Why is DU making me feel ashamed to love Bill Clinton?

Honestly, I'm scared to even say a nice thing about him anymore, I'll just get attacked for being an appeaser or a freeper or "might as well be a republican."

It's Kucinich-type/ultra-liberal democrat or bust, on DU these days it seems. Where are the rest of us supposed to go?

If I can't praise Clinton, or another moderate democrat on Democratic Underground, where can I?

I love Clinton! Some of the threads about the media's coverage of the library are very pro-Big Dog. Read these- you'll feel better!

Clinton beats the shit out of Bush for me. But tolerance is a bit in short supply around here lately. It's very depressing. I hope it changes soon because I'm not getting enough out of DU right now to justify spending so much time here.

if I think he is wrong. But I have to be honest, one of the things I happen to love about Clinton is his attempt to bring people together even if it is not something I personaly want to do. So as far as his saying he liked the pretender, I don't hold him a grudge on that little faux...

He will always have my respect no matter what he says these days. Even if I don't always agree with him, he can never lose what he earned long ago on not only merit, but a decidely likeable character...

You can praise him if you like. Just don't worship him, thats a bit unhealthy to say the least to worship anyone;-)

And then people like me say if he'd kept his pants zipped, Al Gore would be serving his second term. I or other like minded souls then take crap from the Clinton lovers. Relax, have some perspective. I've seen no indication that this is a group-mind site. As G. Gordon Liddy stole from what he though Nietzsche said: "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." Actually a better quote from Nietzsche is from a letter he wrote to Wagner in which he said: "All anti-semites should be lined up against the wall and shot."

popular DUer whose name you would not mention. A thread in the Lounge, I believe. This is becoming your shtick! I like it. Draws a crowd.

and couldn't care about winning. They have this 'screw the moderates' attitude. Its a loser.

I find your interpretations of what others say very odd. Actually most of us here want a larger tent, to include all the folks the party is now leaving behind.

They are, you know...leaving folks behind. They are trying to get Bush's base so much of the time, and forgetting about their own.

I want a bigger tent, and I am a moderate. Before this year I never paid that much attention to issues like abortion and civil unions as they did not affect me. However now that I see the way we are scrambling to pretend we are not associated with those topics, I find myself very much for them.

Our party can not just drop the pro-choice and civil unions issues. They are the ones who want the smaller tent.

People who love Bill Clinton are Bush's base? I have been in several discussions on the this board recently where they blame Bill Clinton for everything from the congressional losses, to John Kerry being to far to the right. "Bill Clinton moved us right and it is killings us." The problem really is, the country moved right under Reagan, we have to attract moderates to win. Bill Clinton did that. Kerry and Gore didn't.

Your interpetations of my posts are so odd. I NEVER advocated dropping civil unions or pro-choice stances.

Yes, indeedy they are. In fact they even voted today for a bill with one of the first steps to stop abortion. It is all over the board here.

I am a very down the middle of the road person, raised Southern Baptist, and the far right movement is scaring me.

We can not out-Christian the fundamentalists.

I am proud to be a supporter of President Clinton. I think he was one of the best presidents we ever had.

He tried to appeal to the best in all of us. He was the one who truly tried to be a uniter, not a divider.

I think what President Clinton tried to do is take good ideas from Republicans, good ideas from Democrats, and mesh them together.

There's a lot of people who liked clinton and say good things about him.

That is getting to be the problem here. I will always question my political leaders and the direction in which they take the country. I will criticize if need be.

I think we all should do that, questioning is not attacking.

it should be posted on DU's front page.

has worked so well for the GOP, I guess some people on our side believe we need to emulate that "success formula."

:eyes:

I don't think people understand insulting our candidates is like insulting our children, for those of us who are passionate about them.

I like Clinton more and more as time goes by. I wasn't as actively involved in politics when he was president, I didn't feel inspired by anyone until Kerry, but I've grown to respect him as I've read more. I even understand some of the reasoning behind the less appealing things he did, like the DOMA - although I oppose it (and love JK for voting against it), after reading some background, I understood the compromises that led to it being put in place.

