Changes

Needham (2005) argues the "permanent campaign" is said to have reached its apogee in the incumbent communications strategies of Clinton and British Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]. However, their assiduous courting of public opinion while in office has been used to explain both the high approval ratings of these leaders and their unpopularity for long periods of their incumbency. This apparent paradox suggests that the permanent campaign model is too blunt an instrument to usefully describe or evaluate incumbent communications. Its assumption of continuity between election campaigning and office-holding fails to explain how the strategic terrain changes once a challenger takes office. The concepts of branding and relationship marketing can be used to highlight the difference between gaining support in the one-off transaction of an election and retaining voter loyalty in a post-"purchase" setting. The success of Blair and Clinton in establishing a relationship with voters from within office can be assessed using six attributes of successful brands: simplicity, uniqueness, reassurance, aspiration, values, and credibility. As incumbents, facing challenges in shifting strategic and institutional environments, Blair and Clinton developed messages that were simple and appealed to voter aspirations. Voters remained sceptical about the extent to which these leaders embodied values and delivered on their promises.

Needham (2005) argues the "permanent campaign" is said to have reached its apogee in the incumbent communications strategies of Clinton and British Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]. However, their assiduous courting of public opinion while in office has been used to explain both the high approval ratings of these leaders and their unpopularity for long periods of their incumbency. This apparent paradox suggests that the permanent campaign model is too blunt an instrument to usefully describe or evaluate incumbent communications. Its assumption of continuity between election campaigning and office-holding fails to explain how the strategic terrain changes once a challenger takes office. The concepts of branding and relationship marketing can be used to highlight the difference between gaining support in the one-off transaction of an election and retaining voter loyalty in a post-"purchase" setting. The success of Blair and Clinton in establishing a relationship with voters from within office can be assessed using six attributes of successful brands: simplicity, uniqueness, reassurance, aspiration, values, and credibility. As incumbents, facing challenges in shifting strategic and institutional environments, Blair and Clinton developed messages that were simple and appealed to voter aspirations. Voters remained sceptical about the extent to which these leaders embodied values and delivered on their promises.

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged.  On several occasions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006. </ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks<ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998.</ref> were launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls.  Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged.  On several occasions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006.</ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks<ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998.</ref> were launched which resulted in a 10-point gain in the public opinion polls.  Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,

{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…"<ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998.</ref>}}

{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…"<ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998.</ref>}}

| style="text-align:right;" | 10

| style="text-align:right;" | 10

|}

|}

'''Source:''' Voter News Service exit poll, reported in ''The New York Times'', November 10, 1996, p. 28.

'''Source:''' Voter News Service exit poll, reported in ''The New York Times'', November 10, 1996, p.&nbsp;28.

==Healthcare fiasco==

==Healthcare fiasco==

In 1993, the Bill Clinton proposed a significant government-run health care reform package. Clinton had avoided discussing health care plans during the 1992 election campaign. Despite prohibitions on [[nepotism]] he set up a task force headed by First Lady [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], to come up with a "comprehensive plan" to enforce universal socialized health care on all Americans, which in addition to the [[gay agenda]] was a cornerstone of the administration's first-term.  Various documents relating to the how the Task Force spent government funds still as of yet have not been disclosed.

In 1993, the Bill Clinton proposed a significant government-run health care reform package. Clinton had avoided discussing health care plans during the 1992 election campaign. Despite prohibitions on [[nepotism]] he set up a task force headed by First Lady [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], to come up with a "comprehensive plan" to enforce universal socialized health care on all Americans, which in addition to the [[gay agenda]] was a cornerstone of the administration's first-term.  Various documents relating to the how the Task Force spent government funds still as of yet have not been disclosed.

The recommendation, announced by President [[Bill Clinton]] in an address to Congress on September 22, 1993, consisted largely of buzzwords and slogans developed through [[focus group]]s with a complicated proposal running more than 1,000 pages.  The plan called for a mandate on job creators and employers to withhold the cost of health insurance (equal to one-eighth of [[GDP]]} from workers paychecks and funnel money to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The plan dubbed "Hillary Care", was well-received by liberal political leaders and [[Socialism|socialist]] commentators, and was promoted by [[mainstream media]] organizations as likely to pass the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]]-controlled Congress.

