Left-wing Clinton Haters are WRONG.

Every Clinton hater at this site has had their say, piling onto BC as though he and Rush Limbaugh shared every belief. It is so typical of OUR party that we ignore what has worked while pushing that which has not.

There are many things to keep in mind about Bill Clinton's administration. For starters, during his administration, 28 MILLION new jobs were created, the internets were embraced, the stock market damned near tripled in value, a sea of red ink was vanquished, our international standing increased exponentially, crime was down, teen pregnancy down, abortions down, environmental concerns were seriously considered and policy formed to protect us. The list of accomplishments goes on and on.

Bill did not give us universal health care. No one else has either. And, I have news for you, no one else who was ran against him in '92 could have done so either. The problem in health care is profit and until that is gone, we will suffer. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton was left standing alone against the insurance industry while his own party hid and left him out at the end of the limb all by his lonesome. And that includes MANY of the pols people here now see as brave saviors.

NAFTA? I suspect that was an idea whose time had come and it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House. Hell, it might even be the right thing. We do not yet have a long enough view to judge that with accuracy, the Gordian knot of international finance notwithstanding. Gays in the military? Once again, the party left him hanging at the end of that limb, twisting slowly in the wind.

The most important point is this ... my enemies ... the neocons, the conservatives, the gops, the fascists, all hate him with unbridled passion. They hate his wife. They hate his daughter. Hell, they hated his fucking dog and even celebrated when Buddy played tag with a car. This people have plenty of hate in them. Tons of it.

But they have more of it for Bill Clinton than anyone else in the known universe. If that simple fact doesn't register with you and tell you much, then you are probably consumed with ideology without regard to reality.

Ideology is our enemy. It causes people to embrace things that are proved to not work (i.e. gops and tax cutting to get out of debt), it causes splintering of our side --a rush to excommunicate or, even better, purge our party of our own allies because of some minor point of political theology.

One last point ... a nomination for President isn't "given" to anyone. The Presidential nominee SEIZES the nomination through the political process. If Hillary Clinton were to become our nominees, it will be because she won it. Period.

Big Dog :yourock:

support for THIS regime really has me scratching my head.

I cannot fathom his alliance with this regime, unless he's so egomaniacal he must somehow continue to grab the spotlight when he can.

It's upsetting to me to see him with this regime. It makes me question MY values.

Everyone knows that North Korea is an unstable, dangerous and brutal regime. Yet still, there are those countries that remain diplomatically engaged with them. Why? Because in small ways, they are able to mitigate NK's behaviors.

Clinton is a diplomat, first and foremost. He knows that engagement may bring small and positive results for all.

In any small way that he possibly can.

I know he has been seen with them (which I find strange) but is he really supporting their policies?
That was not my perception at the Democratic convention last summer.

Until intelligent people recognize that one industry and the costs it imposes is wiping out whole other industries. That it is bringing the United States and its people to their economic knees and beyond.

I fear that until we get meaningful campaign finance reform, nothing substantive will be done.

but he is not equal to Limbaugh Bush and other right wingers.and he has done a lot of good things.

i will support Hillary or whoever else ends up being our Nominee.

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

name-calling.

Childish pouting and once again, the destruction of my party. Thanx for your support, Rog.

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

Is it better if I call him a republican, which is what he was?

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

Under your way of thinking Dick Nixon was a liberal wasn't he? Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?

I'm tired of all the corporate facism in this country, that was very much advanced by Bill Clinton. Do I have to pretend he wasn't a pimp, I mean my God Dick Morris was his right hand man, need I say more?

if you believe that the nation would have been better off with Bush I in a second term, then there is no reason to talk with you at all.

been better off with a charismatic leader like Howard Dean as its candidate. I'm really tired of this "he's great because he won 2 terms" nonsense. To hell with your so-called party if all it can do is cow-tow to corporate wealth. I never liked Bill Clinton, although I did admire his wife until she supported this unforgivable war. Now I want both of them to move on, I don't want to go back there. Not only can the Dem's do better they will, as long as you quit idolizing Bill Clinton into something he wasn't.

however, with reasoning such as you've demonstrated, I am uncertain whether to take it seriously.

As long as your not name calling, what a joke!

winning arguments, friends and elections with your particular tactics although I would have doubted its efficacy had I not met you.

Ta-ta.

Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, and Jerry Brown as our alternatives to Clinton. NONE had the charisma necessary or personality or brilliance to win. Yeah, BOB KERREY 1992! That woulda been a good one. Jerry Brown was more conservative than all of them with his flat tax that would do worse to our nation or anyone alone than all the trade agreements you could cite. And I'm sure people were gonna vote for another "massachusetts Willie Horton liberal" so soon after Michael Dukakis, thats why we shoulda picked Paul Tsongas. Don't worry, half of Americans will sure get than name down, or even how to spell it. And Tom Harken, just not presidential material. You my son have to learn the game of politics. No one is ever going to be perfect, so go for the most that is potential to obtain office, just not compromising too much.

:toast:

a hinderance in the real world of politics.

When the party strays to the right I move away from the party. The goofy constitution guarantees that two similar candidates gives the advantage to the third candidate, so I wind up voting for Democrats.