An intelligent man who could charm people on both sides of the aisle, who genuinely tried to do the best he could for this country despite the attacks being levelled at him. So he possessed a few of the "baser instincts"? Well so do we all. Though I can't say much for his taste in women...why Monica?

criticise him for his political positioning and triangulating and compromising doesn't mean that we, or at least I,don't love him. I do love Clinton and admire Clinton - Clinton is a very brave, very dedicated, if flawed man, and if he compromises , I firmly believe he thinks he needs to for the good of the country. However, I don't think he does need to.

Yes, some may dislike Clinton for being a moderate. But we cannot overlook one important fact: HE ACCOMPLISHED THINGS. Few Democrats have even put up a fight during the last 4 years. These guys are really getting to be like the Vichi GOP. A puppet government, or rather a puppet party, in this case. HE WHO HATES CLINTON FURTHERS THE NEO-CON AGENDA, WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH IT OR NOT!

Many are of the opinion that he didn't get much done at ALL. What is his legacy exactly?

on the peter jennings interviews. Honest, passionate, principled. And willing to speak the truth and call out the media.

No matter what you think of him, it was an inspiring moment in TVland, I hope more demo's can emulate his style.

:hi:

just know he "reformed" welfare, made sure Gays have to hide in the military and signed NAFTA.

How did you get your sick jollies before coming to DU?

Apparently saying that you love Clinton is flame bait?

What have we become?

It is the same thing all the time with this guy, 'eh?

NOBODY can 'make' you feel anything - that's a power only you have, no matter what or whom you blame it on. It goes for the 'good feelings' too. Even happiness itself is a choice.

Read Viktor Frankl ("Man's Search for Meaning"). It's not an abstract and it's not something only a few can do. It's a sanity ALL can reach for and acquire.

for Ginsburg and Breyer.

God only knows where the court would be without them right now..

(hold-on, Stevens - it's only another four years!) :cry:

And who says you can't praise him? Live it up and have a ball.

I am a big Kucinch supporter, very left moving. I did not care for a lot of what Clinton did but I get caught up in him every time I see or hear him. He is brilliant and very charismatic. I may not have agreed with him a lot of the time but he is one hell of a politician. We all have our likes here, yours are just as valid as anyones. Don't ever give that up.

No. Was he a great president for this country and the world? Yes.
I love Bill and Hillary Clinton and I accknowledge their sometimes great faults. But overall, they were GREAT for this country.

Clinton is a "Bad boy w/ a winning smile", so naturally many of you love him because of those traits alone. And he did some good things while in office, BUT, there is much more to consider when looking at the entire package.

I dislike him, not because of who he is (since who can blame an alley-cat for being an alley-cat?) but because his conduct paved the way for 8 years (at least) of hell, here and abroad. It was irresponsible. Forget his predecessors who did the same thing and didn't get caught, for that is irrelevant. Bottom line is, we are where we are at now because of him. But, it doesn't stop there.

Now we have to purge the dem party of DLC holdovers (people who got there on Clinton's coattails) who are keeping us inept, ineffective, and prospectively screwed by advocating for repube-lite candidates in 2006 and '08.

Time for many people to grow up and realize that the president is not necessarily an office to be held by those you would've voted "most popular" in high school.

Gyre

I constantly tell the folks here on DU that I love Bill Clinton. If they don't like it, they can flake off.:-)

instead of focusing on a winning strategy.

What did we win this time? Maybe the election will change maybe not.

Am I a firebrand because I think it was wrong to vote to invade Iraq? I don't think so.

And these huge tax cuts? Am I a firebrand for saying they are bankrupting my country?

I could go on. Read my sig line.

If principle is the only thing that matters, then vote Green. If winning matters, then you will have to compromise issues.

typical DLC moderate thinking huh?

Why am I suprised to NOT get an answer?

Methinks you are dead on target.

But Republicans have traded their values for winning, and they just keep on winning. Apparnetly, what Dean says is not the case.

Look, I don't mean to be cynical, but somebody's going to have to make a sacrifice to win. If the Democratic party were to please all of their followers 100%, they would never win another election ever. The more people are willing to make sacrifices, the bigger our tent gets. I know it's a paradox, but its one we have to learn to live with. It's either that or Bush.

Wanna praise Clinton? Go on with your bad self. What, we're going be beat you over your tender head with a verb?

Here comes the clue bus - not all of us were thrilled with Clinton's legacy. Deal.

...

If a Dem doesn't fit their idea of the "right kind of liberal" then that Dem is a Republican.

We are anti DLC , not anti moderate. There is a difference.

or is there a particular policy you have a gripe about.