The recommendation, announced by President [[Bill Clinton]] in an address to Congress on September 22, 1993, consisted largely of buzzwords and slogans developed through [[focus group]]s with a complicated proposal running more than 1,000 pages.  The plan called for a mandate on job creators and employers to withhold the cost of health insurance (equal to one-eighth of [[GDP]]) from workers paychecks and funnel money to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The plan dubbed "Hillary Care", was well received by liberal political leaders and [[Socialism|socialist]] commentators, and was promoted by [[mainstream media]] organizations as likely to pass the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]]-controlled Congress.

As the 1994 mid-term elections approached [[public opinion]] soured on the plan because it was overly bureaucratic, expensive, inefficient and restrictive of patient's rights and free choice. The effort to bring about rejection of the legislation included minimal advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous Harry and Louise ad, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's bureaucratic nature.

As the 1994 mid-term elections approached [[public opinion]] soured on the plan because it was overly bureaucratic, expensive, inefficient and restrictive of patient's rights and free choice. The effort to bring about rejection of the legislation included minimal advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous Harry and Louise ad, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's bureaucratic nature.

[[Jamie S. Gorelick]] served as Deputy Attorney General under [[Janet Reno]] and authored the [[1995 Gorelick memo]], erecting a wall of separation between CIA intelligence gathering activities and FBI counterintelligence activities. The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported that "during the investigation of the first [[World Trade Center]] bombing, Gorelick instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required. [http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956] The ''Journal'' also noted, "the Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung. [http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956]

[[Jamie S. Gorelick]] served as Deputy Attorney General under [[Janet Reno]] and authored the [[1995 Gorelick memo]], erecting a wall of separation between CIA intelligence gathering activities and FBI counterintelligence activities. The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported that "during the investigation of the first [[World Trade Center]] bombing, Gorelick instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required. [http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956] The ''Journal'' also noted, "the Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung. [http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956]

Scott Wheeler observed, "Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences might have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history. <ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/26/153933.shtml</ref>

Scott Wheeler observed, "Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences might have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/26/153933.shtml</ref>

Bush Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] told the 9/11 investigating commission, "The simple fact of September 11th is this ... We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls." <ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/26/153933.shtml</ref>

Bush Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] told the 9/11 investigating commission, "The simple fact of September 11th is this ... We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls." <ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/26/153933.shtml</ref>

Ramzi Yousef, who delivered the explosives in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing killing six people, is the nephew of [[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]], a top figure in al-Qaeda. After the [[September 2001 attack]], it was the opinion of many investigators and analysts that the perpetrators of that attack had a state sponsor - [[Iraq]].  A number of details, including the fact that Yousef was travelling on an Iraqi passport, as well as the date of the 1993 attack - the second anniversary of the U.S. liberation of [[Kuwait]] in the [[Persian Gulf War]] - furthered suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 incident. His uncle, Sheikh Mohammed was one of the masterminds the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and was arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003. <ref>[http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_03_14_exclusives.html Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Admits 9/11, WTC 1993, Plot To Kill Clinton,] By J.M. Berger, INTELWIRE.com]</ref> The Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies that could have stopped the September 11 plot. <ref>http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/09/reminder-of-who-clintons-are-owned-by.html</ref>

Ramzi Yousef, who delivered the explosives in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing killing six people, is the nephew of [[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]], a top figure in al-Qaeda. After the [[September 2001 attack]], it was the opinion of many investigators and analysts that the perpetrators of that attack had a state sponsor - [[Iraq]].  A number of details, including the fact that Yousef was travelling on an Iraqi passport, as well as the date of the 1993 attack - the second anniversary of the U.S. liberation of [[Kuwait]] in the [[Persian Gulf War]] - furthered suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 incident. His uncle, Sheikh Mohammed was one of the masterminds the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and was arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003.<ref>[http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_03_14_exclusives.html Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Admits 9/11, WTC 1993, Plot To Kill Clinton,] By J.M. Berger, INTELWIRE.com]</ref> The Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies that could have stopped the September 11 plot.<ref>http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/09/reminder-of-who-clintons-are-owned-by.html</ref>

