have some government lawmaker decide. Besides, while I agree that the Constitution does not specifically state that there is a "right" to choose, the original Constitution did not give any real rights to WOMEN to begin with. It was only later, when we as a society grew more "enlightened that we decided that women had any rights at all. I don't know who is "RIGHT" on the abortion issue, I just know that I would prefer to let the individual decide. That's not "immoral", that's enlightened! Besides, didn't Jesus or God say: Judge not, lest ye be judged! So what is your beef? What are you afraid will happen...if it involves cats and dogs raining from heaven, I don't want to know! Just remember this: unless you and your friends are saints and pillars of virtue, then you are a sinner just like the rest of us! However, I do think that you should have every opportunity to express your view point, and THAT's the moral way to be. Don't just say everyone is wrong...back it up with specifics and support your points with facts.
"The Dems remain morally bankrupt?????" Why, because they want to change the culture of corruption in Congress? They want to protect our environment? They want to raise the minimum wage? They want everyone to have equal rights under the law? They want government to stay out of our homes? They want to stand up for the Bill of Rights? MORALLY CORRUPT? Kathy, you've been listening to Fox News too much. You're buying into their spin.
The people spoke. Dems now run the House and apparently the Senate too. It is time they put their agenda into action by putting bills on the President's desk that accomplish what they stated during the campaign; Solve the Health care issue, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, solve the Middle East issue, they promised to make this country energy independent and they have the solution to the immigration problem. American's spoke with a loud voice...it's up to the Dems to deliver or at least provide the details to the American people
Kathy, you should curb your comments when addressing issues such as "moral bankruptcy." What does the name Foley mean to you? You speak of throwing rocks, but you should perhaps leave your glass house first. Oh yeah, get a spell checker for your comments next time, unless your grammatical errors were intended to indicate the literary capacity of our esteemed "president."
Kathy, Being "moral" as the Republicans and yourself are I am shocked to hear that you might see throwing stones as "refreshing". My goodness? Who is Holy now? I am thankful there is such a sound, moral person like yourself around to remind us which direction we have just turned away from.
The true fiasco, Kathy, is the domestic and international mess the current administration has created. Included in the list of moral imperatives are the prohibitions of lying, cheating and stealing. Here's a couple of names for you: Abramoff, Ney, DeLay, Cunningham, et al. I won't even touch on that Foley thing. A culture of corruption. I don't think you have the moral high ground here. I'd be careful with those rocks--a lot of windows surround you.
Kathy - You're NOT saying this with a straight face are you? Dems morally bankrupt? Have you forgotten Foley, Ney, Abramoff, Sherwood, Delay, Hastert's coverup. Shall I go on?
Kathy,please!Foley,Haggard,Ney,Noe,Taft.Democrates are progressive.They think about future generations and the life that they will have;not make the country a third world nation with massive debt and low wage workers.All that so that the wealthy elite can rob the pension funds of loyal employees to increase the size of their bonus checks and send the middle class to the roles of under-employment and bankruptcy.
It will certainly be interesting to see how things go. I would guess it will still be gridlock in DC. The gavels may have changed, but the margins are not substantial enough in either the Senate or the House to make a difference. This should set Republicans up nicely for the Presidential election as a previous writer has already suggested ... "I have to say it will be refreshing to be able to sit back and throw rocks for a change." Unfortunately, that is what too many folks on both sides of the aisle want/like to do - is just throw rocks. Sad, really. Throwing rocks with a purpose is one thing, but already poised ... fasten your seatbelts!
nice 1 kathy....what planet r u from? nothing this administration has done has been even close to moral...Iraq..Deficit spending..Tax cuts for the wealthy..TORTURE!!! who is immoral?
Kathy -- Abramhoff, Foley, Cunningham, Delay, Ney, and a host of others are embarrassments to the Republican party, but "the Dems remain morally bankrupt". You have it backwards -- a majority of the country has just managed to convince the Republicans that THEIR positions are NOT acceptable.
I enjoy the "culture of corruption" that Democrats claim the Republicans have. Lets double...no, triple the number of "immoral" people you're listing. What are we talking about, 20-30 people? How many Republicans are there? The winners (although it doesn't feel like it) are the Republicans. Bush cannot do any policies that create a perception of embarressment (would never get through Congress), and this big change of Congress will never get anything written into law, causing their win to appear muted. In addition, Democrats won't be able to run against Bush in '08, so they won't have that going for them. The lack of vision (what do the Democrats stand for, except for what the Republicans DON'T stand for, anyhow?) will be the ultimate downfall of the Democratic party at this time. I disliked Clinton, but at least he had a vision...can the Democrats say that now?
the people have spoken... bush needs to reevaluate his harsh stance and realize he has made a huge blunder in iraq. i remember him scoffing when it was said that it would become a quagmire, well what has it become then? i feel for the young soldiers and they're families who have suffered through this poor choice of mr. bush. bush's stance, "i am right, the rest of the country is wrong" is sickening, there is no room for this kind of arrogance in a president! he is to serve the people in they're best intrests, NOT HIS! bush's policies along with the entire rebublican agenda is ruining our country and it is time to change, the republican gestapo is now demoted to the back seat, HOORAY!!!!!!
