Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:15 PM Jun 2014

The right-wing war on the Clintons that began in the 90's is really a war on all of us

The trumped-up Whitewater investigation into a failed land deal that actually lost the Clinton's money, and the subsequent impeachment for lying to republican prosecutors about a private affair, was a direct attack on our Democratic vote.

The cottage industry of hate which has infected politics today took root back then in the then-new cable news attack format which really hasn't stopped or slowed the attacks on that family at all. The attacks on Hillary Clinton are still an extension for republicans of their fight to tear down Democrats - a sure lever for them since those early days of Bill Clinton's first presidential candidacy - to strike out at at all Americans who dare identify with the Democratic party, our Democratic president, or our Democratic achievements.

Every effort from the right-wing to denigrate the accomplishments of the Clintons is - by extension and design - a direct effort to deny, devalue, and destroy the accomplishments of our party as a whole. It's the same with the Democratic president currently in office.

No one should be surprised when right-wing nonsense is presented as argument against the Clintons that reasonable and informed Democrats take it personally and fight back.

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The right-wing war on the Clintons that began in the 90's is really a war on all of us (Original Post) bigtree Jun 2014 OP
utter, full flavor bullshit, tree. cali Jun 2014 #1
have you furthered a republican based attack against the Clintons? bigtree Jun 2014 #2
lol. adorers are so cute- speaking of frothing cali Jun 2014 #3
I do froth adorably, dear bigtree Jun 2014 #4
in my opinion they hated on a dem same as usual but when he dropped his pants he made them nuts roguevalley Jun 2014 #18
that was never any of our business, no matter how we feel about it bigtree Jun 2014 #19
it wasn't but it became so. How the hell do you have an affair when you are the roguevalley Jun 2014 #20
I don't give a damn about anyone's sex life bigtree Jun 2014 #21
its not about what you and I care about. Its about being so stupid and selfish roguevalley Jun 2014 #24
I don't make it a practice of mine to worry about what idiots think bigtree Jun 2014 #25
Clinton was over 70% approval AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #26
. CreekDog Jun 2014 #6
leave it alone bigtree Jun 2014 #8
Yep. blue neen Jun 2014 #5
Scaife and Hillary. Scaife endorses Hillary in 08 Whisp Jun 2014 #9
Don't know if you've heard about this yet: blue neen Jun 2014 #11
it was a lousy answer to the question and a cheap political shot bigtree Jun 2014 #12
Nowhere does the article you link to AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #27
It's there somewhere but Here, knock yourself out: Whisp Jun 2014 #28
Clinton gutting social programs was a war on all of us leftstreet Jun 2014 #7
Excuse me, but I don't identify the Clintons with the Democratic Party. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #10
so Benghazi is fine? bigtree Jun 2014 #13
Benghazi? So, I'm supposed to support Hillary because, Benghazi? scarletwoman Jun 2014 #14
you can't read that as an example? bigtree Jun 2014 #15
I understand what you're saying. I'm just not buying it. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #17
Agree betsuni Jun 2014 #16
» bigtree Jun 2014 #22
Cold Truth, Sir The Magistrate Jun 2014 #23
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
1. utter, full flavor bullshit, tree.
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:16 PM
Jun 2014

I don't want hillary as nominee. she's a war mongering opportunist and corporatist. see that as an attack on the dem party? I question your view of what the party should be.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
2. have you furthered a republican based attack against the Clintons?
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:20 PM
Jun 2014

. . . that's what my criticism was directed at.

I'm not speaking to the frothing attacks from the left, like the one you just made about being 'war-mongering and corporatist'. I think that's pretty fair game.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
18. in my opinion they hated on a dem same as usual but when he dropped his pants he made them nuts
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:18 AM
Jun 2014

Delusions of grandeur time for them. Bill ewas a complete ass for what he did and we have paid for it since

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
19. that was never any of our business, no matter how we feel about it
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:37 AM
Jun 2014

. . . and the public let the republicans know, loud and clear, that his personal life wasn't to be used as a tool to hijack our democracy and invalidate their votes.

