Why we loved Clinton and we can't stand Bush

I miss Clinton. So much. I think the reason he always had such high approval numbers is that Clinton was the very persona of the way we (and the rest of the world)viewed our beloved America: intelligent, energetic, compassionate, a bit impulsive, youthful.. full of joy for the everyday pleasures of life: food, sex, laughter, music, reading, debating, traveling. He came from the heart of the country. He lived through a childhood many of us relate to: alcoholic father, strong mother. America was like that. Even people who didn't support his politics often looked at him fondly, because of these traits. And the world looked upon America as a bit of a young, healthy puppy. Big enough to be a danger but generally good-hearted and affable.

But Bush is everything we tried to escape in 1776. Bush is arrogant, cold, a product of a class system that most of the country disdains. He is the antithesis of intellectual. He has no curiosity. He denies himself pleasure. He has no spontaneity. Bush's America is a heartless place where the ends justify any means, including torture, unprovoked attack and using the blind obedience of religious cult members for political gain. And the rest of the world looks with alarm at this new America. The pup has grown up into a snarling dog.

Many of us have forgotten 9/11. The horror has faded. I believe that under Clinton it never would have faded. We would have done the right thing by the victims, found the answers, and the site would have half built by now and we would have moved on to celebrating out survival as a nation.

Under Bush, we want to forget about it because it means more and more vengeance, as he uses it..exploits the dead, in order to keep his bloated and sad vision of American alive.

Two men, two Americas.

Is it over yet?

There's a lot to be said for "intelligent" and "compassionate."

of the American people that they don't even PRETEND to care.

when he was Governor of Arkansas. He was the kindest, nicest person who concentrated all his energies on me if only for a few minutes. He doesn't have to fake his genuineness. bush has to hire a staff to attempt to find his, which doesn't exist. Don't despair, he's still with us. Hell, he's barely 60.

He really loved being president, as evidenced by the fact that he is now "president of the world for life". He like talking to people, arguing with people, touching them, trying to solve their problems. He loved and loves wading through crowds of people anywhere in the world, feeding off of their admiration. He was engaged as well as engaging.

History is a harsh judge. When all of the hate speech has been put into perspective, Big Dog will go down as one of the great WORLD leaders of all time. * will be remembered as a pathetic, corrupt, stupid, and malevolent child, detested by all but a tiny fraction of humanity.

Clinton had it and the U.S. had the reputation for having it.

Bush is mean spirited and now the U.S. has the reputation of being a country that tortures in secret.

who were against his policies etc and who were after him like the rightwing witch hunt. He never spoke ill of anyone or said their comments were "treasonists" or anything like that. I miss that. And having someone who can put two sentences together.

And we still have three more years to endure this pathetic drugstore cowboy. I hope we can make it. Even more, I hope all Americans remember what self-serving bastards the rethugs were.

Clinton was so intelligent, so truly compassionate - in total, so human (no question about that!) You really have to strain hard to find a shred of any of those qualities in Bush.

BossHog is right - thank goodness Clinton is as young as he is, because our country needs his kind of strength for many years to come.

nominated

Bush is the type of American that people from other countries despise.

Clinton had fun with it and made it look easy (even with all the crap they were giving him), while W keeps whining how this is "hard work"
And let's not forget: it's not just contempt that rains on us from the Bushies, it's pure sadism -such as the enthusiasm for executions,torture and wars.
Not 2 Americas. I want to believe that even those who worship the deranged monkey are doing it because they have a false image of him (the pious, virtuous wartime leader), and not because they admire disdainful torturers.
One America. Truth and Lies.

It was a joy to be alive and look forward to a more peaceful world.

Since dipsh*t took over, we live in fear of the next terror attacks and the world is looking at America as a rogue nation. All the while our treasury is being robbed and the criminals are getting away with it.
:yourock:

There were incidents (Oklahoma city bombing and the thing in Atlanta and WTC 93) but you still felt safe.

Very concise summary of the state of constant stress we find ourselves in as we try to wish away the spoiled and evil child who has taken over our nation.

The whores spent 8 years denigrating Clinton and have spent the last 5 years elevating chimpie. Why? The Bushies are insiders! Par excellence. Chimpie is the son of a US President and the grandson of a US Senator. Clinton was the ultimate OUTsider. No wealthy father, no wealthy grandfather. Just a brilliant mind and a winning personality. A Rhodes Scholar. To paraphrase: he made his way the old fashioned way, he earned it. Chimpie's way: daddy does it, or one of daddy's friends does it.
To me, the villains are the beltway whores. Repukes must tell lies. They are born with a genetic defect to requires it. But, the whores? In a way they are like Clinton, but opposite. They got my hatred the hard way, they earned it.

