WI: No Lewinski Affair

Privatizing Social Security would've likely been devastating to the Democrats come 2000. There'd have been some massive political infighting between the Progressive arm of the Democrats and the elitists who were Clinton's peers. "Clinton sold us out!" would be a pretty nasty rallying cry to sweep the Democratic primaries and Convention hall floor. It might well be enough to knock out anyone too closely tied to Bill - such as Gore. At the least, it might significantly soften Al's appeal come that November.
Maybe then Hillary would have known better when/if she ran...
 
The left wing journalist Alexander Cockburn always maintained that Monica Lewinsky inadvertently saved social security, by preventing Gingrich and Clinton from giving it the same treatment they gave welfare reform. You can put as much weight on this opinion as it will bear.

For confirmation that Clinton and Gingrich were on the verge of a Social Security "compromise" involving private accounts, see http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

Whether it would have passed is another matter: Social Security is a lot more popular than welfare, and I think Clinton would have faced a massive revolt in his party, no matter how much he tried to label it "saving" Social Security.
 

Towelie

Banned
Privatizing Social Security would've likely been devastating to the Democrats come 2000. There'd have been some massive political infighting between the Progressive arm of the Democrats and the elitists who were Clinton's peers. "Clinton sold us out!" would be a pretty nasty rallying cry to sweep the Democratic primaries and Convention hall floor. It might well be enough to knock out anyone too closely tied to Bill - such as Gore. At the least, it might significantly soften Al's appeal come that November.
Gore was Mr. Lockbox in 2000 in regards to Social Security. He probably would not have been the candidate if the White House went for SS reform and he didn't go along with it, as the party brokers that got behind him in 2000 took their orders from Clinton. The Progressive wing of the party was utterly discredited by the defeat of '94 and Hillarycare and all of that, while the Blue Dog and Centrist wing was ascendant because of '96 and the success of neoliberalism in the late '90s.

The Beer track/Wine track split was there, but its tough to see how it would break down in the primary. The Republicans had a fairly tame primary, while the Democrats had a nonexistent one.

Gore to my knowledge did not back social security reform at any point. He was willing to go along with some more centrist measures like NAFTA and welfare reform, and actively backed both of them, but SS reform was a bridge too far, I think.

But Gore was not losing that primary unless Clinton wanted him to.
 

thorr97

Banned
Gore to my knowledge did not back social security reform at any point. He was willing to go along with some more centrist measures like NAFTA and welfare reform, and actively backed both of them, but SS reform was a bridge too far, I think.

I can't see Gore breaking with Bill over privatization. If he did he'd be betraying the president and that would NOT go over well. If he stayed silent, then he'd be blamed for privatization if he ran in 2000. Either way, it's a lose / lose for Gore.

And there's also that Iraq war to consider. Even if Bill didn't ramp things up all the way to invasion levels he would be trapped by his won rhetoric to be doing almost everything just shy of full scale invasion. That would quickly separate the "men from the boys" amongst his Democratic supporters. Plenty of them had been happy to beat their chests about the need for a "regime change" in Iraq and how Saddam "needed to be taken out." Confronted with the reality of a Democratic president taking the country back to war with Iraq however, would quickly put paid to much of that hawkishness. That too would be a hugely divisive issue come the 2000 campaign season.

Clinton's Israeli / Palestinian peace efforts would also likely be a moot point if things got shooting level hot in Iraq. Arafat was a major supporter of Saddam since Saddam was a major funder of the PLO's operations against Israel. Ramping up the fighting against Iraq would mean Arafat couldn't go near Clinton no matter how much Bill was leaning on the Israelis to accommodate Arafat's demands.
 

EMTSATX

Banned
Did the "moral's problem" of Bill hurt Gore enough to cost him the Evangelical vote of any Southern State? Could Gore for instance carry his home State. It always amazed me that for all of distancing from Clinton, did not then him and whatever remained loose in Arkansas. That would have won it for him.

Also without Monica does Hillary do better or worse. I certainly know nothing of New York politics but I always understood, that she benefited from sympathy and her "grace".
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There are claims Gore picked Lieberman in part because Lieberman was one of the first Democrats to denounce Clinton for the Lewinski scandal. If Gore instead ended up with, say, Bob Graham, that could swing things the other way in 2000.
Yeah, Bob Graham certainly secures the goods in Florida for Al Gore in 2000; after all, Graham won five statewide elections in Florida before 2000 (in contrast to Lieberman's zero)!
 
And mom and dad would likely see to that as well...
Wasn't John McCain an important contender in the 2000 Republican Primaries?
I imagine he is likely to have gotten the 2004 nomination if Bush had lost the 2000 elections.
He was seen as an "outsider" to the Washington establishment back then, and his tough stance on Russia would have improved his chances if Al Gore and the Democrats were perceived as "soft on Russia".
There were already some rumblings about this on the 2000 election, I imagine the complaining would be worse after a Gore Presidency.
 
Top