BILL: WHY BUSH WON

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

By LOIS WEISS

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first comments on President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine" about the outcome, but to find a "clear national message."

Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing issue of gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put on the ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden in the final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they didn't want to "change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national security, Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism fears, as did suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security moms of 2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than Republicans, the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who were already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president — whose wife Hillary is already being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 — said Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and . . . whine about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and called for an end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in September, gave Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less dependence on foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism worldwide, Clinton said. "They would have to think of a new excuse to murder people."

In order to prove that this was blatant fraud.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said.

Whore.

while we are working on the BBV stuff.

he really doesn't have anything to lose, and you know he still hates their fucking asses for the monicrucifiction.

?

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said.

What gives?

They ARE in conflict more than ever! Gawd, Bill sounds like he got the same talking points memo as the Republicans.

This from a suspect source, NY Post, too.

but for him to suggest that Bush and Democrats aren't in "conflict" is ridiculous. Bush is going to try to push his right-wing agenda, and if the past four years are any indication, the Dems aren't gonna fight him. Maybe our leadership isn't in "conflict" but I and a lot of other Dems who don't have voices sure as hell are in conflict with him.

but that the presence of an opportunity for Bush (to improve himself, to reach out- none of which we expect him to do) does NOT mean there is not also an opportunity for Democrats (to plan and scheme for 2006 and 2006, to hold Bush's feet to the fire, to fight for what's REALLY right, to criticize).

Clinton should have been Kerry's chief political strategy..if he didn't have that heart problem.

A strategy to try to turn Kerry into something that he's not is what was the wrong strategy. He believes in gay rights and he should have come out like gang busters on that issue. He should have shame, shame, shamed the religious right for thier intolerance. Almost everybody has gay family members or friends these days, even in rural America. We should have stood up proud and owned that issue. And alot of other issues as well. He could have called strongly for civil union protection and called for it in every single speech. Certainly it wouldn't have made gays completely happy, but it would have been a damned site better than this wishy-washy approach Schrum decided to take. Until we reclaim civil rights and a country of the Constitution, not Biblical scripture, we'll lose and lose and lose. Just like Clinton would have lost without Perot on the ballot.

of www.infowars.com who has always said bin Laden is still a CIA agent.

He is not agreeing on that assertion, but Alex Jones said when the bin Laden tape was released that it would help the junta steal the election via the computer theft and then they would cite the tape as "cover" for the fraud.

This is exactly what Clinton is saying. He doesn't say anything about investigating the fraud, but he recites the mantra that the tape helped do Kerry in by raising the issue of terrorism.

I myself thought a bit differently. I thought that the release of the tape might even backfire on the regime because it reminded people that bin Laden, whomever he works for, is still at large. Kerry lost Ohio and Florida because of black box voting. The exit polls in all other states were correct. Occam's Razor. You always go with the simplest explanation.

I have to also add that Alex Jones has always thought the Clintons and Bushes to be somewhat in league with one another going all the way back to the Iran-Contra CIA drug-smuggling into the Mena, Arkansas, airport back in the 1980s when Clinton was governor.

Daniel Hopsicker of madcow purports this as well but with much less of a conspiratorial tone than Alex Jones. He basically asserts that bin laden is one of the world's biggest heroin dealers.

http://www.madcowprod.com

.

agenda overrides his support of the national cause.

Or some other kind of anti-depression drug after his major surgery.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy,"

I'll probably be back later to edit out the "almost" from my subject

I don't know when we're going to call them on it.

We got the truth out their with Michael Moore...the internet...Air America...We had 100 million+++ spent in the Kerry campaign and much more from PACS like moveon and George Soros's groups.

It wasn't enough.
Like those british mags are saying, red state people are just plain STUPID.