With Bush tommorrow looks worse.

It wasn't just money, as illustrated here:



It was that Clinton expressed a national sense of purpose, and he recognized the importance of giving.

Under Bush it's all about what he and his cronies can take.

Bush will go down in history as the worse divider. Not only of "we the people" but of the entire world.

I miss Clinton, too. We & the world never had it better.

Will we ever be the same? All we have is hope.
:(

You're chart says it all!

And I posted how much I miss President Clinton too.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I wish Hillary were more like Bill and less like Cheney...I would love to have the Clinton's back in the whitehouse but not the way Hillary is currently headed. We do need another person with unlimited optimism though...

:-(

Bill for UN Secretary General! Too bad it will never happen since he's American.

I miss the big dog too. The 90's were good. Even the early 90's with Poppy wasn't bad like it is now.

Clinton is the leader of the free world...

I didn't always like all of Clinton's policies, but I can't help but think that even the one's I disliked, would have worked out better if he had still been in charge. In fact, I know they would have. I remember the sense of optimism I felt at the thought of Gore taking the reins from Clinton and continuing the peace and prosperity and even giving environmental problems some attention. I hate to think about it now. I get that nasty hollow feeling in the middle of my chest when I think of what might have been. Not perfection, I'm sure, but, nevertheless, progress to a better world.

I love the guy despite his faults.

Nobody really likes Bush, they just like the the things he can give them, like tax breaks, defense contracts and reasons for acting totally stupid.

the top note of his presidency. I always wonder how much more he could've accomplished if the neocons hadn't hounded him the entire time he was in office. Of course, he did hand them ammunition on a silver platter with the Lewinsky thing but when compared to what is happening now..well, now, we're all wearing the blue dress and we didn't even have a good time.

Is it over yet indeed. I wake up every morning hoping and praying that this long national nightmare that is the blivet presidency will be over.

The President does sort of emulate the country. Both Bush & Clinton seem to rise above their individual personalities to become a kind of archetype of America. What I hate about Bush is that he does represent America, just the worst aspects of this country. The arrogance, the fear, the materialism, the strain of fundamentalism, the disdain for the rest of the world. And you're right, there's no joy. I think Bush couldn't have become so powerful unless Americans supported his vision - he's effectively channeled all these "hateful" feelings into support for him. Honestly, I think that's why there's no reasoning w/hard-core Bush supporters. It's not really his policies or positions that they support; it's somehow something deeper.

I loved your description of Clinton as a big puppy - warm, giving, loves life, loves people. He's maybe a symbol of the US, but also of Democratic Party. Probably Reagan would be equivalent Republican icon. Reagan was an archetype too of America - rugged Westerner, cowboy, individualist, religious, hopeful. And he had the image of a celebrity, a coach & a war hero too. How could he not be elected? W/Bush, it's like this same imagery exists, but it's all twisted. He acts like a "rugged Westerner" but comes from extreme wealth, acts like an individualist - yet has depended on crony favors his whole life; acts religious while he spreads war & violence; and finally, does not create hope, but hopelessness & fear. It's like America through a twisted funhouse mirror that turns our values upside-down. It's this fundamental subversion of our values, while loudly trumpeting American values, that makes me so uneasy about this Administration.

And I mean libido in a healthy way: that combination of charm and testosterone that people like Kennedy had, a desire to please and impress people.

of Clinton & Bush. Clinton was just inherantly likeable. And I guess Bush is the id of aggression & fear. Maybe this means Kerry & Gore are the ego - responsible & upright & always telling us what we should do. No wonder they weren't elected!

here in Ireland, Clinton is the most popular American president
since Kennedy - maybe the most popular president ever! His work
to help the people of Northern Ireland and promote peace will
never be forgotten.

But Bush is utterly despised here. He doesn't know the meaning
of peace and he hasn't got a compassionate bone in his body. If
he walked up the street here he would probably be lynched...

:think:

the peace talks. next think I hear on the news: "W will take over whatever peace talks Ireland needs" Whic was the last I've seen in the US news of any negotiations& Ireland.
Remember how W said the violence in the Middle East is Clinton's fault because he tried peace? ("raised hopes"?). First time it got out, Ari Flyshit took the blame, but then W blurted it again...
Petty little envious dipshit!