Kathy, Hopefully, you will not have to throw rocks. My problem with the Dems is: will they be able to focus as a unit and not behave like a bunch of wide-eyed shoppers going to a 'buy 1 get 10 free' sale. As for the Dems 'remaining' morally bankrupt, all I have to do is look across the line at the Republicans and their actions(speak louder than words)for the last 6 years and wonder how anyone in the world can claim they have acted morally.
I for one believe that it will be interesting to see how Bush responds. I believe he has two options; 1.) Take the Clinton road and become an excellent politician and adapt you views to whatever is considered popular at the time and ditch whatever you believed in previously, or 2.) Stick to your beliefs and basically become a lame duck, pain in the Dems butt, vetoing machine. I'm not sure which way he will go. On one hand if he compromises what he believes and allows minimum wage increases and stem-cell research it will be politically popular but it will abandon some of his base, like Clinton did. On the other hand if he takes out his veto pen every month then that will lead to a very tough political climate in '08 for Republicans. We shall see which road George picks. He could go somewhere in between like he did in his first year of office and expand the government like crazy (i.e. Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind) which will drive conservatives batty but hold the line on some social issues that might calm the conservative base a little bit. Who knows.
LOL. I wouldn't know where to begin. First the reference to Foley who immediatly resigned for sending text messages to pages..as opposed to Gerry Studds who had SEX with a male page and not only didn't resign but got a standing ovation from the floor. Then there's the "idiot" Bush whose growth policies have created the lowest unemployment. (lower than Clinton) and a stock market at an all time high, 20 straight quarters of economic growth, etc. The "tax cuts for the rich" actually created MORE revenue for the federal government. These are the facts. They are undisputed. As usual however the libs make it personal when they can't debate the issues. The GOP lost because they veered from the Reagan conservative philosophy which put them there.
Joe - I definitley agree with your statement "The GOP lost because they veered from the Reagan conservative philosophy which put them there." The fact that Dems were sucessfully able to run on balancing the budget and being fiscally conservative should've been the writing on the wall for Republican supporters. I hope they actually do what they kinda-sorta ran on. Now that I think about it they never said they would they just said that the Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative and haven't balanced the budget. I sure hope they do it though
WHAT DO YOU MEAN..."THE DEMOCRATS WON'T BE ABLE TO RUN IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS?? WELL.....THE DEMOCRATS WILL RUN AND WILL PUT IN A DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT/VP/ON AND ON........THE PEOPLE OF THE GREAT NATION ARE "FED UP" WITH THE BUSH'S .......LIES, A PRESIDENT WHO IS UNABLE TO EXPRESS HIS FEELINGS ETC.........OPEN YOUR EARS!!
Doug... you think the Dems can't run against Bush in 2008? Why not? The GOP ran against Clinton and his private parts in 2000....
The most interesting (and revealing) aspect of these midterm results: They show that the Republican Party doesn't have a monopoly on "morality." You have former GOP voters out there who voted the moral issues once again (e.g., corruption issues), but this time they actually voted for the Democrats. Of course, you'll have plenty of stubborn, partisan Republican extremists who simply refuse to come to the center like the rest of us; these people will harp and harp on how "Democrats are fooling everyone" and that they're actually "morally bankrupt." This reaction is pretty easy to understand. When the success of your entire party rests on the "morality" issue, and that pillar suddenly disappears, denial is a natural reaction. I guess extremists like Kate above really need to ask themselves: Are you really concerned with the good of ALL Americans, or are you just a sore loser? I was hoping that most people out there were reasonable people who care about the common good. I think this midterm finally shows that they are.
You all must be kidding. Does anyone remember "Monica"? Young intern actually in the oval room having sex with our esteemed president clinton, who then lied. HMmmmm morals for demo's. And, I guess most be don't care for the excellent economy. Of course, the media doesn't speak much of it, because we have a Republican president. I wonder how long it will be before the Democrats start claiming repsonisibility for it now that they are controlling the House. Another thing, why do Democrats always sound so angry?
Two points 1) this election was all about Bush and nothing about the economy (how can you argue against 4.4% unemployement) and 2) know that the "minimum wage" issue is only political jargon...any economist knows that minimum wage is inflationary...and besides does anybody know anybody that makes the minimum wage...of course not. If your worth your salt and show up for work for more than a month your going to make more than minimum wage so it's just another Democratic spin to get the unintelligent public excited about nothing. If everyone would just take one Economics 101 course the liberals would not be able to win one arguement.
now that we have the majority again, hopefully the democrats will remember why they where voted into office and remember that they work for us. They are there to give a voice to our concerns.
When I read an article like http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/ that points to the fact that humans don't even use their rational faculties to make political judgments but instead ignore the facts, get a huge brain reward from dissing their opponents or backing their candidate, it makes the dismissive discourse of politics like this thread into nothing more than theater because there is no argument that would change some one's mind. That part of our brain is not engaged when we consider political facts. Instead we have a system that swings one way when then the next and we plot our course as a society as compromise or as bold folly left or right. In that there is no place for nuance, subtlety or intelligence.
People who feel the country has changed are correct. However, the change began in 1994 - not 2006. Take a look at who won last night - back in 1992 these candidates would never have been given a chance to run as Democrats. The country has shifted to the right, and Democrats have finally realized that and are presenting candidates that reflect that change. People in Montana and Indiana are no more likely to vote for a liberal now than they were in 1956. Republicans just received a wake up call that they do not hold the trademark on conservatism.
LOL all those citing the Abramaoff scandals seem to forget that there were democrats also involved in that scandal. Yet amazingly no mention is made of them and they were never punished. holding your leaders feet to the fire JJ??? YEAH RIGHT. Believe it when I see it. ONLY the party in power was punished and put in the spotlight for wrongs---the democrats involved in the Abramoff scandal had nothing done to them and no attention focuse on them---NOONE HELD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE--THEY GOT A FREE PASS> It will be nice to see the shoes on the other feet now---ie if both parties screw up--only the democrats get the heat.
"We won, get over it and move on". I believe thats what democrats were told after the 2000 election. Or else we'll have to call you whiney, crybaby, spineless republicans. Sound familiar?
http://www.ontheborderline.net/?p=3304 YEP, you sure held Reids feet to the fire. Guess you are just grinning bulldogs marching in blind step huh? http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1300&dept_id=374730&newsid=15917488&PAG=461&rfi=9 Dorgan was thrown out and his feet held to the fire for accepting the illegal funds right???? NOPE--the democrats play hypocrits and turn a blind eye to him. He gets re-elected--such is the "holding the feet to the fire" LOL WHAT A JOKE> Ted Kennedy--basically kills a lady and waits 11 hours to report it--- Did you "hold his feet to the fire"? LOL once again-you showed us your hypocracy. DOnt get me wrong--the republicans suck--but the democrats suck just as bad. Dont fall for the MORAL democrat BS. They just somehow dont get the bad press. Maybe now that they have the majority, it will be their turn to get double the negative publicity for the same amount of corruption and the republicans can just sweep it under the rug like the democrats have been doing. HOLDING THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE LOL WHAT A JOKE. I have seen no example of the democrats holding their people accountable--they just cover it up or try to scream even louder about the republicans to divert attention from their parties problems. If they actually did "hold their feet to the fire", then I might have some respect for them.
And I dont remember the whiney, crybaby, cowardly Democrats ever getting over it---we have to put up with the partisan shots still today (holding one party to a different standard sound familiar--as in the cases I have already shown?) WHen democrats actually start calling out their own people like they have been so happy to do the republicans--then maybe the can occupy the high ground. Until then the republicans should feel free to throw stones just like the democrats have done for the last 6 years. Being in the spotlight as the lead party--also apparently means you are a target who should have your negatives magnified 20 times as much as the minority party. The democrats have criticized republicans for (sex with pages--as pointed out the republican merely wrote a letter while the democrat had sex and got a standing ovation AND the Abramhof scandal--the democrats involved didnt even really get mentioned in the liberal news of today--FREE PASS anyone? The democrats have no moral highground--unless it is from standing on all the stuff they have been sweeping under the carpet for the last 6 years while publicly deriding republicans for doing the same things (or in the case of pages--lesser things) Dont kid yourself JJ--the democrats have not held anyones "Feet to the fire" for 6 years. They arent going to start now---you will see Reid and Kenneday around to bring disgrace to your party for a long time to come. But hey thats ok--they can be morally bankrupt--they are democrats and everyone will cover for them.
let's get over the "moral" thing. Both parties have had thier fair share of sex scandals. AT least the Demo's keep it Girl/Boy not Man/boy. But that doesn't matter, what matters is the poor, the environment, health care - come on people. WWJD? He would forgive everyone and make some food for the poor. Let's take care of people and stop worrying about everyones' private lives.
YOU GO BRIAN!!!!!!!!!!
Here are some more links--just in case you stil dont see how the democrats choose NOT to 'hold their feet to the fire" and how one sided the scandal coverage has been. http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2006/10/foley-should-have-been-democrat-in.html http://newsbusters.org/node/8291 http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2006/10/foley-should-have-been-democrat-in.html Read those and HONESTLY tell me that the democrats arent just as corrupt as the republicans. they just do a lot better job of sweeping it under the carpet with the assistance of the liberal media. If you cant see the deceit there--then you ARE a blind follower.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=13190

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google