Was Clinton REALLY that bad?

It seems like many on DU have a built up hatred of Clinton as being a "Republicrat". I just don't see how anyone can say this. I think we have to remember that even if a politician is left wing they are working within an entire social/economic/political system that is Right wing. When Clinton first entered office he passed the highest tax on the richest 1% in our nations history, he tried to pass universal healthcare, he signed the family and medical leave act, and he put new restrictions on the CIA. He nationalized tons of land as wildlife refuges, and he wasn't nearly as involved in foreign imperialism as many of our other presidents have been. I am a pretty far left guy, I concider myself socialist. I don't agree with Clinton's welfare reform, or NAFTA but overall was he really that terrible?

And everyday I turn on the news I miss him more and more.

Many of us lefties (me included) seem to want everything out of our presidents/senators/conrgessmen/etc..

The conservatives are ok with someone who isn't perfect. That is one of the reasons that they win.

Politics isn't always about ideology. In fact, in most cases, and for most people it shouldn't be.

It's also about thrashing out solutions that help people. It's about finding balances between regulation and growth, between too much government and too much inattention, about the tiny details that matter in the end.

Clinton simply did a great job. When you're that smart, hard working, competent, and you've got a desire to do right by the nation, you're going to have good results. Ideologically he was a progressive, though an imperfect one, but that's only part of what made him a success.

I really never understood why so many people hated him.

But you have to admit that welfare "reform" is pretty Republican. As is free trade. Did he have a choice? I don't know. Perhaps his progressiveness was stymied by a conservative congress.

He authentically does. (I do, too, in fact.) I believe it has great potential to effect progressive good, but I know that view makes me a minority on this board...

I disagreed on some things, but they will be recognized in history as having done a good job.

I was angry at Gore in 2000, but I have learned more now that it was not as much his not fighting.....but no one helping him fight.

I don't think it is time for another Clinton yet, though maybe later. There needs to be time for RW folks to settle....give them someone else to hate this time. LOL

He was one of a kind.

I rate a President's performance independent of comparison.

I wasn't at all politically savvy, but I liked the fact that he smoked marijuana and dodged the draft. Like many Americans, I was sick of the hypocrisy.

I wasn't too happy when his sexcapades began unraveling. My feelings are somewhere between those of liberals and conservatives - it was kinda sorta his business, but it began interfering with America's business.

After I got involved in education activism, I began to acquire a different perspective. Clinton's Goals 2000 was perhaps the worst thing that had ever happened to America's children. Then he sold us out to the World Trade Organization. If Clinton had put more energy into campaign reform, George W. Bush might not be in the White House right now.

When Clinton left office, he went on a pardon spree, springing crooks, but giving Leonard Peltier the middle finger.

It's still hard for me to hate Clinton with the same visceral feeling George W. Bush inspires. But I won't allow myself to like him. Compared to Bush, Clinton is a saint - but he's Satan compared to Paul Wellstone.

n/t

talking points from back in the day.

seems kind of odd, doesn't it??? :freak:

n/t

I didn't agree with everything, especially NAFTA, but he did an excellent job under the worst possible circumstances, some of which he brought on himself, but most resulting from the monstrous right wing campaign waged against him. I remember when the Vietnam War was going on and I despised LBJ. Yet he was one of the greatest presidents on domestic programs this country has ever known. I would give my right lung to have him back in the White House (without the war, though). It took a long time for me to even see how great he was, but I guess none of them is ever going to be everything to everybody.

On edit: I love Bill Clinton.


:dem:

Ruth Bader Ginsbug and Stephen Breyer.

If you don't like our eventual nominee, remember those names. Even a Joe Lieberman would nominate such a caliber of judges. These are gifts that will keep on giving for a long, long time.

that i have almost forgotten
Istill dont have to like him

(i help with an indy tv series we got our pilot on free speach :) )who was over here via voices in the wilderness to get medical treatment for her son who had onehundred pieces of shapnel inside of him becuase of us bombings.Her other son died at age eight.I assumed this happened under bush the first but it was in 1999.Filming her really changed my outlook on the dem party.I also think clinton helped further the oppressive neoliberal agenda of "free"trade.NAFTA promotessocial and economic unjustice.Just take a look at the sierra madre region in mexico.Not to mention kosovo (which congress did not authorize and was based on false and exaggerated evidence)and sudan checkout for the low down and a great article on apologists http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman10182003.html

Still do. However, I was critical of him on certain things like his caving in on NAFTA and welfare reform--those were leftover Bush I policies I wish he would have flushed, and many people forget that it was Bush I who proposed the vast military cutbacks.

He would have rather compromised than do nothing, and it worked on most things. I was overwhelmingly pleased with what Clinton did while in office, and actually felt very secure with him at the helm. I HATED what the Republicans did to him. I honestly don't understand the distaste most conservatives have towards Clinton and always thought it was irrational and overblown.