Perhaps you should consider taking a step back. Once you separate the Clinton cult of personality from the reality of some of the really destructive legislation he pushed and signed, the reactions that you find so offensive might make more sense. Responding with "would you rather have 4 more years of Bush I" isn't much of an argument for those who have some reasonable, deeply held principles. And it sure as hell won't convince me to vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

golf with old man Bush I think I might snap.

Of course, I don't know you well enough to know who you might vote for under any circumstances.

Other than you, that is?

:eyes:

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

and I agree with most of what you write, but I have to admit being disappointed in his weak opposition to the Bush Administration. Maybe he's just burned out...he went through eight years of pure hell with grace and dignity. I suspect he's just plain tired of being hated and reviled.

Bill Clinton will never have an airport or street named after him. That's a shame because I believe history will show he was one of the top ten Presidents down the road.

Your claim that Clinton was left standing alone against the insurance companies while the rest of the party "hid" is complete and utter bullshit. In fact, it was the other way around. Democrats in congress were still largely on board when Clinton backed away with his infamous (in my mind) "maybe we can cover 95% of the people" declaration. He hung every Dem in congress out to dry with that statement. At that point it was all over, and congressional Dems paid for it, not Clinton. I'd argue that he cost us the House by caving on that issue.

If opposing things like NAFTA, lousy welfare reform and spinelessness on universal health coverage means I'm splintering our side, so be it. Hillary is now talking about compromises on abortion. Sorry, but I have no interest whatsoever in more of the same from Hillary, Bill or anyone else in the party.

I watched it carefully at the time and when the insurance money started flowing on the Hill, they fucking layed low. It was disappointing to me and shameful as well.

While I admire president Clinton for many things, NAFTA, HealthCare, and a lukewarm acceptance of Gays in the military emboldened those with whom he thought he could do business to start a monumental process to unseat him.

Gingrich killed the third way, and it ain't got a chance in our lifetimes. Further, the DLC did embarassing things with Clinton's legacy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html They were not on board, they offered their own plans, as shown in the timeline. Democrats fell to the HIAA's commercials, and still didn't support him after his 9/93 adress to congress. Just read it.

more of it (hatred) for Bill Clinton than anyone else in the known universe. If that simple fact doesn't register with you and tell you much, then you are probably consumed with ideology without regard to reality".

Be straight with them. They are simpletons; certainly, too simple-minded to concern themselves with politics.

he KNOWS better.

But I will not sacrifice good on the alter of perfect.

was sacrificing the kids who went to prison for a health problem for
what he hoped would be a seat at the table with the Asa Hutchinses of the world.

Result? A few million lives ruined by prison, and loss of student aid.

There was no good there, just more bad.

the top two, don't ever forget are
Number one reason - he came from nowhere, he was not a socialite and he had the nerve to be smart enough to win a Rhode Scholarship and win the White House

Number Two reason - he has beat them at their own game. No matter what they did to Bill he came out better in the polls! he popularity and job approval actually went up after the Monica scandal! And he is still beating them at their game. Those who say they are mad because he is cozing-up to Bush Senior are full of it. I will never buy that. I think he is laughing his ass off everytime that Bush Sr. or Junior has to be in the same photo op with him and have a smile on their face, it goes against every grain of their being. The only thing better would be to see Babs have to make nice with Hillary!

As for Health Care, you are right as well. Hillary Clinton was given an enormous task for which she was well qualified but the right successfully demonized her and her plan it wouldn't matter how good it was. NAFTA probably was inevitable. Bob Reich told Clinton at the time that he should have included workers protections and Clinton didn't do it. BUT Clinton has admitted publicly and in writing (in his autobiography) that it was a huge error in judgement and Bob Reich was correct and he wished he had taken his advice!

That's what I like best about Bill. He is able to admit he is wrong or was wrong and give the person who was right credit. That is something you will never see with the current president!

Bill is humble, and he is a man of the people. When Bill told us I feel your pain, you knew he actually had the capacity to do that. He has been there done that. He had a single mom, an abusive step-dad, he had been around the block so he knew what he was talking about. Some have criticized his welfare overhaul as well but again if it was funded and implemented the way it was intended it was a good program. He stressed over and over that if we are expecting people to move from welfare to work it is our obligation as a society to make sure that there are good paying jobs with benefits that these folks can move into.

The other reason the right hates Bill is that he did what they say is impossible. They have always maintained the dicotomy approach that either the average guy wins or the corporations wins. Either the US wins or the other guy wins. Bill introduced a new way of thinking , he said "why can't everyone win? Why can't we set up trade agreements where everyone benefits? Why can't we increase the police force, make our schools better and still have a corporate sector that sees increased profits?" And then he went about answering those questions and to the horror of the right wing, it worked!

We instituted more social programs, protected the environment and still the corporations made profits. The myth was exposed, that was the lasting damage that Clinton inflicted on the right. It isn't necessity it is greed that motivates the right to favor corporations over social programs.