It is their funding by big business. They were set up for that, not to need the traditional Democrats.

and was a member of the DLC (I'm told)?

He crossed them. He paid dearly. I am no extremist. When Dean formed DFA he said might even support good moderate Republicans. I have no gripe with that.

MY gripe is with a two-faced party that pretends to be for people, but is not ready to stand for the rights of women or the rights of gays.

They claim to be for the people, but they are for corporations. If Dean supports folks like Lynch, say, he is doing the best for the moment. He has refused to support some candidates for various reasons, mostly because they won't take a stand on certain issues.

in order to receive support?

sorry, but keep trying

and they are killing the party. Does that answer the question?

It means we resent that our nation sold out to corporations. Don't think we are a corporate nation now? Guess again.

It's important that you do continue to praise Clinton and other Democratic moderates for their strong contributions. Moderates are the bridge to the majority of the population that is not registered Democrat, and so, hold the key to election success. Supporting a moderate DOES NOT mean abandoning deeper left views. It means yoking them to the larger cause of getting a candidate elected. If that candidate is elected, then there's an actual chance to see a more progressive agenda implemented. No election success, no chance.

Politics is the art of the possible; nothing is politically possible without bringing people together. Clinton was a master unifier, able to bind the party together and even to draw in more "Clinton Republicans" than most people here realize. Broad support = real power. Everything else is just pissin' in the wind.

Like you, I'm annoyed at the occasional vicious infighting I see here. With these verbal assassins, "tolerance" is something you extend only to people who hold the same opinion. There is no other word for them than disloyal. I'm not saying that we all can or will hold the same opinions; quite the contrary. We're strengthened by having a diversity of viewpoints, and a chance to probe them for their strengths and weaknesses through vigorous, but respectful, debate. Thankfully, I am convinced that these people who flame a fellow donk are a distinct minority. Let's keep it that way by expressing our own distaste for those who tear us apart from within. EVERYONE here deserves basic respect from fellow DUers, even if the only agreement that can be reached is to civilly disagree.

I'm not a moderate, but I know the presidential candidate needs to be to win. :hi:

last dying gasp of the DLC?

as written by charles pierce on yesterday's eric alterman's altercation site yesterday

"I think it's time for Bill Clinton, and his wife, and all the people who worked for him to shut up for a while. As time has ground on, I begin to realize that his primary accomplishment over his two terms was keeping the real wingnuts at bay -- which is not an inconsiderable one, given the present state of things. But, let us also admit that, on his best day, Clinton was a DLC Democrat and, even as one of those, he never got 55 percent of the popular vote. He signed an overly punitive welfare bill and he was the worst president on the Bill of Rights in my lifetime. He didn't do jack about building the party. And, for all the noise about how Gore didn't use him in 2000, if Clinton had been able to keep his pants zipped for eight years, Gore wouldn't have had to be so ambivalent about it -- and might not have felt compelled to choose the useless Weepin' Joe Lieberman as a running mate.

bill clinton could have really changed this country for the better, instead he sacrificed the weakest amongst us for personal political gain. for that he should be damed for all eternity as a man who knew better in his heart what to do, but acted worse. and he was a sexual scumbag who fucked around on his wife.

and that is what Bill Clinton was.

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

You're a real poddy mouth.

each election the democrats lost more seats in congress when clinton was president. he sacrificed congressmen for his personal agenda and the poorest people in america suffered dramatic set backs in aid and thw working class fell even further behind, all so he could get political capital. maybe you didn't feel the pain but millions of us most disadvantaged did. perhaps you just weren't paying attention mesmerized as you were by clinton's bullshit.

you need to refrain from adolescent idol worship, that's what the busheviks do when they ignore bush's negative impact and hail him as a great american leader.

you better wise up and look at what clinton actually did, not merely as some sort of admiring lickspittle at what he said. there is a quantum difference between the man's words and deeds.

It had nothing to do with the candidates or the campaigns. And of course he screwed us up for the 12 years after Carter administration. When Reagan won in landslides, they must have moved right in preparation of Clinton.