By 80% of America's standards, that's not going to cut it. Besides, I didn't see any of those organizations running massive ads that truly exposed the lie machine. They created attack ads of their own, true ads, but most people just saw them all as both sides attacking. Mainstream people are going to have to step up and call them on it. Kerry tried to, he tried to expose them as running nothing but smear campaigns. After the swift boats came out in August, everybody wanted him to fight instead of continuing to try to expose their campaign tactics. We gave credence to them by trying to have rational discussions about "the facts", should have stuck to them running on nothing but lies and smear tactics.

He was not talking "good" as in good vs evil or anything like that. He was talking good as in effective.

And I may be back later to put some quotation marks in but again, I may not.

:D

stop fighting yesterday's battles and start fighting those we face today.

Such as the battle to redeem the Democratic Party from Clinton and the DLC.

What President Clinton is calling for is a continuation of the policy of courting the same voters that lean towards Bush, thus validating his own rightward leanings.Unfortunately this is resulting in loss after loss after losss, both in the WH and the legislatures.

Unles and until the Party returns to its roots and sends a clear and different message to the American people they will continue to vote for the original rather than the copy.....Jeb is available in '08 you know!

edited for four thumbs.....

n/t

this has to be the worst:

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy," he said.

A GOOD messenger!

He is an EVIL messenger!

"Shut the f**k up,Bubba"
You know.I love ya,but you are wrong!
We have nothing in common with these people.I refuse to reach out to scum!
I'm willing to wait until December 13,only because I'm not prepared to give up hope,yet.
After that it's over,I will never believe any of you,ever again!
I will find people who are prepared to fight for what is rightfully ours.
Bush wasn't elected in 2000 and he wasn't elected now!

The Democrats are never going to win another election unless you stand up and fight the fraud that is taking place. Stop being a bunch of pussies!!!!

If you agree with Bill Clinton then the repukes have already won; we might as well abandon this site and go help the DNC move just to the right of the John Birch Society.

The Birchers would be lefties to the Bush Cabal

Well Bill, if Hillary is a candidate in 08 and she is losing, all I can say is "stop whining." Where is Hillary now? Where was she during the election?

I am sorry to all of you who love Bill Clinton, I am disappointed with both B&H lately.

He's right - we failed to combat the attacks on us just for being Democrats. Middle America has bought the portrait of Democrats that has been painted by the right. They really believe that we are anti-family and anti-Christian. The republicans used fear in a HUGE way in this election - fear of terrorism, fear of gay marriage, fear of liberals in general. I personally believe one of the biggest problem the Democrats have is their shying away from the word "liberal." It gives credibility to the Republicans. The fact is that when Democrats act like being labeled a liberal is a terrible thing and Republicans proclaim liberals are evil it sends this message to the people that liberals are evil. we have to reclaim the word and define it for ourselves instead of allowing the REpugs to do all the defining. When Bush called Kerry a liberal he should have said, "Yes I am and here is what it means to be a liberal . . ." Then given a solid definition of liberal.

and find someone who is PROUD to call themselves a liberal...get them on the national scene...be optimistic and enthusiastic.

Take a lesson from barrack OBAMA!!!

Bill Clinton seems to be attacking the Democrats for their reaction after the election. But if the problem was that we weren't able to convey a message, then that was the problem is with our messenger. And if Clinton really thinks that gay-marriage really was the issue of this election, then I hope that he rots in hell with all of the other bigotted assholes in this country. Sorry Bill, but the downfall of the Democratic Party started with you.

.

I know he's bright, and all that, but he is sort of an unprincipled guy, and not only when it comes to extracurricular entertainment.

I don't know many people who can stand up and say "Bill CLinton stands for..." and then give a convincing argument.

So, is he right that things aren't really all that bad?

Sure. They're much worse. Like lots of people in the upper classes ol' Bill just can't grasp what li'l Georgie is up to, and he won't see it until people start getting marched off to the camps. (only figuratively speaking, of course, Mr. Ashcroft ;^)

He sees the Democratic Party as sort of his plantation and all us field hands should just keep our mouths shut while our betters speak.

