Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown in 1992

I was watching some of his debate with Brown in 1992 and it struck me how, in Democratic politics, the more things change, the more things remain the same.

This part here, was fascinating. Brown went after Bill's wife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kUITklALQ

Watch how Bill Clinton went off on Brown 'You don't believe on the same stage as my wife.'

Watching this you see how Bill Clinton goes off on Black Lives Matter. When he is pushed-especially on his wife-he goes off.

Bill also used the phrase 'I'm the change agent.' He's been using this for Hillary in 2016. Bernie is the change talker she is the change doer.

Here is the full debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv7of4z6NR0

Note how the Ted Koppel was razzing Bill Clinton for not winning Connecticut. 'A significant rebuff.' They still believed in momentum then too.

Koppel cited a poll where 48 percent in CT didn't think Bill Clinton had the character necessary to be President.

Many in the exit polls criticized the process. Sounds like the earlier Berners. Actually, those numbers are worse than Hillary's have been. Which again shows you that this is not necessarily a positive indicator.

Jerry Brown bragged about taking no more than $100 dollars. He really was like a prototypical Bernie as was Dean in 2004.

Brown boasted that 25 percent of his votes say they would have voted for Bush in November against Clinton.

Bill in 92 was not in an unsimilar position to his wife today. He assured the media that he had expected the race to go through to the end as it did.

Clinton did have a roughly 10 to 1 lead over Brown. He won more delegates 23-21 despite losing CT.

Koppel asked him about the super delegates-why hadn't they gotten behind Bill?

Bill mentions beating Bush I. Brown largely ran against both parties and the process.

Bill Clinton wins NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3-D_CCwSOg

Much of Brown's argument was pure process. He was for change because of how he was financing his campaign. Sound familiar?

Only a few actual issues came up at the Koppel debate-as opposed to talk about money in politics. Brown was for the flat tax-not exactly a liberal idea. They did talk about Israel and it's not clear to me who was more hawkish or dovish.

But the takeaway is this. Every year just about, the Democratic party comes down to the Establishment insider candidate and an outsider candidate that declares war on a corrupt system.

Jerry Brown talked about how he took no donations more than $100 through his 1-800 number. This is prototypical of Dean in 2004, Obama 2008, Bernie 2016.

What we see in Dem politics is the outsider candidate is usually the small donations candidate. The outsiders have won a few times. McGovern going back years won-but he had a real advantage as the new primary system was his system with his name even.

Jimmy Carter was an unknown one term Georgia Governor who gamed the primary system while the Establishment still hadn't figured it out.

In 1984, Mondale was the insider vs. the outsider Gary Hart. In 1988 it was insider Michael Dukakis vs. outsider Jesse Jackson. We are looking at 1992 with Jerry Brown vs. Bill Clinton. Then you have Bradley vs. Gore in 2000-it goes without saying who the insider was-and Dean vs. Kerry in 2004.

Obama was the outsider in 2008 but he had some insider connections that he had cultivated.

So it's an interesting dynamic. The outsider candidates are often as mad at the Democratic Establishment as they are at the Republican party.

You would have thought in 1992, after 12 years in the wilderness the Dems would have wanted to win first and foremost. But Brown's pitch was more about reforming the party than winning the general.

So this dynamic we've seen in many ways is not at all new.