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

I like to think that I'm a practical sort of person. We need as a party to try to find what works NOW. Clinton WAS the 90's his methods for the most part worked THEN but we need to deal with the way things are NOW and find a new way to deal with these Rethug punks. I for one don't know what that way is but I'm pretty sure its NOT rehashing a past that can't be undone.

Doesn't Clinton have an 'ideology'? Is being opposed to that ideology now to be considered as 'hate'? I'm surprised that you didn't call us 'left-wingers' evil for not worshipping hard enough.

The New Democrats call it 'Clintonism' or the 'third way'. But what it's really about is weakening the influence of what the DLC calls the 'special interests' of Unions ('Labor-Left'), Women, Blacks and anti-Iraq war, civil rights activists. It's about cutting the 'grassroots' off at the knees and forming a partnership with corporate interests.

Many of us so-called left wingers defended Clinton for eight years against the 'vast right wing conspiracy'. We wrote letters to our representatives and media objecting to the witch hunt that brought about a bogus impeachment.

But the Clinton era is over. It was great the Clinton was able to win two terms...but blatant 2000 election fraud and 9-11 'changed everything'...including the Democratic party. Many of us didn't like the way the party was 'moving to right' on pivotal issues and their lack of meaningful response to the right wing extremism that had literally stolen our government away from the people.

Perhaps there once was a time when moderation and 'centrism' worked to keep the two-party system in balance. But that time is long gone. Today we face a new challenge that includes fighting against government/corporate corruption and the RWing crusade to replace social with corporate welfare.

Speaking out against Clinton's 'third way' or Democrats 'sleeping with the enemy' has nothing to do with hate. It's about opposing the politics of appeasement that allow cronyism, war profiteering and criminal acts to go unexamined and unpunished to advance the careers of a few, select politicians in both parties.

I like Clinton and wish him well. But any good that he brought for the Democratic party was neutralized by his selfish acts and naivete about the Neofascists that desired a one-party state. He and his DLC friends helped them get what they wanted. That's the reality we're faced with today.

take whoever you want as a standard bearer. I don't know who it is that you like, if anyone, but whoever it is, compare the level of hatred and fear that the right wing holds for them with the level they hold for Bill Clinton.

These people hate what they fear and what they fear the most is the loss of power.

What you write sounds okay in theory, in the annals of DU, but in the real world, it just doesn't mean squat. They hate who they fear and who they fear is Clinton. Any Clinton.

...but I don't quite get the point of this thread. Is there a rash of Clinton-hating going around on DU?

You should be able to distinguish between those who hate Clinton simply because he's Clinton and those who dislike or oppose his politics. It should go without saying that Clinton was (overall) a better president than anything we've seen come from the right for a very long time. But that shouldn't put him on a pedestal where he's beyond criticism or above reproach.

The direction of the Democratic party means everything in the 'real world'. It's the voters who must decide whether we follow 'Clintonism' or be a real opposition party to the most corrupt government this nation has ever seen.

answered my question without answering the main thrust. If you do not understand, I will reiterate: they hate most who they fear most.

They fear Clinton. Do they fear your fcavorite or do they take he/she lightly?

edited because I posted to the wrong response. Sorry.

...but it seems irrelevant to your call for loyalty to Clinton.

The RWingers don't 'fear' what they can control. By Clinton's second term...he was fully under the control of the fascist right. They controlled him by abusing their power and office to prevent him from advancing the Democratic agenda. Clinton's careless behavior made it possible for the Right to 'blackmail' him and advance their OWN agenda.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your focus on 'fear'. I can't see that the Right fears any Democratic politician because the party is literally split in half and can't seem to decide on a leadership that all Dems can support.

What the right DOES fear is a progressive leadership that actively opposes their crusade to turn the US into a corporate state that uses the media, military and church to keep everyone in line.

The weakest leg of the Democratic party is the enormous naivete displayed by the vast majority of the "leadership." The hardscrabble beginnings most of them would prefer (at least by insinuation) we attribute to them has most certainly not prepared them to face the no-holds-barred tactics of a determined, neofascist, power mad enemy.

As always, I find your response here thoughtful and nicely articulated.

:thumbsup:

I am bewildered by the constant calls not to criticize Dem pols. What are we, cheerleaders or informed and engaged citizens?

For all the claims to political savvy by posters here, very few seem to realize that it is not their opponents to whom Pols are accountable, it is their supporters. If a Pol's supporters do not hold him/her accountable, no one will. That's are job, if our votes are to mean anything beyond a Party stamp.

and devisive primaries and criticisms lead to losing elections. Check out the history.

two uncritical, unquestioning factions fighting for power in this country?

one faction is basically social-democrats, the other neo-fascist. Where both will take us is clear. If you believe policy nuance decides elections, I fear your appreciation of the process is incomplete.

But you are criticizing me, and developing a division between us. I will not let you do that.

policy nuance never decides an election. The electorate uses a very broad brush and lines drawn with sharp #3 pencils elude the huge majority of them.

I am just so damned tired of people pissing and moaning about BC playing golf with the old Bush. The "I'll never forgive ..." crowd pisses me off.