:( Seriously, has he been there? For Ireland's sake, I hope not. He brings chaos and violence in his evil wake.

We'll see.

...faded." --TallahasseeGrannie

I am fairly certain that under Clinton the horror of 9/11 never would have HAPPENED.

Just on the surface of things, Clinton had people working for him like FBI agent Colleen Rowley signaling wildly to Washington DC in Aug '01 (to deaf Bushite ears) that SOMETHING WAS WRONG; she had a potential hijacker in custody--who had taken flight lessons in which he wanted to learn how to fly, but not how to land, an aircraft, and she wanted to get into his computer. The Clinton administration--whose terrorism expert was Richard Clarke--would not likely have ignored her and stifled her (the way the Bush regime did). Clinton had FBI agents like John O'Neill tracking the Saudi/Al Q money trail (the Bushites pushed him out; he took a job at the WTC and died on 9/11). That Presidential Briefing Memo ("...bin Laden determined to strike in the US") would not have been ignored. The many warnings from foreign governments would not have been ignored. And I very much doubt that Saudi operatives would have been able to run freely around this country, renting apartments, taking flight lessons, and acting suspiciously, without being noticed (as Crowley noticed Zacharias Moussoui), hauled in and questioned.

And that's just to scratch the surface of what the Clinton administration would have been doing, or would have made sure that they knew about, prior to 9/11. They were the ones who prosecuted and imprisoned the FIRST WTC terrorist bombers. They were the ones with a terrorism expert who has been described as having "his hair on fire" over the threat of an attack on US soil by Al Q. I think they would have seen the signs--and would have very possibly disrupted the plot.

And if they had failed to, then ON 9/11, the Clinton administration would not have permitted the Air Force and NORAD to stand down, and fail to defend our nation's capitol. We would have had a highly intelligent man in the White House--who worked hard at his job, who hadn't been vacationing all summer, and who damn well knew how things were supposed to work--in the Air Force, at the Pentagon and at NORAD. The Clintonites never would have permitted the Sec of Defense to pull all decision-making power over NORAD into his own hands, three months before (then claim to have been in a meeting during the critical hour).

And if all of our systems had failed, like they did on 9/11, heads would surely have rolled afterwards, under Clinton, and the insider malfeasance, or plot or collusion--if there was any--revealed and punished, and all perpetrators hunted down relentlessly, prosecuted and imprisoned. There would have been a BOFFO investigation, immediately, ordered by the President, who would not have rested until he understood everything that had happened, and was satisfied that, a) justice had been done, and b) it would never happen again.

The 9/11 widows would not have had to force an investigation, and the President of the United States would not have refused to appear before that panel in public under oath.

We would have no war on Iraq. The Middle East would still be stable--troubled but stable--and all the countries of the world would have leaped to our aid, as every one of them was willing to do, right after 9/11, to track down the perpetrators and to solve the dilemma of Islamic unrest, and bring about world peace.

I am not a big fan of Clinton's. I think he caused the outsourcing of millions of jobs, and the proliferation of sweatshops worldwide, by the NAFTA, GATT and other undemocratic "trade agreements." I marched against his policies in Seattle in 1999. I saw disaster coming from those trade policies, and I was right. (Now we have a president who doesn't give a crap, and is doing nothing, and permitting US-based global corporate predators to roam the world like pirates and brigands--whereas I think Clinton would have done something about jobs and labor protections, with time--when he started seeing the impacts of it all.)

I like Clinton's PERSONALITY, and I was very glad when the American people stood by him throughout that disgusting Kenneth Starr inquisition. Didn't like his trade policy, as I said, and his coziness with our Corporate Rulers (whom, I fear, were emboldened by his lax trade policy to destroy our election system, and seek wholesale looting of our government and us, and everyone else).

But on his general--and truly amazing--COMPETENCE to be president, his grasp of the issues, his good appointments, his love of argument and information, his openness, his intelligence, his genuine care for people, and his patriotism and courage, he stands as a giant next to Bush (with his puny skills and his mean and murderous heart), and, I believe that Clinton would have done his best to defend us. He may be a Corporate player, but he is not a traitor and a coward and a sniveling puppet like Bush is. It's mind-boggling to even put them in the same sentence together, as "president." Bush is not president. He is the slimy frontman for a Bush Cartel junta.