The rest is for folks who tatter on and on like their lives are some supermarket tabloid.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
20. it wasn't but it became so. How the hell do you have an affair when you are the
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:26 AM
Jun 2014

most public person in the world and think you won't get caught. He was a stupid fool to jeopardize his family and in the end drag the rest of us down the drain with him. I lost a brother over this. I will never forgive his arrogance for allowing this to become a problem. There is a direct line from him to this day among the ferret classes of the media and politics.

Truly, he was a complete jackass. He gave insane people a way to kill us all.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
21. I don't give a damn about anyone's sex life
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:28 AM
Jun 2014

. . .and republicans were dead wrong in trying to orchestrate some constitutional crisis over it.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
24. its not about what you and I care about. Its about being so stupid and selfish
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:56 PM
Jun 2014

that you give ammo to idiots. It is a big deal because they made it so. Anytime your conduct distracts from your duties you are an idiot. Especially when a psychotic opposition is waiting for you to fuck up. It matters. Ask Anthony Weiner.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
25. I don't make it a practice of mine to worry about what idiots think
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:59 PM
Jun 2014

. . . when Bill Clinton left office he had an almost 70% approval rating for his job as president.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
26. Clinton was over 70% approval
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:06 PM
Jun 2014

DURING the impeachment. Nobody cared about his sex life. It backfired on the GOP.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
6. .
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:32 PM
Jun 2014

On Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

utter, full flavor bullshit, tree.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5072502

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

You can disagree without calling someone else's opinion "full flavor bullshit." Denigrating someone's opinion like that is hurtful, rude and disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Cali didn't read the post they called "utter bullshit". The OP clearly stated that the right wing attacks on the Clintons were wrong and listed those types of attacks (Whitewater, etc.). Cali took the post personally because they imagined what they thought it said, rather than take the trouble to actually read it. Nevertheless, calling something bullshit, completely unfair in this case, isn't a personal attack or hideworthy. Also Cali, you "froth" more than most posters here.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm going to vote to leave this, grab some popcorn, and see what transpires.
I have nothing against having a debate about party values.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

blue neen

(12,321 posts)
5. Yep.
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:26 PM
Jun 2014

It all makes Dickie Scaife very happy....his millions started this cottage industry of hate, and the Supreme Court allowed it to be expanded into hate infinity.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
9. Scaife and Hillary. Scaife endorses Hillary in 08
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:52 PM
Jun 2014
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ya-think--6

In fact, what I only discovered late this evening, when Eric Kleefeld sent me this link at National Review Online, is that not only was it Scaife's paper. Scaife himself was there sitting just to Clinton's right apparently taking part in the questioning.



This alone has to amount to some sort cosmic encounter like something out of a Wagner opera. Remember, this is the guy who spent millions of dollars puffing up wingnut fantasies about Hillary's having Vince Foster whacked and lots of other curdled and ugly nonsense. Scaife was the nerve center of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Those of us who spent years defending the Clintons from all that malarkey learned this point on day one.

==
let's not forget it was the Clinton camp that started that Jeremiah Wright 'vast conspiracy' against Obama and question his 'Muslimism'. My god, how can people be so blind as to not see these people for what they are.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
12. it was a lousy answer to the question and a cheap political shot
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:02 PM
Jun 2014

. . . but you can only take that one question and that one answer so far. To suggest she was in league with Scaife because she answered a question of his is just not borne out by the history between them before and whatever history they've had since. He was still her opponent when that question was asked. I don't think she realized the extent.

Remember, she served as his SoS and the two have a pretty good relationship for former opponents, so making hay out of what happened in that campaign is silly.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
28. It's there somewhere but Here, knock yourself out:
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:15 PM
Jun 2014
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/20/499591/-Richard-Mellon-Scaife-s-Pittsburgh-Tribune-Endorses-Hillary

Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:02 PM PDT
Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Endorses Hillary!

by John CampanelliFollow

So you can understand why the "striking" "writers/stenographers" at MyDD would want to take whatever dregs they can get. Several people comment about how this is not an endorsement any Democrat would want. Nevertheless, Hillary's MyDD defenders come out in force:

Waiting for the trolls to say that this is an endorsement we don't want.
And wouldn't that be ironic, coming from a group that claims to be able to work across party lines? I wonder if that will be Obama's approach to "bi-partisan" legislation: and a Republican co-signer is one endorsement I don't want.
Mm hmm.
While Obama talks about reaching across the aisle, Hillary has actually done it. And she shows you this capacity again with this endorsement. You see, for Obama, "unity" means "see things my way". If everyone would just buy into his advertising, we'd all be unified? We might even put down our guns and stop going to church so damned much.
That's not unity folks. We've seen the results of "you're with us, or you're against us."