Gee I always thought that the whole idea of primaries was to work things out in a "spirited" contest of ideas and not have it be an excercise in group think ala the GOP prinmary process. Yeah we should avoid being TOO nasty that's true but a real contest of ideas is not always a pretty thing to watch. Constructive criticism leads to a refinement of ideas and I'd like to think that ultimately you get a better strategy and plan when you work things out by listening to those constructive crtiques and making changes in your strategy if the idea presented turns out to be a better one than the one you've been using.

They are calling for intelligent conversation. Some of us are really sick of hearing "I will never forgive", or "He betrayed me" posts. These posts are selfish and unnecessary.

I was feeling alone in my umbarage with those very sorts of comments. You read my mind.

:toast:

Lots of us are right there with you - you said exactly what I feel.

Oh I'm with you on that one. Somebody like Senator Boxer, or Chairman Dean, or whoever does soemthing that some people don't like and then all of a sudden its time to dump 'em overboard. Poltics is long term strategy and thinking and some things that don't seem right at the moment turn out to be a smart move down the road. Now of course what looks like a brilliant move today could also turn sour later on. Its the uncertainty principle - you work at it, try to do your best, act with right intention but well sometimes... you know how it goes.

Gregory reported conservatives are aghast because Bush now talking in policy meetings says "Bubba says this and Bubba says that". Hell I think Clinton hater Matthews choked on that one.

whoever runs this world gives us no, or few, choices and clinton was it in '92/96.....after that, the 'choice' in 2000 was made for us, and in '04 it's presumtion was blatantly, contemptuously flaunted in our faces.....there is an 'us and them'!....bill clinton looks like he was a mistake on the part of 'Oink and the Grasping Pigs' (aka the freemason, the BFEE, the anglo saxon mafia, the illuminatti, the Horny Turd or whatever they're called: the killers of JohnF, RobertF, Martin, Abby, Paul W. Che... etcetc)
When scaife's,. murdock's, Oldbush's and the assholes at GE etcetra's LIVES are on the table, then it'll be a 'great game' as the nazipoos call it...it's not a 'game' when the main players are immune to consequences of losing....

I loved it when BC was president. However his impeachment and behavior has cost our party. He has made some remarks the last few years that puzzle or madden me. I do NOT hate BC or HC, I just am not as big a fan as I once was. I disagree with the DLC but I don't necessarily blame Clinton for all they do. Mr. Reed and Mr From are the problems in charge there.

let's give some credit due where it counts.

i will never forgive him for doma, for abandoning the dem congress critters to the insurance thingy, welfare reform, etc.

i don't hate him -- but he and i do not see politically eye to eye.
and i'm not a traitor, a hater or anything else by critisizing him -- regardless of fantasizing speculation by centrists.

maybe a bit more controversial than you paint them to be. In fact, it was the Democrats in congress who ran and hid when the insurance money started flowing onto the hill to beat his 1st term health care proposal. No help from most of them. None at all. They left him exposed politically while they covered their own asses.

DOMA and Welfare Reform are neither as clearcut as you allege either. So far as the "never forgive" stuff, that is your prerogative but it will cause you grief in the long run.

if clinton wanted his insurance reform -- he could have at least had the balls to do as much gb2 has done for his misbegotten private accounts.
then see how hidden the dems were.

this is the same old flame bait used by centrists to tell lefters to shut-up.
well you'll grow old waiting for that to happen.

you can't stand the idea that people think differently than your private idols and that the facts of history fall as much into the opponents court as anywhere else.
and you can't swallow that -- i feel sorry for that kind of desperate thinking.

lefters defended clinton through the whole monica/whitewater bullshit -- and it still isn't enough for you.
well, you're not getting the rest, my differences with centrists are legit -- i've given to the clintons all i care too -- .

I would hope that you defended Clinton during Monica because it was the right thing to do, because lies should not be sufficient to overturn the will of the electorate. Unless you believed the bullshit and defended him anyway?

Do not presume to tell me what I believe. Your straw-men fool no one. What I do suspect is that I have every bit as much right to condemn what I perceive as foolish comments anywhere i find them. Or do you somehow believe that only you have that right?

Do whatever you fucking wish but do not put words in my mouth nor try to restrict my speech. Think whatever you want.

by presuming to tell others who have real policy issues with the Clintons and DLC types how they should think. The idea that other Democrats think they can tell me that I have to shut up and swallow centrist bullshit on things like free trade, abortion, welfare reform, etc. is incredibly arrogant. I'm more than willing to debate these people and fight for the issues, and I'll be damned if I'm going to shut up while you try to anoint another doomed GOP-lite loser to "lead" this party. I'll vote 3rd party before going down that road again.

The only people here telling other how to think are the suicide doves who insist that you're not a real Democrat unless you take a death-stand over every single issue. It's the people who insist that if a politician does one thing that they disagree with, they're forever worthless.

WAAAH! I'll never forgive Clinton for not obeying my ever whim! I'll never forgive Clinton for succeeding brilliantly at all but four or five things!

It's childish, and it's why absolute idealists rarely get any power in government--politics is an art, a game of strategy and compromise. You never get anywhere if the first time you run into opposition you take your toys and go home.