== Proposal to privatize Social Security ==

== Proposal to privatize Social Security ==

== Foreign Policy ==

== Foreign Policy ==

Critics of Clinton argued that he lacked a knowledge of [[world]] affairs. In his 1992 speech at the Democrat National Convention, he devoted one minute to foreign policy issues in an oration that lasted an hour. <ref>The Presidents by David Maraniss, Pg. 626</ref> Clinton entered office after the U.S. won the [[Cold War]], and the U.S. was the only superpower. There were no major foreign crisis during his presidency. His foreign policy was based on five principles: 1) strong alliances with Europe and Asia, 2) positive relations with former adversaries, 3) a global perspective on local conflicts, 4) the adaptation of national security priorities to incorporate technological advances, and 5) effective economic integration.<ref>Samuel R. Berger, "A Foreign Policy for the Global Age," ''Foreign Affairs'' 2000 79(6): 22-39. 0015-7120 </ref>  

Critics of Clinton argued that he lacked a knowledge of [[world]] affairs. In his 1992 speech at the Democrat National Convention, he devoted one minute to foreign policy issues in an oration that lasted an hour.<ref>The Presidents by David Maraniss, Pg. 626</ref> Clinton entered office after the U.S. won the [[Cold War]], and the U.S. was the only superpower. There were no major foreign crisis during his presidency. His foreign policy was based on five principles: 1) strong alliances with Europe and Asia, 2) positive relations with former adversaries, 3) a global perspective on local conflicts, 4) the adaptation of national security priorities to incorporate technological advances, and 5) effective economic integration.<ref>Samuel R. Berger, "A Foreign Policy for the Global Age," ''Foreign Affairs'' 2000 79(6): 22-39. 0015-7120</ref>  

Butfoy (2006) argues that in the 1990s the "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), which produced "smart" weapons like cruise missiles, came of age. This apparently transformed how America viewed the relationship between force and international relations. It looked as though technology was framing foreign policy. In particular, smart weapons enabled Clinton to combine risk minimization with an expanded security agenda. However, we should be wary of ascribing technological determinism to the conflicts of the 1990s dominated by Washington's flexing of its strategic superiority, such as its bombing of Belgrade. As shown by comparison with US strategy after the  September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington's stance in the 1990s was shaped by linkages between technology and specific political circumstances. As these circumstances changed, so did the RMA's place in US efforts to shape world order.

Butfoy (2006) argues that in the 1990s the "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), which produced "smart" weapons like cruise missiles, came of age. This apparently transformed how America viewed the relationship between force and international relations. It looked as though technology was framing foreign policy. In particular, smart weapons enabled Clinton to combine risk minimization with an expanded security agenda. However, we should be wary of ascribing technological determinism to the conflicts of the 1990s dominated by Washington's flexing of its strategic superiority, such as its bombing of Belgrade. As shown by comparison with US strategy after the  September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington's stance in the 1990s was shaped by linkages between technology and specific political circumstances. As these circumstances changed, so did the RMA's place in US efforts to shape world order.

From 1985 to 1992, North Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of agreements under which it promised to "de-weaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. Clinton wanted to remove the possibility of a crisis before his 1996 re-election bid. By Clinton's second, however, North Korea violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements, and simply abandoned compliance with the rest.  

From 1985 to 1992, North Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of agreements under which it promised to "de-weaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. Clinton wanted to remove the possibility of a crisis before his 1996 re-election bid. By Clinton's second, however, North Korea violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements, and simply abandoned compliance with the rest.  

In 1994 Clinton signed an agreement on paper with [[Kim Il-sung]] accepting a vague promise that North Korea would temporarily halt its work on a nuclear weapon. The "agreement" was known as the "Agreed Framework."<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm</ref>  The agreement gave North Korea food and oil. In addition to oil, the United States and others rendered free, unconditional food aid while not demanding any real reform of its inefficient, [[Stalin]]ist agricultural system. <ref>http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-141.htm</ref>

In 1994 Clinton signed an agreement on paper with [[Kim Il-sung]] accepting a vague promise that North Korea would temporarily halt its work on a nuclear weapon. The "agreement" was known as the "Agreed Framework."<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm</ref>  The agreement gave North Korea food and oil. In addition to oil, the United States and others rendered free, unconditional food aid while not demanding any real reform of its inefficient, [[Stalin]]ist agricultural system.<ref>http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-141.htm</ref>

By 2000, the food and other forms of aid Clinton gave North Korea amounted to over $61 million. By 2003, the North Korean regime amassed enough time and resources to build and test a nuclear device.