I love that last line, considering how Clinton and Co. treated Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama.

leftstreet

(36,108 posts)
7. Clinton gutting social programs was a war on all of us
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:35 PM
Jun 2014

Not to mention NAFTA
Not to mention the Telecom Bill
Not to mention deregulating Wall Street into a casino for the 1%

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
10. Excuse me, but I don't identify the Clintons with the Democratic Party.
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:56 PM
Jun 2014

I hope I can say this clearly enough - I do not believe "Le Partie, c'est moi" need be or ought to be applied to either of the Clintons.

I feel under no obligation to defend the Clintons in order to be a Democrat. And I heartily resent any effort to coerce me into doing so.

I did my bit when Bill Clinton was president to defend him against the outrageous attacks by the Right Wing. The impeachment attempt failed, he finished out his second term, and that was that. Except for the lingering malignant effects of NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, the Telecommunications Act, etc.

So, yeah, I defended the guy from the over-the-top reactions to his not being to keep his cock in his pants. I figure I've squared whatever debt I might owe the Clintons a long time ago.

I owe them nothing. And I most certainly do not intend to wrap whatever lingering faith I might have in the Democratic Party as a whole, with supporting Hillary Clinton.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
13. so Benghazi is fine?
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:09 PM
Jun 2014

. . . it's not about Benghazi, you know.

The right isn't finished using the Clintons as a hammer against our party, now against this Democratic presidency, still in office. The fight isn't over, even if you're done fighting.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
14. Benghazi? So, I'm supposed to support Hillary because, Benghazi?
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:22 PM
Jun 2014

The repugs are using Benghazi as a hammer to pound Obama. Now you want to use it as a hammer to coerce support for Hillary?

Nuh, uh. Not going along with this.

I've got midterm elections to worry about, and local Democrats to support. Hillary is just going to have to take care of herself - which I have no doubt she'll do.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
15. you can't read that as an example?
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:31 PM
Jun 2014

. . . you're so wound up against Hillary Clinton that you can't even stick to what I've actually said here. There is and always has been a reason to defend Hillary Clinton against republican attacks; whether you want to or not. Republican and republican-based and originated attacks on the Clintons are, by extension, an attack on our party.

That's not the same as saying that you have to support her for president or anything of the kind. Try and at least separate the campaign from the reality of what is still happening via attacks on Clinton. You only have to look as far as Benghazi.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
17. I understand what you're saying. I'm just not buying it.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:07 AM
Jun 2014

I simply do not subscribe to the notion that defending Hillary Clinton = supporting the Democratic Party.

http://www.wwd.com/eye/parties/henry-kissinger-at-90-6967452

NEW YORK — As one of the few who has actually changed the world, not just wished to, Henry Kissinger had much to celebrate at his 90th birthday party Monday night.

<snip>

Nancy Kissinger arrived hours before the guest of honor to ensure every last place card was in order. The power couple brought together the red and the blue, so to speak, with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, James Baker, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Susan Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and David Petraeus being among the politically minded guests. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, David Rockefeller, Mort Zuckerman, Charlie Rose, Barry Diller, Roger Ailes, Barbara Walters, Wendi Murdoch, Paula Zahn, Oscar and Annette de la Renta, and Tina Brown and Harold Evans helped make up the New York contingent in the 300-person crowd.

<snip>

The merriment was no doubt in full swing nearing 9 p.m., when Hillary Rodham Clinton sailed in with Oscar de la Renta fresh from the CFDA Awards. “Ready for round two,” she beamed as she waltzed into the freight entrance.



betsuni

(25,520 posts)
16. Agree
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:53 PM
Jun 2014

A Chris Rock quote from the 90s:
"Know why I like Clinton? Because he's got real problems. He doesn't have president problems, he has real problems like you and me, like running out of money, his wife's a pain in the ass, all his friends are going to jail. I know Bill Clinton, I AM Bill Clinton."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The right-wing war on the...