Even the most conservative Dems new that with the lack of
enviromental and worker protection laws in Mexico and other 3rd
world countrys the debacle that is NAFTA would gut american
manufacturing jobs and drive down salaries for the remaining
jobs in the manufacturing sector. American workers can compete
with anyone on an even playing field but with the current arrangement they don't stand a chance.

In retrospect, Clinton's courtship of China was even more damaging to American manufacturing. Generally speaking, his emprace of neoliberalism set a bad precedent for Democrats

Mexicans are upset about NAFTA as well, because they've lost jobs during this period. US jobs are not going to Mexico. Unfortunately, the US made it a condition that Mexico join WTO before NAFTA. When you shop for souvenirs along the Mexican border, check out the country of origin labels; they're usually made in China. NAFTA, as originally conceived was a fantastic idea. The European Union hasn't done too badly, but it has been mush more aggressive in protecting its (continental) interests, and promoting the continent as a trade bloc.

Earlier this year, Honeywell announced that they would soon offshore 5000 highly paid aerospace manufacturing jobs here in the Phoenix area. To Mexico? No, they're going to the Czech Republic!

NAFTA was a mistake. Why should I go out and knock door to door to elect someone who is going to sell me out for his DLC buddies? Clinton doesn't even really talk much about the DLC in his biography, which I find slimy, especially since it is over 1000 pages.

Then there's "the end of welfare as we know it". When are we going to end welfare for the Paris Hiltons of the world? When are police going to stop evicting people who aren't paying some landlord heir to sit on his behind all day? Corporation owners raise unemployment when their profit isn't at the level they want, and Clinton joins in by attacking the victims of this as well.

Then there is his attack on Serbia, Plan Colombia and so forth.

Why should I waste time knocking on doors for someone who is just going to turn around and screw me? This is why I've begun hanging out with Greens.

..are available to anyone who would invest time and effort in attacking fellow Democrats.

There is plenty of room for differences of opinion in our party. But please try and remember who the enemy is...

A brilliant, ego-drunk, power-drunk fool...

He broke taboo in a jungle full of pee-pee-obsessed cannibals. But he wasn't the only one who ended up in the pot. You and I did too.

What a f***ing waste!

God, ANOTHER hysterically abusive coordinated "I hate Democrats" DLC thread! Who are these people (check Thomas Frank's list of their corporate Republican funders)? They must have just gotten a new Phrases To Use printout, because "playing golf with old Bush" and "Democrats in Congress ran and hid" came up almost as many times as that highly offensive anti-Democratic "neo-left McGovernite" did on one of the other lastest hissy fits. Why are only "left-wing" people wrong? Oh, of course.

This is the filth that the corporate DLC has imported to the Democratic Party, and it will be here until they leave. Do you really want your throat slit this vicious and ridiculing way, every time you want to correct our collective course? They still do not understand, or care, that we do not fearfully silence ourselves and toe the line the way their Republicans do, and they never listen to the non-rich, as shown by the unfailing, single response to every single reason given by posters for their opposition to Clinton and the DLC. "Clinton Haters" "name-calling and childish pouting and the destruction of MY party" (hah! it isn't even ours!) "unable to actually respond to the argumentation" (actually?), "however, with reasoning such as you've demonstrated" "with your particular tactics" "If I hear one more person crying" "What you write sounds okay in theory, in the annals of DU" (as opposed to DLC corporate wisdom, in the real world where we would never survive) "I am just so damned tired of people pissing and moaning about BC playing golf with the old Bush" after no one had mentioned that odd "framing" once, but had tried to explain the severe hardship caused to the poor and middle-class people that DLCers never meet, by NAFTA, GATT (killed our jobs, whether rich DLCers like us being able to speak publicly like rich people or not) and welfare cuts. Finally, there was taunting, which they always do and then blame on everyone else, Republican-like: "Ta-ta," the original attacker sneers on one post.

"DOMA and Welfare Reform are neither as clearcut as you allege either. So far as the 'never forgive' stuff, that is your prerogative but it will cause you grief in the long run." "I fear your appreciation of the process is incomplete" (and yours is...COMPLETE??..). Asked to provide proof that Clinton was deserted by "running and hiding" Democrats during the health care bill "fight" (like Senators Harkin and Paul Simon??), we get "I watched it carefully at the time." Oh, okay.

Why are these people like this? Is this what they will do, more and more, as they lose power? Why are they never FOR the way Democrats conduct themselves? Please pay attention to the way they gang up on and attack, out of nowhere, anyone who threatens to return the Party to the mainstream, non-rich voters who need government programs and protections for their jobs. Even Lou Dobbs understands that. When they lunge at you and jump to the most overstated, attacking characterization of you that they can dream up, for even constructive criticisms you have made, then you understand the damage they will continue to do to us--deliberately. This isn't even about Clinton, as anyone paying any attention already knows. We have far too much anti-Democratic in-fighting as it is. Let's support our Democrats, and get rid of these Republican-financed groups whose job it is to destroy us.

somehow, I do not.

I also suspect that among many here, my Democratic credentials are well established. I will thank you to not suggest otherwise.