Every day Clinton was in office practically you turned on the television and there was more good news; record low unemployment, record housing starts, record consumer confidence level, record budget surplus. Just every day more good news.

Now we literally can't turn on the television without the first words heard--war on terror, latest in the war on terror, more deaths today in Iraq, another bloody day today in Iraq, another scandal today rocked the White House, record budget deficit, GM cuts 30,000 jobs.........

It must be a dream. We have to wake up from this dream. It's got to be a dream.

Please, make it be a dream!

Even though I don't know him personally.

after he gave his first foreign policy speech (that i am aware of) after leaving office. This was in Berkeley, January or February, 2002, when he visited campus with then-Governor Gray Davis. They're going around a gymnasium shaking hands, and the energy in the room is palpable. I position myself in front, am warned back by Secret Service. As Clinton gets to me, I stick my hand out hopefully. He grabs my hand, and I go to say something, but nothing comes out. I find myself unable to think of a single thing to say! Here, I've all but idolized this guy for the previous five years or so, and verbosely defended him against all sorts of RW attackers, but when I meet the man I am totally speechless.

Just then, some lady stops him from moving on with some "ideas" about his upcoming autobiography. So I am looking at my hand. It's holding President Bill Clinton's hand. I'm silent. He's chatting with some lady. Ten seconds tick by. Still holding his hand. Twenty seconds tick by. I glance around at the ever-present Secret Service guys. I was so cocky 10 minutes before when they told me to move back. I wondered if they were going to tackle me to save the president's hand. Thirty seconds go by. I wonder if his hand is insured. Forty seconds. I am sure by now he has no idea he's still holding my hand.

Finally he moves on down the row. I'm beaming to my girlfriend who is standing to my left. I can't believe I just shook Clinton's hand! I look up and there's Gov. Davis standing in front of me with his hand out to shake mine. I mysteriously get my voice back. "Governor Davis, thanks for coming!" Then Gray flirts with my girlfriend. I swear it's true!

nt

It seemed like the country was fairly united under Clinton. Everyone I know was doing well back then, financially and emotionally. The "scandals" were comical, except for the fact that they were the result of 40 million of our tax dollars spent to try to find some kind of crime. That was a low point in congress. The republicans did everything they could to bring down a popular democratic president. But Clinton always bounced back. I think his character inspired people. He triumphed over adversity time after time.

9/11 probably still would have happened under Clinton. Who would have thought a few guys with case cutters could have caused the destruction they did. The difference is what would have happened afterwards. This country was completely united after 9/11, but Bush, instead of using that for good, politicized it to push his agenda and polarized this nation more than it's been perhaps since the civil war.

The economy still would have gone sour under Clinton, but probably not to the extent that it did, and it probably would have recovered faster. Bush really hasn't done anything to help the economy. Tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. He hasn't done anything to slow the flood of jobs overseas. Clinton probably would have called for massive tax cuts for the middle class instead of for the rich, since that would have been the smart thing to do to stimulate the economy. He probably would have closed the tax loophole that gives companies a tax break for outsourcing jobs overseas and instead of rewarding companies that hurt our economy, given tax breaks to companies that create jobs here, like Kerry was talking about.

And we would have never gotten into this mess in Iraq.

:hi:

... and the '96 line 'em up against a wall and shoot 'em immigration reform act, the creator of the Democratic Leadership Council which sells its board memberships to the highest corporate bidders and predictably now works to undermine the Democratic Party...

Sorry to be a wet blanket, I liked Clinton too, it was hard not to, he had style and pinache. But the man was no saint, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that, by throwing in the towel on numerous defining party principles in order to pick up a few quick votes from the center, he weakened the party more than any Republican ever could have, speaking, as he did, from the authoritative position of head of his party. I think we do both our history and our future a disservice by failing to acknowledge that Clinton made his share of bad decisions too.

and a President who could read, write, speak English, who was intelligent, had charisma, and was loved around the world. Yes, whatever his faults, he represented America, and knew he worked FOR the people. I miss him, too. More so because of the joke that holds the office now, of course, but Clinton was a pleasure to listen to, and the last man I called my President.