On edit: I did disagree with his bombing of Iraq and continuing the sanctions. I wish he would have taken Bush I's messes and resolved them. Instead, he got Somalia and Waco, along with the continuing campain on Iraq and against the Iraqi people. Also, I knew he was lying about Monica--it's easy to tell when someone is lying because of the body language. I wished he had said, 'Yeah, she blew me. So what?' (If you just go with body language along, W Bush lies every time he opens his mouth, btw.)

Goddamn 22nd amendment. Created to stop a Democrat, of course.

Possibly the best president ever.

:eyes:

but for huminatitarian record he wasnt that great

Sure there are some issues with trade but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Humanitarian issues - care to elaborate?

1Iraq
2kosvo
3sudan
4nafta (how it affects places like cuidad juarez ,chiapas and jobloss over here those unioners werent protestin in seattle for nutttin )
5continued support of school of americas
6continued support of sanctions
7continued occupation of vieques

during 1999 that were dubbed the monica bombings
US warplanes bombed Yugoslavia and the Kosovo province with clinton as the Chief Commander of US forces.the whole campaign was justified and conducted on the basis of what has turned out to be grossly mistaken or falsified information about a genocide planned by Belgrade
NATO, with our country in the lead, killed at least 2.000 innocent civilians in Serbia due to stray missiles and bombs.
Any way clinton did violate the the war powers act and did not ask congress permission "The representatives of the American people voted against this war in the Balkans... Yet the war continues unauthorized, without the consent of the governed." Rep. Dennis Kucinich. The bombing of sudan was also based on skecthy details check out http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman10182003.html for the low down and a very good commentary on apologists

Counterpunch is wonderfully contrarian and woefully inaccurate. And of course you wish to side with Milosevic. Hard to take any this seriously...

i am opposed to bombing innocents becuase their leaders kill innocents

it's all relative. And compared to today where it's free gifts not trade life wasn't so bad. I guess I'm just getting a bit nostalgic:).

about the iraqi mother you could see why.It all sounds like statistics and numbers when you here it on the news or read it in the paper.But when you see the real human consequenses you feel a litle bit differently

the war powers act
"The representatives of the American people voted against this war in the Balkans... Yet the war continues unauthorized, without the consent of the governed." Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

TAKE THAT ANY OF YOU F***ING LURKING FREEPER TROLLS.

:thumbsup: That's my take on the guy.

I liked him as a personality, but his globalist policies, no.

I'm opposed to NAFTA, and Clinton was a formidable advocate of globalization.

Foreign relations was a Clinton strong suit, and there's much to be commended. If his agreed framework with North Korea had been adopted by the Bush Administration - as Powell initially said it would be - I doubt North Korea would have pursued its nuclear option.

For all my qualms with the Clinton record, it's like day and night compared to Bush's.

Most Freepers just automatically love everything about their leaders.

Welfare Reform - there are children showing up malnourished in free clinics due to this wonderful gift.

Telecommunications Act - this enabled media to consolidate to the point is has now (ClearChannel, anyone?)

Failure to deliver on his campaign promise to enact legislation to keep media fair (IIRC he mentioned the Fairness Doctrine to get us to support him). This, combined with the aforementioned accomplishment, should be enough to convince anyone he was no friend of liberals.

Alienation of the base - I wonder how many got so fed up they just left the party altogether.

Free trade agreements - It's sad that I would even have to explain it. Try examining empirical evidence. It's way more accurate than propoganda, I promise.

He wasn't a traitor to the party, by any means. He's just what he is, a centrist. He had the good judgment to veto the Securities Litigation Reform Act. Too bad Dem cowards or accomplices voted with Repubs to overturn his veto.

But for me, who was raised to respect Democrats who stood up for the little guy? He was no great leader.

You can point to the stock market and gloat all you wish. But ask some of those people who seemed to benefit so mightily what they think of those gains now.

Also, does anyone care to discuss Haiti? I'm not very 'up' on the details, so I'm unsure what the big picture was, but I remember it was not good.

And please... don't embarass yourselves by saying anyone critical of the 'big dog' is a freeper. :eyes: It just makes you more like them, don't you see?

If some of those lazy bastard "little guys" would have turned up at the polls in 1994 then Democrats would have had control of both houses of congress. That didn't happen, Bill was put on the spot and had to do some horse trading.

Moral to the story: In America, the people can be the masters of their own fate if they get off of their asses and go to the polls.

and we aren't any better? Yes.

his first move in office would be to call Bill Clinton and ask him to be the US advisor on the Middle East.

Clinton is that one brilliant man in a generation, I don't dislike him at all.