I don't worship Clinton, I just don't blame him for all our troubles. You sound angry. You a deaniac too?

i supported kerry strongly in the election and drove 8 people to vote on 11/2 in my town.

but, you are really ignorant of recent history and the clinton adminstrations to think that his actions did not abandon congresssional democrats in 94, 96 and 98.

his policies had very much to do with the democrats losing the house in 94 and their continuing consolidiation of power hence, with all that has flowed from it too.

i posted charles pierce's piece to show that other journalists also think clinton abandoned the necessary tasks of defending the poor and working class and the butressing of the party and instead pursued an agenda that was clinton's which undercut the democratic party.

there are so many books about the clinton era written by clinton adminstration insiders that show what he did (and did not do) that hurt the american people. stepanopolis' "less than human" would be a start for you to see what and who clinton was willing to sacrifice for his own agenda.

btw: your rhetoric is fairly weak, never did i accuse clinton of causing all our current troubles, but if he had not been so randy or impeached, ... as pierce writes, gore would have probably been elected easily in 2000, likely again in 2004, we would not be in iraq and that is the point.

i make no apologies for disturbing your quaint little picture of bill clinton as defender of the faith. had he been a republican i would have wanted his ass ridden out of washington on a rail even more.

Gore wouldn't have even been within spittin distance of the Whitehouse if it wasn't for Clinton. Gore is not blameless in his own loss

I'd make sure your numbers were right before you started calling people ignorant. We gained congressional seats in 96 and 98. If impeachment was so bad, WHY DID WE GAIN CONGRESSIONAL SEATS IN 98?

Clinton busted his butt running around the country raising money and campaigning for canidates.

That said, he wasn't perfect. He had his flaws. But blaming him for our losses in 2000, and 2004 is, if I may say, ignorant.

You struck something.

I think someone said that same thing to you yesterday. Stick around, you may learn something more useful on occasion.

DLC lost it all for us... of course I know, you want to vote green

Can I say what you say? Because I like it!

People are resistant to the truth though.

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

can you say disparaging things about the Dem party here on DU? Those forum rules are pretty vague.

Valid criticism is allowed,and there IS valid criticism of the Dems.However,just saying,"the Dems suck giant monkey balls!" might be pushing it :)

you rock. As for me, I am no fan of that slick conservative.

Somebody sounds jealous!

but i'm not married, nor president and do not have hundreds of reporters trying to build their reputations chasing down one of my bimbo eruptions.

clinton knew they were gunning for him but he could not keep from waving his penis around at any woman who looked twice at him. he was given a special privilege to do that which only a handful in our nation have in any generation, yet he just could not control himself.

the monica lewinski/paula jones mess destroyed the last 2 1/2 years of his presidency and it undoubtedly hurt gore in 2000. for what? so bill clinton could enjoy orgasms? i like them too, alot, but it is not harsh nor puritanical to demand better behavior from a president, even if you yourself refuse to have any moral standards.

and democrats wonder why we lost 3 weeks ago?

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

Maybe he hasn't been around these last 4 years. Reno, for all her faults wasn't Ashcroft.

This is bullshit. I'm sick of seeing so called liberals put Bush and Clinton on the same plane.

This moral equivilance has to stop. Clinton was a million times better than Bush. I'd give anything to have a world that was at relative peace and prosperity, and the economy of those years.

Also, liberals can never give him credit for the things he did do - like those that he appointed to the federal bench, managing the defecit, and not to mention all the things he vetoed - like the banruptcy overhaul bill, which Bush promptly signed into office.

So if you want to complain about Clinton, feel free. He wasn't without his faults. But the second you try making him and Bush out to be the same president, you will be called on your bullshit.

And who gives a flying fuck about Clinton's sexual problems? If you want to call Clinton a sexual scumbag there are other forums that may be better for that. And fuck Stephonopolous. Have you seen that rat fuck on ABC? He's completely sold out himself. He's hardly any better than Dick Morris.

and I don't think he is always right. But I do care about him and I do miss him.

be realistic about what his policies were and how often he acquiesced to corporate interest groups- and the frar right.

on the flip side, don't blame him for our losing everytime we lose.

although I don't always agree with his strategy- it's up to the candidates. Gore ran his campaign they way he (err. his consulatants) chose. You can hardly blame Clinton for that!