Hopefully you aren't suggesting that real "democratic credentials" are defined by the DLC, but it sure reads that way.

because I, too, was painted with a very broad brush in the post.

they sure aren't established by membership in the Progressive Caucus or the Democratic Socialists of America, either.

did wrong and what he SHOULD have done instead and why he's a disaster because he didn't make the decisions THEY would have made don't up and run for office.

Welcome to DU. Great post.

I have neither time nor patience for doting on either clinton.

I'm busy.

If H. Clinton "siezes" the nomination, I'll be busy taking the fall of 2008 off.

Granted, I probably hold Clinton in higher regards than Wellstone did, but that's because I accept the political process as a reality. Wellstone found a way to be above it.

My basic analysis of the Clinton administration is wasted talent. Clinton is one of the best and most brilliant politicians in this country, yet he failed to pass most of what he campaigned on in 1992. What angers me is that chimpy, who is the essence of mediocrity, has managed to pass an agenda that is way farther to the right than anything he campaigned on.

I'm not going to do an analysis of all of Clinton's policies because I've done that in several threads, but I do disagree with a lot of his free trade politicies as well as welfare reform. NAFTA wasn't exactly the worst of our trade agreements by any means because most of our jobs are being outsourced to India and China.

but we *do* have enough perspective on NAFTA to pass judgment and I still damn him for making political hay on the backs of the poor with welfare "reform".

If ideology is our enemy, then why are we even interested in politics?

....Clinton always reminded me of a suck-up co-worker who made supervisor....he was never really one of 'us', yet he could never really become one of 'them'....

...."we ignore what has worked while pushing that which has not"....great thread, keep it up, and you'll see where it gets us....

... I'm gonna piss everyone off. Because I see Clinton as a neutral, not a positive or a negative.

Clinton did a lot of good things, he did a lot of bad. Like every human being, he has admirable qualities and shortcomings.

Clinton certainly made a better president than any Republican would have made. But it is hard to deny that he played to corporate interests way too much.

On balance, I'm glad he was our president. But I'm not remotely interested in having his talentless, divisive, pandering wife ruin our chances in 2008, that's for sure. Being the Big Dog's wife is not enough to get her elected.

Breyer and Ginsburg.. the gifts that keep on giving. Even though Clinton arguably let us down on some issues, these Supreme Court nominees more than make up for it. They'll continue to pay dividends years after he has been out of office.

Those are the top reasons showing why I'll vote for pretty much any Democrat we nominate.

well said
:toast:

ahhh, how I long for the days of the Clintons. I agree with you and I wish people would stop bashing our best candidates, like Hillary. I think people sometimes believe all the right-wing propaganda about her being devisive, yada, yada. People get scared off easily sometimes. Look what happened when we picked Kerry because we thought he was the most electable. He was a horrible candidate lacking any fighting spirit at all. Of course I voted for him but would not again. I think Howard Dean would have been better, even as a bit of a loose cannon.

been president. What is this with this nepotism in this country where somebody has to be the son or the spouse of a politics to be considered?

There are many women in the Democratic Party that I would like to run, whether I agree with them on ideas or not. Hillary is not one, and certainly not with Bill behind to push her.

she would have been just where she is now had she NOT been married to Clinton - she just would have been there 10-15 years earlier.

In other words, Hillary Clinton is a star in her own right and it is likely (and assumed at the time of their marriage) that Bill Clinton was actually holding her back. Had she not made the choice to turn down a career in politics or a lucrative law practice to marry the guy she met in law school and join him in Arkansas to help him build his own political career, who knows where life would have taken Hillary Rodham?

:sarcasm:

(except for the stolen elections of course).

I would gladly support Boxer, or Landrieu (even if I dont agree with her). I have no sympathy for Hillary dropping her career for Bill.

and "We do not yet have a long enough view to judge that with accuracy".

You support NAFTA. The Clintons support NAFTA. I don't and neither do a majority of Democrats. NAFTA, and similar "free" trade agreements have destroyed the manufacturing in our country.

point is not really something I'd admit. But hey, suit yourself.

you have no problems with Clinton. NAFTA, and similar "free" trade agreements are helping to destroy this nation's independence and middle class and therefore our democracy.

did to the underclass and the things he DID NOT accomplish. He was a lame president (except for the lifestyles of the elite among us.) He was too interested in bipartisanship--go along to get along, didn't follow through with investigations of Iran Contra from his predecessors et al..

A Big fat Zero! He caved.

so was LBJ.

However, FDR was very lucky to have survived the 36 election and it was miraculous that he made it through the '40 simply because he had not produced the recovery that was expected. LBJ did Vietnam in a big way. No, Bill Clinton has nothing like that hanging over his record. The whole Monica thing was made up bullshit but the 50,000 guys on the Wall used to be very real.

met or not. I was disappointed in clinton. He did not fulfill the task we, the regular people, set before him. Nothing personal against the man himself. I didn't give a damn about Monica. He is a great speaker.

My motto for a leader (a people's leader) is: NOT GUTS, NO GLORY.
FDR had GUTS. Fought the hardest for the most dynamic programs; lost some, won in significant ways, elected three times. :hi:

I mean, weren't there convictions, clearings, trial, etc.?

It was over by the time Clinton took office.

and there was no where left to go.