How does that work for you?

Where is the UN?

Dean, Kucinich, or Al Sharpton. I'm totally sick and fed up with the DLC'ers, including Hillary. Let's get some liberal Democrats.

Kucinich and Sharpton on it. There would've been more blunt truth and clarity coming from them than what we ended up with.

Sharpton would've been hillarious. WTF, if we were going to lose no matter what, we might as well have gone down laughing.

Also, something that Bill Clinton forgot to take responsibility for that has immensely contributed to our shellacking in elections is that he signed into law the media deruglation that the reThugs have taken advantage of to propangandize politic in favor of the reThugs.

-snip-

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

We lost white rural America because we forgot about what they care about. Everyone here grew up saying "One nation under God" in the pledge at school and it didn't turn us into right wing holy rollers. But to people in small towns often all they have is family and faith. That is why they will vote against their own economic and self interests. If you scare them on that level all other issues are trumped. That is why many can lose their job and still vote for Bush. Clinton's behavior is part of the "morals" problem we faced in 2004, but to write off his advice is not wise or productive. Alot of us are angry at this election but
if you want to win in 2006 his advice can not be ignored.
Think about this for a moment, the right's next move is to erode African American support by pressing these same issues in black churches, if they are only 10-15% successful we are in deep shit!
We need candidates who can break the stereotypical image but not the
leave the cause and issues behind.

From a proud Southern liberal.

and produce a simple articulation of core values, including:

Fighting for the Little Guy
Personal Freedom
Responsible Government
Human rights for everyone
Being hawkish on foreign policy with regards to terrorism

We lost this election because the Republicans have painted the Democrats for forty years as wimps who don't take national security seriously, and the Democrats didn't fight back hard enough. That fact couldnt' be neutralized in one election cycle

from the NY Post?

dems don't have "moral values" Clinton comes to mind.

That is what it's about...If clinton didn't get a BJ in the oval office, they wouldn't have any reason to suspect dems lacked "morals".

While it's true and there was and is a vast RW conspiracy, Clinton didn't handle the trust that was placed him very well. He gave ammo to the enemy. Just because someone is out to get you, doesn't mean you have to paint a target on your back. Or if you do, make for something worthwhile. Not a BJ. Stand up for an unpopular cause if you must. Don't diddle an intern..with a cigar!

Jimmy Breslin called Clinton a "Republican and a half" when he was first nominated. That wasn't quite true, but it wasn't as untrue as one might have liked, either. He ran a great country. He was a good president. He didn't safeguard his legacy, though. He besmirched it with his personal behavior and he left economic policies in place that were ripe for abuse. He signed the Welfare Reform Act and didn't get anything back for it to migitate it's effects.

Clinton is a great speaker who can speak to anyone, regardless of socioeconomic group or level of education. He's brilliant. He has more stuff in his head at any given time than most people have in their libraries. But his politics are not what we need now, nor Hillary's. We can't compromise anymore than we have and it's done us little good. It's time to go down fighting if we have to go down at all. We can't knuckle under to the knuckle-draggers.

The thrill superseded his sense of responsibility to our reputation. Maybe he can screw with his own reputation, but that's all they needed to smear our rep and jump into the front seat on morals.

Did you even hear what fell out of your lips? "A great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict."

Are you sure you didn't inhale?

:hippie:
dbt
Friendship, Arkansas.
Population 206
Saaa-LUTE!

"Bill, I love you. I voted for you EVERY time. But shut the fuck up."

cracked me up ;)

...lies, secrecy and corruption. If he wants to sleep with the enemy he should do it in THEIR bed...not ours.

Its just too early for us to stomach it right now. Doesn't sit well.... but I can't argue with a thing he says. Even if some machines counted backward we will never ever get an investigation in this climate.

Reality bites and hating our best messenger is not going to help us get to acceptance where the real work begins.

