Don't look to the Clinton era for what happens next

What a week it has been. On Tuesday we had the humbling of the Obama Administration and the  Democrats in the US mid-terms despite the left/liberal media across both sides of the Atlantic attempting to portray the 'tea party', which has put humph into the Republicans, as a bunch of religious/right wing nuts, who could not be trusted with power (clearly the voters did not agree) .

It is interesting that many a commentator, have suggested that the 'playbook' for Obama is to do what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s and move towards the centre ground and then try and behave moderately, whilst blaming all the ills of America on the Republican party (who will be portrayed in the left media as 'the nasty party').

There is one flaw (well several) in this idea, listed below in no particular order :

1.  Control of Congress is split -The GOP does not control all of Congress, but one part of it, whereas in the 1990s both chambers of Congress were GOP controlled.  This allowed Clinton to maneuver the GOP into a position of taking all of the blame, during the budget crisis which shut down the government. Therefore any attempt to portray the Congress as the obstacle to whatever it is that Obama now intends to do  with fiscal -or any other- policy is deeply flawed. The blame game cannot be played if your party controls half of the legislative process. Ironically  in not sweeping the Senate,  this may actually help the GOP from a 'tactical' political viewpoint.

2. Charm- Clinton, whatever you thought of him did have the ability to be charming when he wanted to be. Yes he could give a good 'stump' speech, probably Obama is better than even this past master. However whilst Obama can give a speech to thousands, he appears to lack the 'common touch' approach or empathy with the individual.

3.  Centre Ground -Clinton moved towards the centre, but the Democrats are far more centre left than they were 20 years ago, pace the interesting idea that American politics has become more 'Europeanised' than in the past (e.g. Southern Democrats were far more conservative, the New England Republicans, such as Rockefeller more paternalist/state interventionist  than the rest of the GOP).  How far can Obama move to the centre without risking a primary challenge in 2012, from a serious centre-left Democrat or Mrs Clinton?

4.The economy- Clinton  was President during one of the largest booms in modern American history and managed to claim credit for economic management during his first term. Obama has to deal with a retracting economy, unemployment, a massive Federal debt and potentially lethal inflation (after the latest $600 billion QE2 programme). A further stimulus is politically impossible, therefore the only way in which the economy could recover by external (that is policy intervention) means is the QE2 of the Fed, but the outcome of this is unknown, hence why QE2 is already being called "The Bananke Put".

5.The Hockey Mom won't automatically get the GOP nomination- which is what the left hopes; in 1996, Clinton had Bob Dole as a candidate and predictably lost. I suggest that the GOP will be able to pick  a serious candidate in 2012, but that this is not likely to be the former governor from Alaska.[This is of course complete conjecture on my part, but is nonetheless by 'gut' feeling].

So in all in all,  matters are different to how they were in the '90s and the outcome of the 2012 elections is by no means certain.