for quite a while. He has been supporting the Shrub for a long time. And as far as blaming him for losses , it is actually blaming the DLC for the losses.We haven't had anyone win since Clinton, and he didn't win because of their centrist philosophy.He won because he was Clinton. The centrists lost us the house and Senate in 94 and we never got it back. The centrists allowed Kerry to be defined as a flip flopper rather than take the risk of "offending" the moderates. Clinton defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Guess what? We have catered to the so called moderates for twelve years and have gone down in flames. The trouble with being moderate is that there is no defined message. It is like being a little bit pregnant. It is an impossible situation and we have got to get out of it. The defeat of Tom Daschle alone should convince us that moderation doesn't work! And there are more liberals than there are moderates and we are the ones that should stop hiding in the shadows. We are the ones that donated the money and were the engine that got 56 million votes. If not for us , those figures would be considerably less. It wasn't the DLC and the DNC who got the vote out. And if we had had anything to say about it, Kerry would have won! Most moderated didn't do anything but flap their mouths. And we are paying the price!

and yet they're to blame for it?

A few points:
Clinton was a moderate and his message was well defined.
We did get the Senate back in 2000 with the switch of Jeffords.
Daschle losing is not a sign that moderates don't work.
I don't know who "we" is, but there are many people who worked hard on this campaign who don't have a litmus test against moderates.

Do you know who they are????? They define our image! And they formulate our message. And you think they had nothing to do with 2004? And we had lost the Senate but for the Jeffords switch. The credit for that goes to Jeffords, not the moderates! And Clinton won not because he was a moderate but because, I say again, he was Clinton! Clinton didn't even need a message, but I agree he had one. Daschle was our former Majority Leader. He was the Leader of the Democratic Party in the Denate. His loss is a tremendous insult to us. Dashcle was the definition of the word moderate. His loss is a rejection of that message.Even the repug moderates are being slaughtered. Why do you suppose Specter had such a hard time? If it was a winning philosophy to be moderate , the repugs would be moderate but they are not.What is winning is sharply defined RW. And I didn't say no moderates worked on the Campaign but the life force of election 2004 was provided by the liberals , including the candidate himself! If moderates could be elected Joe Leiberman would be President! (I take that back. He isn't moderate. He is basically Republican!)

The only way Jeffords switching made any difference was because we gained back seats to bring the chamber to a 50 50 tie. The point is mute, you said we NEVER got it back, and we did.

I don't think we should make our rules for choosing a presidential candidate based on a senate race in S. Dakota.

Clinton won because he was Clinton, a moderate.

Kerry was not DLC. He was not rightwing. He was not moderate. He is not an example of running a moderate. He didn't win (as far as we know.)

I propose our next presidential candidate, we look for the Clinton model.

find another Clinton, with that kind of charisma, I say go for it! But if you don't know the connection between candidate and DLC, you don't know this party's dynamics. And I never called Kerry a moderate! But I did say Clinton didn't win because he was a moderate. He won because he has a shitload of charisma and could have run as a communist or ax murderer and won!(And before you say I am wrong , think about Dubya! He didn't need a message either and he sure didn't win on the issues!)

I agree with ya. Clinton won with his personality, it wasn't his position.
The DLC is killing us.

Or his Plan Colombia (with all of the death squads)? How about that great Clinton accomplishment, DOMA? Wasn't it Clinton who said that Saddam had WMD?

Stick to the issues, rather than the personalities, and you will find very little to like about Clinton's policies. The only reason Clinton looks so good is because the Junior Bush is so bad!

Vetoed anti choice legislation repeatedly.
Balanced the budget.
Assault weapons ban.
Low unemployement.
Low inflation.
Worked his tail off on the PLO-Israeli peace accords.
Shut down the govt in a showdown to prevent repukes from cutting afterschool lunches, food stamps and other programs.


I don't agree with everything he did either, but he doesn't need shrub to look good.

Pssssst. They were UN sanctions.

Although I do like the idea of Bubba being King of the World.

which was nothing more than a pretext for an unlimited bombing campaign designed to soften up Iraq for a future invasion.

As to the UN sanctions, they remained in place for as long as they did due to US and British pressure and, as it has become apparent by now, because top UN officials were personally profiting from the Oil for Food Program right alongside Saddam Hussein.

some people simply won't be happy until we run Kucinich every election and keep losing so that they can keep claiming empty moral victories.

People WANT Dean, Kucinich, Clark....not a corporate influenced Bush-lite.

Last time I checked he was still in congress.

Seems to me that politicians that can connect with their constituencies win a lot more than politicians who don't.

Perhaps your fundamental assumption is flawed?

If so, that would explain why you are misrepresenting the intentions of progressives on this board. Here's a clue: they want to win as badly as you do.

My personal opinion is that staying true to your core principles will help you win more in the long run. The idea is to establish a relationship with the voter that lasts beyond the arbitary timeframe of an election. This doesn't mean that you never compromise, simply that you draw a firm line on how far you are willing to go.

Nobody trusts a sellout.

I agree that everyone here wants to win. I'm a progressive myself. I just realize that running someone who can be effectively labeled a "liberal" is a loser strategy which is why I advocate a moderate candidate. If all you care about is "staying true to your core principles", then vote green.

but you are still making a lot of assumptions with your posts.

I don't believe Clinton was a sellout. I do believe that he compromised more than he had to, thus hurting the Democratic Party in the long term. In hindsight, Clinton himself admitted to making some of these mistakes.

I do agree with you that effective candidates should be able to define themselves, and not get stuck with the labels that the Republicans pin on them.

I have and will continue to vote for moderate candidates- provided they are willing to stand up for, and effectively represent, the people who elected them.

I may vote Green in specific circumstances, but with the current electoral system, it's pointless to do so in Presidential elections.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.

...and he regularly got large shares of the Republican vote when he ran for re-election. Why?

Because he was honest, and you knew where he stood on the issues. And you also knew that, even if you disagreed with his positions, he would do the right thing by you.

It's not about "liberals" losing-- it's about HAVING PRINCIPLES and STANDING UP FOR THEM.

Are the Republicans continually winning because they run as "moderates"? Of course not! They are running because they stand up for their principles (no matter how wrong they are). Also, they're not afraid to say where they stand, and why they're standing that way.

The problem with the DLC approach is that they say one thing, and then do the exact opposite. They're lip-service populists who say nice things about 'justice' and 'jobs', yet do the bidding of their corporate sponsors once the rubber hits the road.

Oh, and BTW, Wellstone was 5 points up on Coleman before he died. One he was gone, Wellstone's Repub supporters didn't get behind Mondale, so Coleman won.

And Kucinich won, yet again, by another 30%+ margin...

LOL, I am almost convinced. Keep trying.

all Jesus H Dean, all the time.

at some point it's not compromise anymore it's ebnding over backwards to accomodate the views of people who you detest.

Compromise might well be neccesary in politics but so is taking a stand.

Face it, unless you, yourself are running, you are going to disagree about something with the candidate. There is a very vocal group here who think that Kerry compromised something that Dean wouldn't have.

All I can think of is the war, which I also opposed. But I don't demonize Kerry because of it, and I certaintly am not a one issue voter on it. Maybe NAFTA? But didn't Dean support that too at the time? Now both him and Kerry speak against it. I'm told that we sold out on the "core values". Which exactly were they?

Really, what are the Dean "core principles" that he has that everybody else doesn't have? Especially if Dean is pro gun and soft on econmic issues?

as an AUstralian I never got much info on the cadidates until Kerry was already picked, about all I could say I liked Dean over was that he seemed to have passion (why on earth did a "scream" cause such a big f'en deal??) but I think I was probably closer to Kucinich or Nader.

Personally I don't see NAFTA or continued support for intellectual property rights as very "liberal" I don't see stalling on medical care most of the rest of the industrialised world takes for granted very liberal.

I don't see shipping jobs into maquiladoras at the border that while stripping the living standards of US citizens right down do NOTHING to increase those living standard in Mexico (or wherever) as they allow NO unions or collective bargaining, pay non sustainable wages, pay little or no taxes and destroy the land they sit on - as very liberal

I'm also not a one issue voter but 100,000 people dead is pretty big - after the war German's expressing disgust at the Nazi's weren't "one issue" gripers - the war is a reflection of the many things I'm displeased with politicians in general - corporate aquiesence and the provision of bread and circus diversions from the REAL threast to our lives.

As for how to fix - that's up to you guys, I'm hard pushed working out why my fellow countrymen keep voting for Howard

Will he win in the rest of the country?

And why do you assume I'm not a progressive because I don't think Kucinich getting the nomination is a fantastic idea?

also don't realize he was the first Democrat to win reelection since FDR.

always have, and always will.