By 2000, the food and other forms of aid Clinton gave North Korea amounted to over $61 million. By 2003, the North Korean regime amassed enough time and resources to build and test a nuclear device.

===Human Rights===

===Human Rights===

Supporters of human rights faulted Clinton’s ideological transition from [[Wilsonianism| Wilsonian idealism]] to [[Realist|realism]], especially regarding China and Bosnia.  They gave high marks for his efforts at pushing peace negotiations in Haiti and the Middle East, the use of economic sanctions against North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and his efforts to get a chemical weapons convention. However, they give low marks in terms of human rights for inaction on the genocide in Rwanda and the Russian repression of secessionist Chechnya.

Supporters of human rights faulted Clinton’s ideological transition from [[Wilsonianism|Wilsonian idealism]] to [[Realist|realism]], especially regarding China and Bosnia.  They gave high marks for his efforts at pushing peace negotiations in Haiti and the Middle East, the use of economic sanctions against North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and his efforts to get a chemical weapons convention. However, they give low marks in terms of human rights for inaction on the genocide in Rwanda and the Russian repression of secessionist Chechnya.

===Middle East===

===Middle East===

There was little progress in the Middle East, where US support for Israel angered the Arabs. While Clinton made some accomplishments, including the 1993 Oslo Accords, the death of Israel’s prime minister [[Yitzhak Rabin]] in 1995 slowed the peace process. The election of Ehud Barak as prime minister in May 1999 appeared to give the president his last chance to achieve a foreign policy success. A meeting at Camp David between Palestinian leader [[Yasser Arafat]] and Barak in December 2000 produced a plan to create a Palestinian state in about 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. The plan was not accepted by the public on either side. President Clinton's hesitant political style was partially responsible for the lack of a lasting peace settlement.====Japan====

There was little progress in the Middle East, where US support for Israel angered the Arabs. While Clinton made some accomplishments, including the 1993 Oslo Accords, the death of Israel’s prime minister [[Yitzhak Rabin]] in 1995 slowed the peace process. The election of Ehud Barak as prime minister in May 1999 appeared to give the president his last chance to achieve a foreign policy success. A meeting at Camp David between Palestinian leader [[Yasser Arafat]] and Barak in December 2000 produced a plan to create a Palestinian state in about 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. The plan was not accepted by the public on either side. President Clinton's hesitant political style was partially responsible for the lack of a lasting peace settlement.====Japan====

Relations with Japan, the main American ally in Asia, started off poorly.  Yet by 2000, both sides realized how important friendship was, and this led to a redefinition and strengthening of the US-Japanese alliance. Although some changes have occurred in the asymmetry of power in the post-Cold War alliance with the relationship becoming less unequal, US interests still dominate, for the weakness of the Japanese economy limited its self confidence.

Relations with Japan, the main American ally in Asia, started off poorly.  Yet by 2000, both sides realized how important friendship was, and this led to a redefinition and strengthening of the US-Japanese alliance. Although some changes have occurred in the asymmetry of power in the post-Cold War alliance with the relationship becoming less unequal, US interests still dominate, for the weakness of the Japanese economy limited its self-confidence.

===China===

===China===

====Bosnia====

====Bosnia====

With the breakup of [[Yugoslavia]] civil wars erupted leading to genocide. With NATO support--but without UN approval--Clinton sent in the US Air Force to launch air strikes on Serbs in Bosnia and later deployed twenty thousand troops. The goal was to protect Muslim Bosnians from genocidal attacks from the Serbs. The policy eventually worked in Bosnia but later had to be extended to nearby Kosovo. Clinton briefly consulted Congress, but promised the troops would soon leave.  They remained for years.

With the breakup of [[Yugoslavia]] civil wars erupted leading to genocide. With NATO support—but without UN approval—Clinton sent in the US Air Force to launch air strikes on Serbs in Bosnia and later deployed twenty thousand troops. The goal was to protect Muslim Bosnians from genocidal attacks from the Serbs. The policy eventually worked in Bosnia but later had to be extended to nearby Kosovo. Clinton briefly consulted Congress, but promised the troops would soon leave.  They remained for years.

====Kosovo====

====Kosovo====