Why in the hell didn't Clinton...

...do something about the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor?
...do something about the FDR assasination coverup?

on and on on...

I've seen some pretty lame reasons to dislike Clinton, but that Iran-Contra thing was brand new!

WON.

I like to win. If it were a horse, I'd bet on a winner.

I'll apply that criteria to other areas of life and vote for the ones that have PROVEN they are winners.

Did way more good for progress than any of the presidents out here on the internets.

:)

I always liked Clinton's method of centrist "New Democrat" governance, which wasn't really new at all but rather a return to pre-McGovern era Democratic form much like that of JFK and even FDR.



But, of course, the above is precisely why the left didn't care much for Bill Clinton...

Funny how the people here who don't like Clinton concentrate on things he didn't accomplish, like universal healthcare, or things the Republican led congress force compromise on. I read it here all the time - Clinton was bad because he didn't give us universal healthcare or he passed NAFTA...

Guess what?

He didn't cure cancer.
He didn't invent an alternate fuel source.
He didn't reinvent the wheel.

Did he want to give us universal healthcare? All indications are that he did. You hold it against him that he couldn't do it? Should we go back and point out everything every president tried to do but couldn't deliver on?

You say he gave us NAFTA? Actually it was signed into law during Bush I's term. It was altered and refined during Clinton's tenure and like many things, it looked good on paper. Even today economists agree NAFTA has brought pros and cons. And hind site is 20/20, folks.

Welfare reform? You bet! The idea was very popular with the American people at the time. Why? Because the public and the rightwing were intent on it. It was going to get done so thank whatever god you pray to Clinton was the president when it happened and GHW Bush wasn't. Clinton turned back several worse congressional versions before settling on a more moderate one.

Media deregulation? Leftover from Bush I and Reagan.

We often criticize the right for "revising" history. It seems some on the LEFT hated Clinton so much they ignore his vast accomplishments, sometimes denying they even happened because he may not have concentrated enough on their pet issues. Could it be that, just like the right, they can't stand that someone who isn't one of them could be so damn successful?

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

So much more on the environment, families, the economy, education, crime, etc.

It's not nearly as pathetically moronic as "Neo-Left McGovernite", but it is still a ridiculous generaliztion.

I'll freely admit that Bill Clinton was the most successful President in my lifetime, so far. Of course when your competion is Nixon, Reagan, the Asshole and the Idiot Son of the Asshole, that's not really saying that much. I guess you could argue LBJ against him, if not for Vietnam. And I believe Jimmy Carter was a far better moral leader. Nonetheless, the country did very well under Bill Clinton, despite his faults.


However, that doesn't qualify his wife to be the next President, and that's what a certain segment of the population of this board (largely "centrist" types/DLC sympathizers) and the Whore Media are trying to shove down our throats while the bad taste of the last election theft is still there. I don't believe any freshman senator is the best candidate. I don't believe marriage equals executive experience, and I don't believe I can trust a candidate who started out her career in politics on the Barry Goldwater campaign, and is now advocating postions which are so far to the neocon right that even Goldwater would be embarrassed.

And I'm supposed to believe she's the best this party's got? Or else I'm a "hater"?

Bullshit.

...your "FUCK THE TRAITOROUS TREASONOUS DLC" tirades.

I'll freely admit that Bill Clinton was the most successful President in my lifetime, so far.

Damn straight.

Of course when your competion is Nixon, Reagan, the Asshole and the Idiot Son of the Asshole, that's not really saying that much.

Of course, FDR shined because his competition was Hoover, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, and Eisenhower?

I guess you could argue LBJ against him, if not for Vietnam.

A major screw-up!

And I believe Jimmy Carter was a far better moral leader.

But that's about it.

However, that doesn't qualify his wife to be the next President, and that's what a certain segment of the population of this board (largely "centrist" types/DLC sympathizers) and the Whore Media are trying to shove down our throats while the bad taste of the last election theft is still there.

I haven't seen anyone on this board or in the media claim Hillary is qualified to be President based on being the wife of Bill Clinton.

I don't believe any freshman senator is the best candidate.

Nor any Green consumer advocate...

I don't believe marriage equals executive experience,

No one has said it does.

and I don't believe I can trust a candidate who started out her career in politics on the Barry Goldwater campaign, and is now advocating postions which are so far to the neocon right that even Goldwater would be embarrassed.

RFK began his career working for McCarthy. Would you have trusted him?

What positions has Hillary advocated that are so far to the neocon right that even Goldwater would be embarrassed?

check to send our soldiers (many just kids) to war because they wanted to further their own political career.

I remember watching HC on meet the press when she was in Iraq. She was absolutely "giddy" when Russert inquired about her running in 08. Imagine being in a war zone like Iraq and acting giddy. I wonder if she would have exhibited the same giddiness and exuberance if it was her daughter toting around an M-16 in Iraq.

