Clinton: Global warming an opportunity (U.S. should stick it out in Iraq)

Former President Bill Clinton has what may be some sage advice for his party's next presidential nominee, but it was his thoughts on global warming and energy independence that most resonated with a packed crowd Friday at Aspen's Harris Hall.

----cut---

Dissecting John Kerry's loss to President Bush last year, Clinton blamed the Democratic candidate's soft stand on security and the party's inability to reach out to rural, white America.

According to Clinton, in the final days of campaigning on Kerry's behalf, it was clear even Kerry's supporters weren't clear on the candidate's position on national security.

"I think, in the end, he lost in a close race because of the security issue," he said.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20050709/NEWS/107090025

It may be true that Kerry won, except that (1) he didn't become president, so in that sense he did not win, and (2) even if he did get the most votes (or at least electoral votes) had the votes been counted fairly, he certainly did not win convincingly, and therefore (3) I accept Clinton's point.

but he should still STFU

when was the last time you heard a repuke publically critisize another one?

there are sooooo many Democrats that deserve open criticism. I can't tell you how many morons I run into who swear they are lifelong Democrats but actually voted for Bush anyway. Groupspeak may be effective, but Democratic groupspeak will only work on partyline voters. DINOs will never buy Democratic hivemind politics because they have already bought the Neocon hivemind rhetoric.
Our goal is not to rally our base. Every step this administration takes angers and rallies us more. Our goal is to convince fence-sitters that we are not a one-size-fits-all party. We can't win by making our big tent smaller. The only way we can win is to show the middle-class and poor Bush voters that they just aren't under a tent at all.
All that being said, I think there are definite times when we should refuse to spike our own. Especially when Dean is willing to put himself out just to get microphones in front of Democrats. When a reporter asks a Dem to spear another, the response should always be to spin to a progressive framing of a timely issue. But I think it is fair for Clinton, in a speech to supporters, to speak candidly about whatever issue he deems prescient.

Especially when Dean is willing to put himself out just to get microphones in front of Democrats. There's a little more involved here, not just publicity stunts. Please listen before acting.

That Republican was never heard of again.

The Democrats are an "old style" parliamentary organization, that openly debates topics and argues over positions.

The Republican Party is more of a Stalinist vanguard party, that takes orders from the top and considers discussion to be treason. After all, aren't many neo-cons former stalinists?

I'd rather be part of a party that can openly discuss issues than one that eliminates dissension by intimidation.

their were enough people who didn't care to even vote

and frankly when Kerry brought up his service record at the convention, and when the swift puke vets started to attack him, he refused to defend himself. Why the hell bring up you service record if you don't bother to defend it?

sorry but unless the democrats get strong candidates which speak truth to power its over

2006 is our last opportunity to do this. If we don't take back the congress in 2006, 2008 will be irrelevent

that Bush won this fair and square, we validate the corrupt process that gave the prise to Bush. He did not win it. Yes, Kerry should have been better. Dean was getting to much of a populists advantage, so the powers that be put out a co-ordinated attack on him...for his enthusiasm of all things.

The swifties first attacked Kerry way back in March and he hit back immediately.

To tell you the truth Clinton was probably one of the ones that said don't play into it. If you remember Kerry wanted to hit back immediately and his advisors (who by the way were previously with Clinton). Clinton didn't have a service record to speak of accept how to get out of it.

Sorry but if Democrats like Clinton don't shut up, we will only have this party split more.

I didn't vote in '92 or '96, to me politicians were all alike. I voted in 2000 for Gore, but to me it was definitely an ABB vote. But John Kerry proved to me that is not so.

If anyone wants to talk Bush lite, Clinton is number one on my list. Geez he likes Bush and wines and dines with Pappy. He also signed into law the defensive marriage act, and wanted Kerry to kiss the repubs butt in the South with their Gay marriage stance. Kerry refused, now that is truth to power.

Kerry is talking about one thing now and that is we need to win in 2006, maybe if more focused on that and not on dissing others, we may just have a chance.

AWOL frigging coward chickhawk.

I'm sure that all of the talk about a cutback in troop levels in Iraq is about fear that this war will drag the Republicans down and at least lose the House and possibly the Senate.

you are way out of step with the Party you nearly destroyed. Your hands are trembling. You badly need another cheeseburger--and oh by the way your so-called wife will never be President.

and he still made himself vulnerable

you hit the nail right on the head, he nearly destroy our party, and now with his socializing with poppy bush after what they did to him, it shows he has no principles, very similar to john mccain hugging bush junior

:thumbsup:

Clinton was an asshole when he was president and remains one today. On the other hand I would of course vote for him again over anybody running on the Republican side.