He may be wrong on some things (or more accurately I may disagree with him on some things) but when it comes to POLITICS, he is a genius.

WTF IS GOING ON? HAVE THEY ALL BEEN SCARED INTO SUBMISSION?

Bill Clinton is the poster child for the DLC and the entire strategy that cost us the election, and has consistently been a losing strategy (in addition to just plain on the wrong side of every political and moral stance) for years now.

It is this attitude that cares only about winning and is willing to capitulate, compromise, say anything and be anything to anybody in order to win - all principle and conviction is thrown out the window. For example, when the chips are down, hey fuck gays! I applaud John Kerry for responding to Clinton's strong urging to come out in support of gay marriage bans on state ballots by saying, "I would never do something like that."

We not only need to fight the opposition, we need to take back out own fucking party. This "New" Democrat DLC "me too" bullshit has got to stop. It's killing the country and weakening the party. I don't know how much longer we can rightfully criticize progressives and liberals who have given up and left the party - the party has been leaving progressives and liberals since 1992. It's time to END THIS APPROACH that tries to make the democratic party as much like its opponents as it possibly can. I don't want the extreme fanatical right wing (republican) and right wing (Democratic) parties. I want a party that returns to a commitment to the values of traditional liberalism that are not only best for the country, and most beneficial to a prosperous healthy nation - they are also morally right.

If there was ever a time where America would be ready for a clear and strong alternative of opposition to this current administration it would be now. Many, many of the republicans I know who either didn't vote or voted for Bush were not happy with Bush -- but they saw nothing of value on Kerry. I know, a lot of you are going to take that one statement and ignore everything else I've said and argue about it. But my opinion is that Kerry may have been a decent man, but he was still to tied into a power base and a group of people who don't believe standing for what's right will "sell" in America, and who believe we must try to be as much like our opponents in order to win.

I don't believe that is true anymore. Where more traditional liberal candidates lost and lost big in older elections, the entire state of the country and climate has changed now. The politics of neo-conservatism is divisive. I alienates 2/3 of the country. Here's how I figure that. You have 1/3 of the country who are fundamentalist fanatics or idiots and they blindly voted for Bush and supported him 100%. But then, I'm convinced another 1/3 of the country did not particularly like Bush and felt very alienated by his administration, but had historically voted republican and saw no clear strong, staunch opposite or alternative to vote for, so voted for Bush or didn't vote. Then you have 1/3 of the country who strongly opposed Bush or strongly supported Kerry enough to vote for him. If you give that 1/3 who voted for Bush or didn't vote a clear candidate who actually stands for the principles and values of traditional liberalism - we'll take congress and the white house in 2008.

People are already getting fed up with this direction, and they will only be even more so in 2008. But if we keep on being the "me too" party and trying to look just like our opponents instead of standing on clear principle in stark contrast to our opponent, we'll continue to lose - because we look like a bunch of phonies. At least the neo-cons are committed to their convictions - when I read things like this Democrats start looking like a bunch of buffoons who don't really give a damn about doing what's right but are only interested in saying whatever is popular (i.e. what sells) to get elected and have power.

It's time for the Democratic Part to be the Democratic Party once again. The Republican party became the Neo-Con Party and the Democratic Party under this "new democrat" philosophy seems hell bent on becoming the new Republican party. We have got to change that, or get out of this party.

Kerry seemed to ignore the DLC. He didn't compromise very much with the moderates. Maybe the bastards had a point?

I just have to say, no - in my opinion I don't see it that way at all.

Kerry basically ran a DLC designed campaign - voting for the IWR; no harsh criticism of shrub* at the convention, etc. DLC was architect of the triangulation approach that Clinton used succesfully while in office, and that was what Kerry attempted to do during the campaign but refusing to draw stark contrast between himself and shrub*.

doing it. I love the big guy, but geez, how could he pat Bush on the back like that?

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator