According to Kos: The Clinton's are behind the anti-Dean campaign for DNC

Apparently they (Hillary and Bill) have been the ones trying to find a anti-Dean or compromise candidate. They don't like Dean on "style or substance" and encouraged current Chairman Terry McAullife to stay as chairman--but he declined...

http://www.dailykos.com/

who got clark in the race in '03 to run against dean.

so this is no surprise.

the clintons don't want to give up their leadership role in the party, and with dean at the helm, that's exactly what would happen.

and they know it.

so i can't blame the poor souls.

Problem for them is, they're going to HAVE to give it up, eventually- since they keep LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNGG.......

Bill was ok for his time, he was a likeable guy and I will always "like" him now even that I know he had some shady deals going on, but he needs to move on. Hillary as well.

Dean will blow them out of the water!

I will never regret supporting him or supporting her in her run for senate. I think what the right did to them was beyond reprehensible. I am glad he stuck it out and fought them off.

But that's it, I disagree with them on many issues and I do not want the party to reflect their wishes. Besides, like BGL says, their aggenda and their people keep looooooooooooooooooooooooooooosing!!!

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

However, even Clark admits he was encouraged to run by party insiders, to "stop Dean" . Are you calling him a liar?

Where is the link to that? He was encouraged by party insiders because Kerry had fallen at the time. Kerry was the inside choice. Clark was finally motivated by the plea of his son to save us from B$$$. He, like many of us, felt Dean could not win the GE. But of course there are a few that know the inside of Clark's mind better than he or his family. I think those are the liars.

The other poster says the Clintons "got him in" to stop Dean. Based on reports originating from anonymous sources through the always trustworthy political news hacks that never have agendas of their own.

I am sure the Clintons liked Clark, and I am sure they thought he was a strong candidate.

Whatever they did behind the scenes, I doubt you or newsguy can provide any real evidence of these claims. But I'm sure you'll waste some more bandwidth trying.

...thanks

I am saying that you are not posting an exact quote, and that Clark did not say what you said he "admitted to". Encouraged to run TO Stop Dean has a very different meaning, for example, than encouraged to run BY THOSE WHO WANTED to Stop Dean. Your comment put words into Clark's mouth which distort what he actually did say. Anyway I left a proposal regarding this with post #131.

by the people in this system.

and says it all the time, thats probably all that matters to me.

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

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

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

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

bullshit.

It doesn't even make sense. If Clark had been the Clinton's "sock puppet" as you want to believe so much, don't you think he would have got in the race earlier, with a full campaign staff already lined up and ready to go?

Nor will I say something inflammatory like "you're full of shit". I will instead say "let's move beyond it". I for one will not argue about the degree of support Clark got from Clinton and or others who were looking for someone to "Stop Dean" if you will not argue about Clark not running because he was motivated by wanting to "Stop Dean", instead of being focused on Stopping Bush. And if you won't argue against the Draft Clark movement playing a significant role in convincing Clark he should run I won't argue against some offers of assistance from Party leaders or officials, Clinton or anyone else, playing a significant role in convincing Clark he could run.

I am not suggesting that we would actually ever come to any real agreement on any of this. I am suggesting that a historical "truce" on those terms might stick. And why do I propose this "historical truce" to you or anyone else who is interested? Because it is no longer 2004. Political realities have evolved since then. Establishment support for Clark fell away from him, grass roots support for Clark increased. Once the campaign began in earnest Clark's grass roots supporters, much like Dean's I gather, felt very comfortable and fully empowered working inside of Clark's campaign. The General himself has always shown us, in innumerable ways, how much he appreciates what we are all trying to accomplish for America. I believe Dean supporters have the very same feelings about working with Howard Dean.

The positions Clark has taken on issues are not at all dissimilar from Dean's in most regards. The priorities of Clark's grass roots movement are not at all dissimilar from Dean's grass roots movement in most regards. There are real fights ahead of us that are more important than settling scores left behind us. Many Clark supporters are actively supporting Dean for DNC Chair right now, and Clark refused to seek that position if one is to believe he was indirectly asked to seek it by Clinton. I live in New York and I called my Senator to ask that she support Dean for DNC Chair. I do honestly think it is time for us to "move beyond" this emotionally charged but essentially dated bone of contention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857146/site/newsweek/
In the meantime, with the DNC meeting approaching on Feb. 12, party insiders have been conducting an urgent, so far fruitless, search for a consensus Dean-stopper. The Clintons don't like Dean on substance or style, seeing him as too left and too loose-lipped. But they're being careful. Hillary, already eying a presidential run in 2008, doesn't want to alienate the possible winner; she's leaving DNC maneuvers to Bill, whose answer last month was to sound out current chairman Terry McAuliffe about remaining in the job. (He declined.) The Clintons are said to have encouraged a good friend, veteran organizer Harold Ickes, to enter the chairman's race, but he begged off, too. Party leaders approached former senator Bob Kerrey, but he told them he would rather keep his job as president of the New School University.

Where do they get this crap? He's a freaking centrist! Okay, he may be loud but we need that right now since this polite, timid act isn't working for the Dems.

considering Nixon was further LEFT than Clinton it should be no surprise.

I guess

Nixon had a remarkably liberal congress to work with. Clinton had an remarkably conservative congress.

Both balanced themselves out so their tenures came out to about equal. Minus the bloody war and stuff.

Democrats) just repeat this BS over and over.

Dean will not play that PNAC empire building game of disguising wars as humanitarian adventures and take money out of the mouths of the American poor to go oppress the indigenous poor in Latin America.

This labels Left, Centrist, Conservative is pretty much distractionary BS. The real division in our party is between empire-building neo-Liberals (the exact same problem the Republicans are having with their version of the empire-builders, the neo-cons).

It is NOT by accident that the DLC and PPI are very close in philosophy to... elements on the other side. Their latest acquisition from the neo-cons is a PNAC signatory named Marshall Wittman who was one of Ralph Reed's right hand men in the Christian Coalition. They think so highly of him that they made this "prodigal son" an official DLC spokesman and a Sr Advisor of the PPI (the DLC's version of the AEI).

Do you hear this DUers? The Christian Coalition Movement has come to us. It is little coincidence that we are suddenly hearing all this talk of "fath-based initiatives" in the party & politicians are mentioning "God" in every other sentence and letting us know how they just pray, and pray and pray several times a day.

So once again... The problem with Dean is not that he's a Centrist they're smearing as a Leftist- it's that he's NOT a neoLiberal about to play ball with the war nuances and apologetics.

Watch for people crawling out of the woodwork pooh-pooing these reports and it will be the same empire apologists that pooh-pooed who was behind the StopDean movement, the Osama ads, the "Dean is no good for Jews" ads.

We are in a fight for the soul of our party and they will stop at nothing. Big, big money at stake here. What we are fighting are the corporations, the Military Industrial complex, the National Endowment for Democracy, the neo think tanks, etc... Right now they're trying very hard to fracture the anti-war movement knowing full well that it's the glue holding many of us together because of our rage over Iraq and the political cohabitation that led to it. They will stop at nothing to divide us nor will they stop at anything to keep power.

We can't let them win. The stakes are too important.

PPI | Bio | September 22, 2004
Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=252919

*Here's the entire Staff list: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112)


In order to find the right spokesperson, please contact our press office at (202) 546-0007.

DLC Spokespersons:


Al From, founder and chief executive officer of the DLC.

Bruce Reed, president of the DLC.

Holly Page, vice president for strategic development for the DLC.

Ed Kilgore, policy director for the DLC.

Debbie Cox, chief of staff for the DLC.

Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow.

PPI Spokespersons:


Will Marshall, president and co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Rob Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute and director of PPI's Technology & New Economy Project.

Paul Weinstein Jr., chief operating officer of the Progressive Policy Institute and PPI senior fellow, covering issues of pension and tax reform, transportation policy, and corporate responsibility.

John Cohen, director of PPI's Community Crime Fighting Project.

Edward Gresser, director of PPI's Trade and Global Markets Project.

David Kendall, director of PPI's Health Priorities Project.

Jan Mazurek, director of PPI's Energy and The Environment Project.

Steven Nider, director of foreign and security studies.

Andrew Rotherham, director of PPI's 21st Century Schools Project.

Fred Siegel, PPI senior fellow, covering urban issues, smart growth, and transportation.

Marshall Wittmann, PPI senior fellow.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=1238

The only reason the Left supported Clinton was because we saw Newt Gingrinch as the greater threat. After the ABB fiasco of 2004, I don't see the Left spending any time and energy helping elect people that are our natural enemies.

Whitman's entire career was on the right. Seems to me someone on the LEFT should get a freakin' CLUE, ain't it?

This is absolutely bone-chillingly incredible information. Have you posted it separately? If not, please do. If you have, can you shoot me a link? Thanks.

I have posted it several times as have posters like AntiCoup but it can't be said enough.



Marshall Wittman

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and one of the nation's most quoted analysts on political and congressional issues. He specializes in the growing role of the independent voter.

Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. Wittmann also was the legislative representative with the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and a public affairs specialist with the National Treasury Employees Union. He holds both his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan.

Wittmann is widely quoted on issues concerning politics, elections and Congress. He has been published in The New York Times and The Washington Post.

http://pewforum.org/events/0410/wittmanbio.htm

You really have to get a load of this site!:

Bioethics
Death Penalty
Faith-Based Initiatives
Just War Tradition
Religion and Gay Marriage
Religion and Human Rights
Religion and Public Schools
Religion in American Public Life
Religion in Politics
School Vouchers
September 11 and Beyond

http://pewforum.org/issues/

====

At the Hudson Institute, he was the

Director, Project for Conservative Reform
Senior Fellow

http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=WittMars

(the page was recently blanked out now that he's had a miraculous transformation from neo-con to Dem but the links of his name still point there).

And when you research Marshall Wittman + Conservative Reform, you discover that he left that to go manage John McCain's campaign (oh yeah, Wittman had managed Alan Keyes campaign at one time)

Bill Kristol and Marshall Wittman- real tight buds there.

Really scary stuff...

he may already know, but i am constantly amazed at the incredible talent of du'ers at pulling together information about people.

send it to dean. help him know what to prepare for.

you guys ROCK!


:yourock:

sound intelligent when I discuss the fact that the Repubs have infiltrated the Democratic Party.

individuals who have significant jobs (jobs that manage to impact our country, anyway)-that I have come to rely on DU

Thanks for the heads up

Do I need to pull out the interview Dean did on PBS with Gwen Eiffel to remind you?

that knowing what he knows now, he would still vote for that fucking war?

I know Kerry's statements on Iraq were a mess. I was referring to the candidate she despises, Wes Clark.

I don't think we know enough about Dean to know whether he's a neoliberal, but Clinton has said that anger doesn't work, and he's also said that he believe that one of the central principles the Democratic party holds today is that you defecit spend in times of trouble.

Not being angry and Keynsian economics are both things the Clintons' hero, FDR, stood for, and they think probably don't like the fact that Dean believes in neither.

(And given that Dean was all for privatizing VT's energy company, I'm not convinced that he doesn't believe in some of the things neoliberals believe in.)

Gee, the Presstitutes know the story well, as they also know how to divide and conquer too.

I don't read Newsweek....as it has the most deceptive types of Presstitutes working for it.

I remember the John Kerry unsubstantiated Intern Rumor they helped spread. I remember the ridicule that they lobbed at all of the Democratic candidates in the race. I remember the Sunshine Boys? ridiculing the optimism of both Kerry and Edwards. I remember their helpfulness in the destruction of anyone who's name is not McCain or who is on the left.

Howard Fineman can kiss my ass. That winner of "Mediawhore of the Year" award ain't getting my ear. If I haven't learned anything from the last primaries and the general election...I've learned that the media will play us and not think twice about it.

They speculate and we buy it as fact....especially if the story fits our needs.

We all know that Kos has always rooted for Howard Dean and loves a good conspiracy as well, now and then.....

This story should definitely light the fire under Dean supporters and rise them to action. Actually, this may not be a bad thing (considering that I wouldn't mind Dean as DNC Chair). Might compel some to write to the media and to their elected officials a few extra letters (a good thing).

but speaking to the one poster that HAD TO drag Wes Clark's name into this (again)......Many people wanted Clark to run for President...whether you like that fact or not, it is still a fact so stop demonizing him and trying to make him out to be a Clinton puppet....as that is so, Oh....right wing of you. 70 thousand people did not do Clinton's bidding in begging Wes Clark to run. Whether Clinton asked him.....would be his perogative. Just like it was gore's perogative to endorse Howard Dean in December of 2003.

Frenchie is correct that to listen to Fineman is to listen to the devil. Who knows what the Clintons are to? Maybe nothing; maybe everything; maybe somewhere in between. But in this case the message is just a little to conveniently placed. According to Kos, one un-named DNC source places Hillary and/or Bill at the center of some anti-Dean movement and boom! It has to be true. Now why is that? Because too many people who regularly discount every word of Fineman and know better than accepting a rumored source see a chance for someone to hate.

The Clintons have their power, but it is not absolute. And considering that Hillary may want to run in '08, does she really want to piss-off someone who might be the next chair?

As for the ol Clark as Hillary's stalking horse manure, there is little left to say since on its face it makes absolutely no sense. Fineman loves to feed the anti-Clinton faction of the party. Soups on!

I take anything Howie the Whore says with a grain of salt.

I'm glad Clinton was president and I'll always be grateful for the prosperity he brought us. Thanks to the policies of his administration, I was finally able to get ahead in life.

That said, times have changed and the leadership must change with them. Our country is drifting to far to the right and centrism doesn't cut it anymore. We also need new blood and new ideas -- new leadership. I'm willing to give Dean a chance.

Bill sounds like he's putting his fund raising skills to good use, re. AIDS, et. al. I think it'd be fine if he raised money for the party. But policy, ideology, etc., should go to others.

And Hillary doesn't have a prayer of getting elected in 2008.

But I think they know in their hearts that their day is over.

The more we have people like Boxer and Dean speaking out the more we see the DLC watching their power grab slipping away. personally I can't wait until DLC is totally defunct. Repuke light is not the way we should go.

I couldn't find the exact quote on the link...but I didn't have time to be that thorough. thanks..

"...anti-Dean forces..." the quote is in there.

to slowly fade into the sunset regarding leadership of the Democratic Party. Their "influence" can be seen since Bill's last term. The Party has tanked since then and, although it would be ludicrous to say they were responsible, the people they've supported in leadership positions in that period have taken the Party in the wrong direction.

I know this is a hot button issue for many here at DU and there are many that think just the opposite, that the Clintons should be more involved or take control of the Party themselves.

I just think it's time for the Party to change course. We've strayed too far from our roots and Howard Dean is the man to pull us all back toward the left. Of course, that's just my opinion.

couldn't agree more

Where does a man who won six out of seven statewide races and two out of two presidential races challenge Howard Dean's prescriptions for electoral success...


Preposterous....


Preposterous, I tell you....

Clinton is over and should be.
How are you enjoying your secound four years of bush?

to stay, clearly his judgment isn't what it used to be. And while the Clinton's priority may be what is best for Hillary '08, it certainly isn't what's best for the rest of us if it means that the old going along to get along routine is going to continue and if the best interests of the country are again sold down river in the name of political expediency.

Clinton wouldn't have it. Dean ran against Clinton's legacy. The Big Dawg ain't having none of that.

I have a better chance of me and Tom Arnold beating Dwayne Wade and Shaquille O'Neal in a game of two on two than does Howard Dean have of matching Bill Clinton's legacy...


Who needs drugs when you can trip on some of the posts here....

brilliance? :eyes:

Harold Ickes but he has withdrawn from the list. If anyone here thinks there isn't a struggle for control of this party going on right now you are wrong. The question is, will the Clintons be able to maintain control or lose it to a further left contingent like Dean.

I think it makes a big differences as to the chances Hillary has when it comes to running for president in 2008. She's going to a lot of trouble lately trying to align herself in a more central position in order to be more appealing to the moderate Repugs. That could be a problem if Dean gets in and continues to direct the party further left. Hillary will be left in the middle without a paddle as she appeals to the right and loses the left.

Main reason -- Bill Clinton. All the Repukes have to do is play continuously the tapes of Bill denying he "had sex with that woman (Monica)" interspersed with pictures of Monica's blue dress and Hillary saying that she's no Tammy Wynette and doesn't bake cookies.

Hillary and Bill will make it too easy for Karl Rove and his minions to skewer Hillary, if she is the Dem nominee.

One of the rights favorite causes these days is illegal immigration. NOBODY wants to touch immigration because of the minority vote. Hillary came out with a statement about illegal immigration and if she pushes it enough she could capture some of the repug vote on that issue alone.

If she softens her stance on abortion it's going to be hard to find a repug that could beat her.

Her past deeds will be forgotten quickly if she grabs their attention with these issues.

out in '04 - U ain't seen nothin' if HC is a prez candidate. All I have 2 do 2 get my rong-wing rethug family to foam @ the mouth and go N2 convulsive spasms is say CLINTON! then shield my face.

Considering under Clinton we had the longest economic expansion in the history of the republic and unprecedented rates of miniority employment I'll take it...



Throw in the fact that America was generally respected in the international community and I am orgasmic....

thrilled to put Justices Breyer and Ginsberg on the bench.

It's not that Dean is wrong, it's that he's half right but his supporters think he's absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong. The remedy seems worse than the disease.

I'm sure it's a great comfort to you.

I don't agree with ANY politician all of the time (actually, I don't agree with anyone 100%)but I have more respect for a person who sees me as part of the solution and not just a place to go to get more money. That's the difference for me when discussing who should head the DNC.

Literally and figuratively....


We can't get a majority of Americans to buy our dog food but instead of changing the recipe we want to change the buyers...

analyzing a whole group of people and making political decision based on bad analysis.
Yah, that'll work. :eyes:

and sleaze is what we are going to get from this modern version of the Macbeth family!

Thus, Dean must be stopped

cropping up like the energizer bunny!

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

I knew he had suggested some of the anti-Dean candidates run in the primaries.

It was a big disappointment for me b/c I really liked Clinton's policies while he was in office (or at least what I knew of them), but have been far less happy with his suggestions for the future leadership of the party. I don't know if all the false scandal attacks that he and Hillary were subjected for 8 years have anything to do with it, but he seems to suggest far less "fight" with the Rs than he was willing to do as President. JIMO.

:shrug:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857146/site/newsweek/

Gee, I can't wait until he starts paying the New York Times and the Washington Post. And maybe he should put CNN on the payroll; it'd be an improvement!
:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

Employees of AOL Time Warner were his top contributor through most of the early primary. Now, why is it that Dean gets so much news coverage?

be chasing skirts or having sorrid affairs in the office of the DNC Chair }(

As far as I can see..Dean has been nothing but respectful to them..so does it come from power play territory?

What a talent and mind. There is still a lot for him to do. But, getting Democrats other than himself elected is not his thing now and wasn't in the past.

It's going to be Dean, period and Dean is going to rock. He's not part of the little fraternity of the 'well behaved' establishment feigning wing of our party. He's a Northern Shit-Kicker. Let them roll out the shout tape. As one Southern commentator said when it was aired, "Oh, this won't hurt him at all in the South. We like that sort of thing."

Hillary, take a hike. Big Dog, there's a lot to do when a Democrat gets elected. Thanks for the power broker offer but we'll win this one without you.

I will NEVER support Hillary in ANY endeavor she undertakes.

If there is a stop dean Juggernaut candidate that jumps in now, or if several candidates drop to avoid a Dean plurality, the democratic party can rot, as far as I'm concerned.

that we could see Kerry and Dean working together and Kerry backing Dean for DNC Chair. I think Kerry is trying to learn to use the grassroots, and that's Dean's forte.

Would that be an unholy alliance for some? Or would people be cool with it?

Please? I went to the link above and only found the Newsweek crap.

What am I missing.

on a piece by Howard Fineman. Now that's an atypical, anti-establishment, non-business-as-usual way to spin the message!

and again. Write a Stop-Dean article everyday and let liberals add the dash of
demonization themselves.

The Internet comes so handy. And some liberals fall for it everytime. The demonization of the Clintons amongst the Democratic base is being carried out
quite transparently and openly. Hey, if Karl Rove is lucky, we will become one party when it comes to hating the Clintons! Won't that be great?

If Dean gets the DNC Chair, it will be quite interesting to see the reactions here the first time he enthusiastically embraces the Clintons publicly.

Why do you imagine there will be a reaction if Dean embraces the Clintons? We all understand politics. Public spectacle is just that.

McAuliffe seems like more their type...cautious, charming...Clinton-like.

yup...that is what democrats have become. Our party "leaders" would rather take the smaller cash payout (while republicans take the larger and all of the power) than help elect politicians who will put their losing butts out of a job.

or anything new.

It has been obvious for a while now that the Clintons (both of them) weren't a big fan of Dean. I remember that subtle jab Clinton made a while back during the primaries, that the candidate shoudn't veer too far left. They feel that Dean is taking the party too far left.

Dean has shaken the party up quite a bit. He gave it a much needed kick in its own ass. This whole "Dean is a far left liberal" myth is ironic.

All that said, it's time for the Clintons to fade away as another poster said. I much rather prefer Clnton doing good ex president, statesmanly things (which he has been doing) than trying to gain control of the party. His wife is not him and has neither the charisma or ability to pull off the presidency. I'd be weery of giving her any higher leadership roles, considering she has lately been backing Bush in many of his major policies.

I was never the biggest Dean fan (and did not support him in the primaries), but I haven't been impressed with the other candidates for DNC chair. Dean also proved himself to be an effective advocate and surrogate for Kerry during the campaign.

zipped, Al Gore would be Prez.

he falsely implied some flattering statements Dick Durbin made toward Dean were an endorsement. Kos made its bias obvious enough.

Fineman has the Democrat's interest at heart as much as Bush* has the Iraqi's interest at heart....


If Fineman said there was a blizzard coming I'd tell my girlfriend to grab her bikini cuz we are going to the beach....


By the way, he is a very milquetoast man...

In politics, there are no coronations.

And that is what is disturbing about this - people expecting Dean to walk into the position with no opposition.

If people want someone other the Dean for the DNC chair - and are fighting for that - that's called politics.

According to Kos: The Clinton's are behind the anti-Dean campaign for DNC

Where does KOS say that?

HINT: He doesn't.


What he DOES do is quote Fineman from Newsweek and allows people like you to draw a false impression.

Sure, the Clintons want the best possible candidate for the job. Sure, they're friend is McAuliffe, and sure - they're going to ask around for other candidates.

But there is nothing unethical about that.

KOS, though - a vervent Dean supporter who was rumored to be on his payroll at one time - is stirring inner-party shit. But it's politics.

And one more time: PLEASE provide proof that the Clintons recruited Wes Clark to run against Dean. A "feeling" one has just doesn't cut it.

And is that ethical?

He had a disclaimer posted the whole time this was happening. So you can confirm that "rumor" you heard by hearing it from the horse's mouth - Markos himself.

Setting up a Clinton/Dean death match...


Clinton won six out of seven state wide races and two out of two presidential races...


That's electoral success baby......


Don't hate the playa....Hate the game....

that rank second only to Bush Jr.

Over a million Iraqi children died of starvation or for lack of medicines thanks to Clinton. Fuck him!

Front page of the NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/25clinton.html?hp&ex=1106715600&en=de487ff96cb3843b&ei=5094&partner=homepage


Is there anything she won't say or do--without an inner core of integrity, to triangulate on someone else's sales pitch?

The Clinton's cost the Democratic party their reputation- and it will carry the taint of Clinton until we have a clear and unambiguous moral platform to promote which reflects personally and culturally.

I wonder if the Clintons and their many allies purposely sabotaged the Kerry campaign...

Blame Saddam....


He's as much as cause of the sanctions and the war as anything Clinton did...


His invasion of Kuwait was the antecedent to this mess....Clinton's occasional bombing of strategic targets in Iraq and sanctions sure look better than the Bush junta's open ended occupation..

And if we accept your premise that "Clinton's sanctions" are responsible for one million Iraqi deaths then we must applaud Bush's invasion since that put an end to the sanctions...


Clinton merely signed DOMA.... Blame liberal luminaries like Paul Wellstone and Bobby Byrd for voting for DOMA and forcing Clinton's hand... It's hard to veto a bill that passed the Senate with 87 votes...


Clinton also put Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench who were part of the Supreme Court majority in Lawrence v Texas that overruled Hardwick v Georgia which allowed two guys to be put in the hooskow for fucking one another... Without Breyer's and Ginsburg's votes Hardwick is still likely the law of the land...


Maybe two men or two women can't marry one another yet but thanks to Clinton's Supreme Court appointments they can't go to jail for making love to one another...

Another feather in our collective caps, right? Wrong!

And the no fly zones were never sanctioned by the UN.

Clinton kept SOA humming along graduating murderers and tortureres, he merely changed its name to WHISC.

The no fly zones look relatively benign compared to the mess we have there today...


Hundreds of billions dollars wasted, over a thousand Americans dead, countless innocent Iraqis killed, a world order turned upside down....


Would anybody trade Clinton's Iraq policy for Bush's?


That's really the question...


Not Clinton against some mythical humanitarian leader but Clinton against Bush...

Using Nazi Germany as an analogy, Clinton opened the first concentration camp at Dachau in 1933, while Bush is the one that built all the extermination camps.

Remember that Iraq had no WMD!

Clinton administration blocks easing of sanctions against Iraq
By Barry Grey
28 September 1999

After two weeks of intensive negotiations within the United Nations Security Council, the United States has blocked efforts by France, Russia and China to lift sanctions against Iraq. Washington has thereby ensured the continuation of a policy which must rank as one of the great crimes against humanity of the twentieth century.

Only last month the UN children's agency, UNICEF, released a study showing that nine years of economic embargo, compounded by the devastation from two air wars, have produced a “humanitarian emergency.” UNICEF reported that mortality rates among infants and children under five in the central and southern parts of the country which are controlled by Baghdad, where 85 percent of Iraqis live, have more than doubled since 1989. The study further concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi children under five suffer from stunted growth caused by malnutrition.

UNICEF estimated that 500,000 child deaths are attributable to the sanctions.

A number of other reports and eyewitness accounts have documented the existence of a social catastrophe in Iraq, resulting from the relentless economic, political and military assault by the most powerful nation in the world. In recent years Bill Clinton and his counterparts in Europe have employed the term “genocide” with near abandon to demonize leaders and regimes targeted for attack. But if anything in the past decade approaches the level of genocide, it is the systematic destruction of an entire nation carried out by the United States against Iraq.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtml

Clinton's neck....

You're good at googling things...


I'm sure you can google the letter signed by Rumsfeld and his buddies asking Clinton to invade Iraq...



Clinton had three foreign foes during his administration...Saddam, Slobodan, and Osama , none of whom were particularly good guys...


History will judge how he dealt with them but most folks would agree they were a most odious bunch...

Both Clintons supported IWR, and Bill Clinton said repeatedly that Iraq had WMDs.

If Clinton is this uber imperialist why did he get a standing ovation at the United Nations?

It is like comparing Mussolini to Hitler, the former is bad, but the latter is far worse!

On edit:

Back on point, Big Dog helped sell the war in Iraq to the sheep, and he has remained silent about the war. His wife is a total fanatic in support of the PNAC/PPI agenda. She is dead set against a US withdrawal.

or Ike to Nixon

The clintons ARE PNAC.

eom

I don’t want someone who will try to control the process before the primaries or will try for the win at any cost to the detriment of the party. Hillary may be a bigger threat to a democratic victory in 2008 than the repukes who see her as the canidate most likely to lose.

and if he thinks Dean is planning to commandeer the DNC for another Dean run he's probably right. That's exactly what I think.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to triangulate. It takes a genius to bring people along to your way of thinking. Wellstone was a political genuis. Clinton was/is an incredibly charismatic man who ran on healthcare.
That is how he won. But his "genius" has lost us the senate, the congress and the presidency for years now.
If you like losing keep defending Clinton and Kerry and the politics of triangulation.

and that we keep repeating the same mistakes in trying to win them back says it all for me

Whoever becomes the DNC chief - and I want Dean- their report card will be 2006 elections

If Dean can't improve the situation with regard to House and Senate seats then I'll really start despairing for my Party

I haven't looked closely for awhile but the Dems have more vulnerable seats than the Pugs...


If we lose more seats in 06 that will just embolden those who want to write the Democratic party's obituary...

What a shame...

The Republicans are rewarded at the ballot box for bankrupting our nation and making us a pariah in the international arena...

facts and figures, please. Sources and links.

elected, he ran up a surplus, he kept Wall Street going on full bull, he kept Osama out of lower Manhattan for seven years, he kept his neck out of the Bush-CIA guillotine for eight... the man is unquestionably a genius.

the Republicans.

Everybody bleating about how much they hate Bill, Hilary or any of their supposed "enemies".

The disruptors have been successful.

If hillary's going to scuttle a good democrats chances at becoming party chair, she'll have no support from me.

The least she could do is to say "I don't support dean, and here's why" but she's too cowardly to do that...she wants to have it both ways, and I think that sucks.

1. Dean was able to run a campaign based on the small individual donars. This has been easy for repubs and very hard for Dems for a long time. I heard an interview with Dean's old campaign manager, and he mentioned that every year, Dems lose in fundraising in every catagory except for the very big-lump sum individual donations (I guess he was referring to Hollywood donations). Clinton couldn't break the trend but Dean could.

2. Dean has controversy, but it is usually based around his temperment. Clinton's controversy was always over scandels...evidently, he had a temper too, but he didn't show it in public, and it wasn't much of an issue compared with the other scandels he had to deal with.

3. Clinton had to move right to be popular, but Dean is left and popular.

Both Clintons need to get out of the way..this isn't there party, and if they want it to be their party, they need to work for it, and get some decent results for a change.

Have you read The Hunting of the President by Joe Conason? Clinton had weaknesses, for sure, but the scandals were very much planned and conducted by right wing Republicans. It's a miracle any human being could have survived it, nevermind remain as popular with the public. Dean may be "left and popular," as you say and in some circles, (I don't say it because Dean is a centrist, although certainly popular), but Clinton was just plain popular, leaving office with the highest approval ratings since WWII of any president, including Ronald Reagan, except for the two who died in office, FDR and JFK: At the end of his term, after all the scandals the right threw in his way. His lowest approval ratings were in the first year of his first term when the scandal-mongering was fresh and the public didn't know what to think. In the end, people may have disapproved of his personal life but were able to separate it from his job in office.

Any of us can disagree with some of his policies, and I do, but could we have run Bill Clinton in '04, we would have won the election, fraud and all. And if Al Gore hadn't run away from Clinton in '00, we would never have had George W. Bush, fraud and all. Because what people really remember from the Clinton years is the relative health of their 401K plans.

I am completely for Dean as DNC chair, but this Dem bashing is sickening. This party needs a shake-up, and that's why I am supporting Dean for chair, but to tell a former Democratic President it isn't his party is absurd.

calling them Repub-lite was a brilliant political strategy that catapulted him from front-runner status to 4th place.

Ought to work beautifully this time around.

Word of advice: WIN something first, then attack the most successful Democrat since Roosevelt, umkay. Until then, you can't hold the man's jockstrap (let alone fill it), so pay some resepect.

people who just make shit up about dean?

...'Republican-lite' very late in 2003. That was viewed by everyone with half-a-brain as a shot at the Clintons, who are the most prominent members (and proponents) of the DLC.

Take the blinders off, man. The Clinton-Dean struggle for the party has been going on for well over a year. Take a wild guess who's going to win.

The DLC IS republican light. I don't care if some dipshits assumed Dean meant the clintons, that's not what he said, and for you to pustulate that is the case is assinine.

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

I never said the Dean camp didn't attack the clintons, I simply asked you to back up your claims, which you've failed to do.

I the DLC isn't a substantial group, at least not by the numbers. They're a SMALL group, trying to push an agenda which is insubstantially different from the republican agenda.

I didn't call them "republicans" as you claim, I called them "republican light" in reference to their "nuanced" policies. (i.e. I was using it as an ajective, not a noun)

although I'd vote for any third party candidate before I'd vote for either.

That includes Ralph Nader, whom I despise. In a choice between Hillary Clinton, any Republican, and Ralph Nader, Nader is the lesser of the three evils.

I've sent it to every one I can think of.

But around here, anytime I've tried to point that out (or any of the other tendrils of the Clintonistas as they wound around the primaries and through t e party hierarchy), I get doused with gas and lit afire! Heheheheh.

Pass the BBQ sauce, please...here they come with the matches again!

...linked in kos...

Privately, Dean has impressed many delegates with lengthy phone conversations grilling them about what they think the party needs.

"Nobody else besides Dean asked me about my plan and seemed to really listen," said New Mexico delegate Gloria Nieto.

One thing Dean has that will be a benefit to the party is a doctor's analytical, steel-trap kind of mind. The man can get to the heart of an issue quickly. It's partly because of his physician's training in diagnosis. It will be a valuable trait, should he become chair.

gmafb!

Yes, we all know, Fineman and Tweety Matthews broke the Clinton conspiracy a long time ago, and beat that dead horse into leather night after night.

Let's not lose our heads here. Fineman? :eyes:

sources to ignore (dating back to the primaries).

Couple that w/Clinton telling Kerry to dump the gays, and I am sadly convinced that this is most likely true.

I never gave an inch in my support for the Clintons and I am profoundly disappointed by what they have done to other dems since Bill left office.

I hate it has come to this, but I no longer want the influence of Clinton (either one) in our party. The time for change is here and we have to leave them both behind or they will be our undoing.

I will always leave the door open for them to change their tune and redeem themselves, but for now, they will talk to me through the screen door - not inside the house.

The Clintons will do anything that will benefit them. Bill and Hillary already took a dump on gays, and now Hillary is doing the same on pro-choicers.

Get a clue, people!

THEY have the right to support Dean.
OTHERS have the right to oppose him.

but I wonder how long those who do, are gonna tolerate being dictated to by the power structure of those who don't those who continue to butter the other side's bread while losing.

The idea that Hillary could ever, 2008, 2012, 2016, ever win the presidency is just ludicrous to me.

She has the unparallelled hatred of the right (not deserved necessarily, but there nonetheless), no real charisma, no exceptional message or policies.

Wasting her time and talent trying to scuttle another Dem to position herself for the Pres is positively delusional. She is not Bill, and she does not get the "pass" that Bill got.

She might as well have a target painted on her back, she the the GOP's dream opponent.

I don't see why Hilary couldn't win the office. But I don't see it for 2008. 2012, maybe. There's just not enough time to get provisions in place to smooth the way for her in '08, methinks.

a lot to do with Clinton's deregulation of the FCC.

It's Dean's own fault for keeping his smear operation going long after he got his ass kicked in the primaries. Who's gonna a trust a slimeball that stabs a Dem candidate in the back during a presidential campaign?

it like it is. He had the integrity to stand up to the repug pressure and say NO to this immoral war before it started!

Tell me exactly when Dean voted against the war. And all that DLC crap is load of crap. And the "media," like Howie needed any help losing Iowa. Anyway the media loved the guy because he was the anti-Kerry, and now he's victim-of-the-year? Give me a break.

rather than linking arms with the Bush crime family.