It was at the height of the villification of Clinton by the Bushies.
Officegate, pardongate, AF1gate - the lies and freeper "boycotts" and hysteria were at fever pitch. It was the NAACP honoting him as Man of the Year that turned the tide. Sun enough, the teachers Union and everyone started giving him awards. This was one of those:

http://www.legitgov.org/front_clinton.html

bother to try to hide it, that Don Corleone would look nice and grandfatherly by comparison. That's why we think of Clinton with such nostalgia.

Bush seems to take great pleasure in killing, and relishes every opportunity to do so.

is the most HATED person in the world.

:hi:

......I have always loved Clinton and I thought I was pretty aware.......wrong.There are sooo many gems in this read.And his presidency will or must be historical for what one man did with the World. I remember New Years 2000, our biggest worry was Y2K?....and we had money in the bank and the respect of the World. his presidency was BURDENED with the current suspects.Good God please tell me why Newt Gingrich is EVER listened to.Pg. 622 Clintons speaks of his first term where Newt came out to grab publicity with his stupid "New Contract for America"....please ....at the same time Clinton says Newt published a pamphlet titled:Language,KEY mECHANISM FOR Control:in the pamphlet Newt suggests using these"contrasting words"for Democrats: Betray,cheat,collape,corruption,crisis,decay,destruction,failure,hypocrisy,incopetent,insecure,liberal,lie,pathetic,permissive,shallow,sick,traitors".......
makes my blood boil
Meanwhile Clinton was out in the World handling Haiti(brought in Carter),North Korea( brought in Carter)Jordan,Israel,Ireland,Bosnia,and lets not forget Iraq....the Iraq Parliament under CLINTON for the first time recognized Kuwait's borders and made Saddam back down.... But back home the media buried him every chance it got. Ken Starr.Newt and his tribe were at the helm....Scaiffe,Norquist,Wolfowitz , Reed etal..(all of them recoil at the thought of wearing a uniform and not one of them ever ran for or were ELECTED).....just paid for $$$$$$$$ NeoCon asses who really think they have a better Idea.....they adore Leo Stauss and feel they above it all.....the masses should and must be controlled ( and they are doing it)lasttime I checked that is why we founded America to be free and equal.....the misery these Godless men spread.

I am grateful for your post on how polar opposite Clinton and Bush are. Great job TG.

I am torn now, because I hold Clinton partially responsible for Bush getting in to begin with. And I get so angry at RWers who want to blame EVERYTHING on Clinton.

Thanks for writing this, TG!

and giving them their way with "free trade," he could create prosperity for all. And he did for a while here at home (but not in 3rd world countries). That was a huge policy mistake, and reflective of the increasing closeness of the Democratic Party leaders (led by the DLC) to the global corporate predator community, and away from its working class roots.

Personality and image--and the reality of the person--are something quite apart from public policy, although, at a minimum, good government speaks of the person. (Honest, effective, efficient government, that does what it's supposed to, and that is responsive to the people becomes a quality of the executive).

America has had a struggle with this monarchy thing (electing a "king") ever since George Washington was offered a "crown" and refused it. But it has never been more of a problem than in the nuclear age, wherein the president has the power of life and death over the entire world, and can annihilate all life on earth in a minute's decision. He might as well be a Pharaoh of Egypt, he's become such a "sacred," untouchable person. (Washington--and especially Jefferson--would be appalled!) The JFK assassination also exacerbated this problem, by surrounding the president with intense, 24/7 security, in which he is a virtual prisoner, without even the right to don pauper's clothes and go out among the people in disguise. (--or maybe they do, I don't know, but I doubt that the Secret Service would permit it).

As a result, the PERSONALITY of the president, and his projection of us into the world, and his behavior and demeanor, as a reflection of us, become far more important than should be true in a democracy, where "all men are created equal." The President as Monarch. And we thus tend to worship the president, or revile and despise him--just the way many peoples have done to their monarchs--according to how we perceive the image; as benevolent, admirable and generous; or mean, deceitful and greedy.

What I'm saying is that it shouldn't matter so much, but I can't deny that it does. It is a psychological phenomenon, that we want to feel good about our "king" and we feel bad-- and it even affects our daily lives and how we feel about ourselves--when the "king" is considered low and vile.

People want Clinton back, not just for his policies (and maybe entirely apart from his policies, which were ultimately damaging to many workers), but we want him back because he was a better image of ourselves than Bush is: more intelligent, more real, more generous, more altruistic, more human. He lacked personal greed and did not foster it in his government (as Bush has). He was not malicious and vengeful (as Bush is). He was not arrogant and tyrannical, and did not surround himself with cronies and toadies. He had self-assurance, youth (and the sins of youth), and he really, really liked people.