Kerry offered no alternative to neocon policies in Iraq. Had he done so his margin of victory might have been large enough to make fraud untenable.

Had the Democratic party leadership acted with courage and conviction to oppose the Iraqi Blunder from the start, not only would they be in the white house right now, but the whole neocon agenda would be in retreat, exposed for the criminal failed policy that it is.

if he wasn't willing to fight for it

why didn't he give Howard Dean, or Wes Clark a chance?

:boring: So boring with your baseless remarks.

You're boring with your boring complaint of boring.

During the debate Kerry came off as MORE neo-con than Bu$h on the War On Iraq and on terrorism. :mad: :grr:

Yet the Pubs STILL managed to pull off the LIE that Kerry was "soft on Terra." :puke:

(on edit: typo)

who becomes our nominee. We need to include ALL states.

Had Dean become the nominee, I'd bet he would've won in spite of the media.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

Smash it to pieces.

Our pocketbooks.

I did give a little to the DNC, with a note that they better back Dean or screw them too

Specifically, working to procure donations and votes for DLC Senators' opponents in the primaries - Biden, Kerry, Lieberman, even Clinton, those soft-right appeasing fuckers HAVE to be made to see that they don't represent America's real Democrats, and financing their Dem Primary opponents is a good first step.

but Feinstein, she is another republican lite

First of all, he's pretty liberal, despite what you seem to think. Go check out the interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart, or his ranking at On the Issues.

Second, if you want to throw away your money, why not just burn it? Maybe you can get a little high from the smoke.

You don't seriously think any primary challenger is going to knock Kerry off his Senate seat, do you? Get real. Massachusetts loves Kerry.

I think similar could pretty much be said for Lieberman, Biden and Clinton, though I could be wrong. You might have better luck with Nelson of FL (not Nelson of NE, from what I understand).

Just some thoughts. You're nuts if you put any money into a primary challenge against Kerry, though.

the only thing vaguely DLC about him is that he's more hawkish than some here would wish. But with his background in international crime, I have to respect his views even if I don't entirely agree with them.

He doesn't deserve to be lumped with Biden, Lieberman and Hillary. He didn't vote for the Bankruptsy bill for one thing. In fact his voting this year and most of the time is quite progressive.

He's nothing like Lieberman. Can you picture Bush giving him a kiss for instance (I just gave myself the cold shivers.)

Patently untrue. But then, if viewed from far enough to the left, everyone will tend to look like a conservative.

they've already allowed evil to get it's foot inside the door.

I'm not a huge fan of the DLC by any means. But if people want to dismantle parts of the Democratic Party, they had better simultaneously provide a reasonable alternative that can better get Democrats elected.

Contribute directly to the campaigns that are not aligned with the DLC.

They'll get the message.

Jeesus, someone shut this moron up. I can't believe I thought he was a good guy once. Go play golf with Poppy.

Kerry: Bush has failed to secure America

He accused Bush of choosing "$89 billion in tax cuts he gave to folks making more than $1.2 million a year" over expensive measures needed to secure the country's chemical plants, borders, shipping containers and public transportation.

He also charged that Bush has allowed the jobs of thousands of airport security screeners to be cut and has failed to prepare hospitals for bioterror attacks."It's not enough to talk tough and not have a tough policy," he said. "That's wrong, and we're going to change it."

The Massachusetts senator pledged to invest $60 billion over the next 10 years to protect the country by securing the nation's ports and borders, its transportation systems, and its chemical and nuclear plants. He also promised to give the country's first responders -- firefighters and police officers -- the tools and manpower they need to do their jobs.

"We have a lot of catching up to do, and we need to begin now," Kerry said. "We have to fix the problems and close the gaps that George Bush has left in our homeland security. We have to build an America that is safer and stronger."
He also attacked the president over the latest revelations about 380 tons of powerful explosives missing from a weapons storage depot in Iraq, saying that Bush tried to hide information about the missing explosives until after the election.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/26/kerry.tuesday/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript2/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/02/kerry.security/index.html

The last real Democrat was Carter.

Kerry was strong on National Security.

We are signatories, but we haven't ratified Kyoto (and likely never will).

Any respect I may have once had for this man has gone bye-bye. And cosying up to the Bush's has me wondering...............a lot!

If Clinton could render such "sage" advice, the Republican Party wouldn't be in control of everything.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are mistaking DLCers with liberals. Big difference.

Given that, your taunting doesn't really have much teeth.

Welcome to DU, I guess.

was how he was reluctant to attack Bush's alleged strength: the "anti-terrorism president".