I've defended him alot around here, I think we were blessed to have him for eight years, and shoooeee, I'd even vote for him again. Lord Have Mercy Big Dawg, Lord Have Mercy !!!!

because he's such a charmer. The other side doesn't acknowledge the weaknesses of their chosen one but we can because we really do have free will.

Seriously. Why be afraid of what others will say here?

I like Kerry, and some agree. Several like Dean, and several agree. More than a few like Clark. And yet I've seen anti-threads for each. Eh, I just damn the torpedoes and proceed full speed ahead.

I'm not happy with Bubba at the moment, but I'm not going to bash anyone who likes him, or the man himself.

I like Clinton too. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. it's about ying/yang....... don't kick my ass please because for me, it's really that simple.
He did some good and he did some bad but in the end it will all balance itself out.
I'm just a confused, if he is so bad for the party, then why does the DLC run to him when the democratic party needs money since he is a moneymaking machine?

I'm saying it now and I will keeping on saying it.

Because you aren't ignoring those posts like I am.
I just ignore the posts that do nothing but rag on my own belief system. I don't need anyone telling me how to feel about someone. And neither do you. Praise Clinton all you want. I'll listen, agree and smile right along with you! :hug:

The Democratic Party is said to have a big tent. I completely understand your fear of praising someone felt to be a centrist because I've felt the same burn from the far-lefties.

I LOOOOVE President Clinton. He is by far the most intelligent, well read, culturally hip, savvy politician - ever. And he prevailed in the face of an 8-year jihad against him.

The far-lefties need to understand that they are as bad as the far-righties are behaving now, feeding on their own, which is actually pretty cool when it happens to Republicans. I just sit with my popcorn and watch them feed on their own. But I digress.

But Clinton was a centrist - say it loud and say it proud - and still he protected the environment, minorities, and the poor. I was proud to have him as my president. And he was loved by the world.

So, Placebo, I stand with you in solidarity, without shame, content knowing at least the two of us appreciate a good man who did his best for our country.

He was the best President of our life time. I wish with all my heart we had him back!!!!!!!!!!!:(

even many on the left, those who don't are relatively small.

He's a likable man...probably that's part of his womanizing problem ...but even so, he's just a nice, likable man.

If it makes you uncomfortable when someone has problems with someone you admire, then you're always going to have a difficult time dealing with reality.
Clinton had many good points but he supported some very bad policy...for me the worst was the Telecommunications Act...it's the biggest reason for the state of the media today.
I know that it makes it very inconvenient for your simplistic argument that everyone here hates Clinton but many of us liked a lot of things about him but disagreed vehemently with many things he allowed to happen on his watch.

Still do, in fact.

:hi:

I refer to your thread on those of us who prefer not to watch MSM these days. Bill Clinton was not a God. He was a good president, but he was also the man who cost me dearly with his cuts into EIC when I was a single parent. I am a moderate Dean Democrat. It's all in how you look at people. Most here, these days, seem to think all who are angry with Sen. Kerry (myself included) are "loony liberals".


P.S. So what'd you eat for dinner? ;)

Maybe not being so grumpy will help you.

Did you even eat breakfast?

You? :shrug:

I must not have read that thread.

I am fine thank you.

sick and grumpy. ;) :hi:

If you want to like somebody; like them. Have you reason's and think for yourself. I thought bill clinton did an excellent job as president.

but I'd like to know HOW. no one can *make* you feel ashamed.
if you love Bill and think he's the bestest than you shouldn't be ashamed, right?

..that Clinton did (or tried to do) escaped many Americans because it was never reported in the corporate media.

Clinton opened up FOIA and made it easier to obtain documents. He pushed for an effort to declassify millions of documents that had no reason to be classifed in the first place. He also pushed for legislation that would have made it impossible for government contractors who had committed FRAUD to get another contract. All of this was forgotten or reversed as soon as Bush* got in office.

But I have to say that Clinton is to blame for alot of his bad press. He literally gave them an opening to smear him. Once the floodgates opened...the press blamed him for everything...whether he was guilty or not.

He also did damage to the Democratic party that many 'loyalists' refuse to acknowledge.

too much for me.

Because I see abou 20 to 1 here on this thread saying they like him over dislike. What democratic forum are you talking about where everyone is putting down clinton?

But I've just decided that its just a bunch of freepers who want us Dems to feel totally despondent after the election. I mean suddenly all I'm hearing a Bill is how much of a Repug he was! It makes me sick!