He was also a one time antiwar protester, a dope smoker, a rebel, with a difficult family history--things that his peers could all understand. And he was a "new man," in the sense that he had a strong, intelligent wife who didn't stand in his shadow.

All of these things made a likable prince--sort of a boy-king.

I have been uncomfortable with the promotion of "royalty" by our war profiteering corporate news monopolies ever since I noticed the "People" section in my local newspaper switched from the entertainment page to inside the front news page, where, during the Reagan years, every other story was about millionaire entertainers Michael Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor. This "star worship" became nauseating. I associate it with the Reagan tax code rewrite for the rich, the slaughter of leftists in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and the beginning of the failure of our democracy. (State lotteries--with dreams of becoming an instant millionaire--also came in at that time, along with cutbacks in education and ever-increasing fees at supposed free state universities.)

I think it's a sickness that we need to throw off. If we want a democracy, then we cannot expect any president to be our "savior" or our "monarch"--or the dictator of our self image. We must see to the institutions of our government and our political life, and make them real once again, and responsive to the people. "Saviors" and "monarchs" can be assassinated, or gotten rid of in other ways, and also can fail us. WE, the people, need to become the sovereigns in this land once again, as our Founders envisioned.

We also have to get rid of nuclear weapons.

for not making him press secretary, right?

as he was making his TV career on Monica& other Arkansas Project hystericals

Is the country better off with a president who actually has an active
libido? Hell yes.

(By Mark Morford)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2003/06/11/notes061103.DTL&nl=fix
Bill Clinton was damn sexy. Oh yes he was. This is a given.
He had The Appeal. Magnetic, charming as hell, a man who you knew
actually had sex and enjoyed it and possessed a highly active
all-American libido and knew what all the body parts did and where they
went, Hillary notwithstanding.
And yet he was president and that made it all a little weird and
unusual and refreshing and then of course it turned ugly, and he was
vilified and attacked and sneered at from all corners for overusing
this libido, but still, there it is.
And women swooned for him, yes they did, and there were articles and
commentaries and even in glossy women's fashion mags they talked up the
amazing sex appeal of the president, the Southern charm and masculine
assurance and that naughty gleam in his eye.
And women had dreams about him, wrote into magazines and called in to
talk shows, and they were sexual dreams, trysts and liaisons and
Monicas, because women, well, they knew.
They knew it was genuine. They knew Clinton was an honest appreciator
of the female form.
snip

Then there's Bush. Oh dear god.
George W. Bush does not have sex. You just know this. Dubya is not one
to even remotely appreciate or even care about much less understand
anything at all regarding the messy glorious divinity of women or
women's pleasure and the true sticky all-American pastime.
It shows in his demeanor, in his squinty eyes, in his smirk, in his
vicious laws. George W. Bush is quite possibly the least sexually
appealing or attuned president since, well, his father. This, too, is a
given.
Bush gives zero spark. Simply does not register. You do not wish to
think of Dubya in any sexual way whatsoever. He could very well be
celibate and anatomically incorrect and if it weren't for the record
number of days he's spent on vacation at his ranch with the horsies and
the farm animals since becoming president, you might think the man had
no fleshy animate contact whatsoever.
more.....

:bounce::bounce:

:dem: :dem: :dem:

Recently finished "1776" and you are right Grannie, Bush is typical of the worse examples of monarchal arrogance. Actually, he's a lot worse than the much-maligned George III.
Our best are reduced to flawed characters by the right: Clinton & Carter. Both are fundamentally honorable men who tried with their heart to make this a better country. Flawed? Yes. But who throws the first stone?
Thanks Grannie - from a Gator.

It's just that simple. Clinton cares about people. Bush cares about oil.

actually cared about people by his policies. He wasn't perfect or the perfect democrat but I miss him too. He'll always be the rock star in the White House. :)

I miss Clinton, as well... :(

Wake me up when it's over.

And even with his awful policies (escalation of the War on Some Drugs, Plan Columbia, mini-PATRIOT Act after OKC, NAFTA, welfare "reform" and the Telecommunications Act that dramatically increased the power of the people who were most bent on smearing him) he still managed to block quite a few of the nastier Rethug initiatives. Not to mention taking Al Qaeda seriously enough so that 9-11 probably would not have happened on his watch.