Kerry and the entire Democratic party should have created a mantra about what a phony Bush was/is on the issue of fighting terror. Who vacationed for 30 days just before 9/11? Have TV commercials which show scenes of Bush sleeping on his hammock at his ranch. Whose NSA didn't sponsor a single meeting concerning terrorism prior to 9/11? Remind voters that Condi Rice was resisting speaking to the 9/11 committee under oath. Which president had not one, but two, anti-terrorism czars resign in frustration? Kerry should have highlighted Rand Beers as one of those two, had Beers on major TV talk shows, at rallies, etc.

Of course, the fact that the MSM was not conducive to Kerry's campaign in the first place makes trying to do the above all that much more difficult.

refusing to say that Bush was wrong to enter Iraq and now saying that he should continue whatever the costs.

This is very far from where Kerry stands.

For the rest, Kerry did a lot of what you said, jsut not the way you wanted him to do. We can discuss whether he was wrong or right not to have done what you suggest, but, already, with what he did, he was criticized for that by many DLCers (remember Boc Kerrey and Lieberman saying that he was wrong to criticize Bush on Afghanistan, for example). I guess this is the reason for Clinton's attacks.

Hey, he needs to show Hill is not one of these liberals that Rove described the other day, and what's better than to criticize a fellow Democrat to be soft on national security for that.

And stfu for awhile!

He wants to play with the rich cool kids so bad that he will do anything. Time to go back and play with your dick, Bill. And I don't mean Cheney

edit for syntax

WTO, ect--ect. Nothing. Hilary can kiss it goodbye, far as I am concerned. Clinton is a politcal myth.

Lower crime rates due to a program that helped cities hire enough cops to do the job right. Urban renewal programs in large and small cities. Ending a genocide in the Balkans. An economy with a good employment rate.

Bill might not be as liberal as some of us wish he was, but he was a great president.

Hey guess what? Clinton could fucking WIN!! Something that doesn't sound so bad now, does it? A two-term president, easily would've manhandled Bush if he could have a 3rd term. I'm not crazy about all he says. But he's got balls. And I'd rather have somebody like him that can actually win and do good for the country, than somebody that's closer to my ideology, but who the fucking nazis can have their way with by fooling the sheeple. I'm tired of losing!!

Clinton won on CHARISMA!


What we need is a star. (without any controversies or skeletons in the closet, who never smoked pot and is still cool who went thru all the endless whorish compromising needed to build a coalition and still seem genuine, god he was good)

Clinton's "stay the course" argument is just dead wrong, and that's not sage advice, it's bad advice.

But I do know this. If he were president in 2003, he never would have gotten us into Iraq in the first place, and we wouldn't be talking about timetables and "insurgencies" at all.

That's why they get along with the Bush Crime Family so well.

That's sarcasm, kids.

I don't love the guy but he knew that to have power, you must have majorities, and to have majorities, you must unite your party, not splinter it. Then you have to bring in other people from the opposite camp.

I see a lot of posts in this thread that want to chop up our already-factionalized party into more pieces. Great. We'll have pristine ideological purity. We just won't win any elections.

I may occasionally hold my nose while I do it, but I am listening to Clinton.

and he is partially correct. As far as the security issues-he is absolutely incorrect. Kerry emphasized these throughout his campaign. You have to remember, Clinton was undergoing heart surgery and recuperation during much of the election- he may not remember things clearly,but if he isn't sure, he shouldn't say anything at all.
On the issue of rural voters, that may be true down south. but I can attest, that he or Edwards made several trips to the rural Pa area I live in. I had seen both a total number of 4 times and their wives made at least two appearances alone. I'm sure this pattern held true for other rural northern areas too.
Clinton thinks he is an expert on winning elections, because he had some luck in winning two. The first time he ran against Dole, (real competition there) and the republican vote was split during his second election.
I'm also surprised he didn't mention we lost the moral vote thanks in part to his indiscretions.

...time he ran against Dole. Ross Perot also had alot to do with him getting into the White House.

Who cares what you say Bill? Sadly too many. Global Warming is a man made catastrophe not "an opportunity".

Food pantry needs in NY went up 37% in Clinton's second term.

Let's all keep aiming soo low that the likes of Clinton-Kerry etc. look appealing? Not me.

When you look at it, Kerry took a stand when Howard Dean was coming on strong and couldn't negotiate that chasm. Clinton isn't saying that Kerry was "soft" on security he is saying his message was muddled. It was, that's why it kept coming up again and again in the debates. WE know what he was saying but he didn't articulate it in a simpleton way that people like my mom could understand.

Having said that, I still think it was the nut job religious right that had more to do with it. Remember the white house getting all those member lists from churches?

Neck that is.

You are wrong (again).