I have never been a Clinton supporter. I was a Tongas Elector and helped put Ross Perot on the ballot in California twice. I have actually forgotten exactly what I knew about them that made me uneasy then. Not much, but I was vehemently opposed to NAFTA at the time because of what it was going to do to both Mexican and American farmers, and Ross Perot seemed to get that best. (1)

Now there is a buzz among a certain type of Clinton supporter. Jubilation. The spring in the step, the wink and the nod. Lots of people I know expect their grandchildren to be hired as pages and interns in the White House. Good times. They care about her reliability to the people or her long term patterns not at all. They care about her loyalty to THEM. They profess concern for the less fortunate, but they care her past policies and actions only to the extent that they can virtue wash her enough get her get elected.
Which is all innocent and understandable, irritating, and premature.

But

Around 1996 There was a campaign to privatize Federal government services.
However after encountering a number of Clinton supporters of a certain type I get the strongest feeling that a lot of those people, or their family members benefited personally from Clinton era as functionaries or from outsourcing/privatizing initiatives and they expect to again.
Some worked as exec appointees and some were lesser beneficiaries of outsourcing initiatives that may have been forced by Newt Gingrich. They essentially hollowed out many agencies of the Federal Government, substituting the wage curve of private companies where the CEO of the Company makes 300 times the salary of the entry level employee, for flatish wage curve of the Fed, where the top senior execs make less than 170K a year. Destroying many well paid government jobs and substituting low wage jobs or no benefit "Consultant" temp jobs, where the "Prime contractor" hires a job shop which hires another job shop which hires a subject matter expert, so that the Prime contractor and the shop rake off 90% of the contract funds. The government pays much more for job, loses information, looses the opportunity to develop and maintain in-house expertise to improve and make systems robust and resilient in the case the unexpected happens, and the consultant, hired through layers of intermediaries is an at=will employee without recourse against retaliation or to even the slight whistle-blower protections afforded Federal Employees. If they report abuse of Government services (like that Snowden found, or malpractice or fraud as I personally have witnessed, the consultant can be fired immediately and be prosecuted under a number of laws if they have retained any corroborating documentation, so the consultant or auditor that finds something wrong is either summarily out of a job, or out of a job and in jail. So waste, fraud and abuse can continue to occur with impunity.
And again it privitizing makes a few people rich but does not Save money. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/study-privatizing-g...

I only see through the glass darkly,
Were the Clinton's unaware of what was occurring?
Did they exercise patronage power for their friends doing what Gingrich was apparently forcing them to do?
or were they going along with the Republican agenda for an effortless and zero cost cut?
The other day I was reading the Grand Remonstrance of 1641, and I was struck by certain similarities re the expropriation of the Commons.

1.(this is a side note, but most or not all of our trade deals and IMF deals involve removing the protections for local farmers a country has raised to protect its food supply. The reason that countries enact such protections is to provide food security for their population locally and foster most of the time assure a reliable harvest by guarenteeing farmers a return if they make the investment and incentivizing sustainable agricultural practices. the IMF routinely demands that countries buy their staple crops such as soghram from large commodity producing countries instead and raise perishable, labor intensive crops for export to the US and Europe instead. (comparative advantage you know). I believe that every country has a right to make whatever export/import laws they wish to assure their food security.