Screw Hillary Clinton. If she is the nominee, it will be either because the Republicans and corporate controlled media (with the help of the Democratic party bosses) once again manipulate the primary process or because she and hubby dear struck a deal with the Republicans. I read that the Clintons were offered a deal in 92 (I think it was in David Brock's book on HC). If they would let Bush win, they would get a free pass in 96. They didn't take the deal and the other side hated the Clintons for not agreeing to the deal. Well Bush and Clinton sure are chummy now (and by being chummy with Bush and talking about what a "great guy he is" it lends credibility to Bush and strengthens the argument that the Dems are just playing politics.)"

After observing the last primary process I would have to have a lobotomy to agree with your assertion that "the Presidential nominee SEIZES the nomination through the political process." It is one heck of a corrupt process.

On edit: Besides NAFTA don't forget the lovely GATT agreement. Any moron (and Clinton is certainly no moron) who read the agreements could have seen that without basic safeguards worker exploitation (including child labor) would be the result.

The Republicans and/or the media have never manipulated the primary process. I get the distinct impression your candidate didn't do well in the primaries.

"If Hillary Clinton were to become our nominees, it will be because she won it. Period."

Furthermore, how anyone that observed the primary process could not see the manipulation by the Republicans, the Democratic Party machine, and the media is beyond me. They could write volumes on the subject.

The Hillary reference was brief in the OP.

Furthermore, how anyone that observed the primary process could not see the manipulation by the Republicans, the Democratic Party machine, and the media is beyond me. They could write volumes on the subject.

Well, of course the Dem party was involved. It was the Dem primaries. But I won't ask for volumes of info on whether the GOP and media was involved, I'll just ask for a few paragraphs from several reliable sources.

Because if you took more than a casual interest in the process, I'm simply stunned that you think the Republicans and the corporate owned media were just uninterested, neutral bystanders who took a hands off approach to the Democratic primary process. Do you also think the Republicans and corporate media did nothing to manipulate the 2000 election results?

In regards to the "brief HC reference" - just because it was brief doesn't mean it wasn't important or didn't warrant a response. If they weren't trying to push HC for 08 do you really think people would be so worried about what we think about BC?

and I'm simply stunned (well, no, not really) that you can provide no proof of your assertions and that you ignore the calls to do so.

Let's stick to the 2004 primaries and not divert to 2000.

quite a bit of my time. Since you worked in the last primary and failed to see what many people noticed (the manipulation by the Democratic party machine, the Republicans and media), I don't think anything that I could write would convince you (but I'll try to locate some good posts on this subject for you).

...from a reputable source.

"Good posts" on the subject won't do because they will only be more unsourced accusations.

But for the record, the Dem party did manipulate it, they always do, because it's the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.

The GOP and/or media did not manipulate it beyond the typical political processes and media reporting.

I take it you were disappointed in the outcome of the primaries.

There was nothing in the last primary any different than previous ones.

Unless the NY Times, Newsweek or some other "reliable" source writes an article on a problem that problem doesn't exist. ROFLMAO! Somehow the logic in that assertion totally eludes me. The fourth branch of government has been doing ONE HECK of a pitiful job of investigative reporting lately and would certainly give Russian publications a run for their money in the propaganda dept.

On edit: Furthermore, how eager do you think the media would be to do an expose on their part in manipulating the primary process? I'm sure that they would just be chomping at the bit.

The only "evidence" you have is that your guy didn't win, so you naturally assume there must have been some shady dealings going on with the media and the GOP to rob your guy of the prize. :tinfoilhat:

It doesn't surprise me that the logic in asking for documented proof of things eludes you. Facts are such messy things when putting forth conspiracy theories.

assertions were not far off. I have dealt in FACTS my entire life so I can assure you that I am not just looking at the fact that the candidate I supported did not win. It's simply amazing how they've tried to turn conspiracy into some kind of absurd idea when in reality conspiracies happen all the time (which is why there are laws against engaging in various types of conspiracies).

Again, just because the illustrious media has not covered the Republican and media manipulation of the democratic primary process does not mean that it does not exist. I really don't need someone else to spell out the obvious for me.

... deal with them now and provide some other than your guy didn't win and he was just soooo popular he must have been robbed! Yeah, that's the only explanation.

media (who had a HUGE vested financial interest in the outcome of the 2004 election) just took a hands off approach to the Democratic primary? Without knowing a darn thing about the 2004 primary, I think most people would agree that this assertion doesn't even pass the "common sense" test.

from how it has always been manipulated?

I usually call them like I see them, and this is a case of someone who hasn't been involved in politics long, became enamored over one candidate (who lost), is very disappointed and looking for an excuse, and just doesn't realize the process played out the same way it has for years.

with a lot of manipulation taking place (hmmm maybe that's why so many people have tuned out the political process which has become such a cesspool and such a me, me, me - it's all about me process - to hell with though country and the American people ). However, considering the state of the fourth branch of government (among other things) I have a feeling that today it is worse than ever.

I'm not looking for an excuse because I am so distraught that my candidate lost. Furthermore, I don't usually, I ALWAYS call them like I see them.

...because it's politics.

hmmm maybe that's why so many people have tuned out the political process

Actually, "so many people" haven't tuned out the political process.

In fact, MORE people have tuned in.

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported in January that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968.

Turnout was 6.4 percent higher than in 2000, the largest uptick in voter participation since the 1952 election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

A record number of people for a nonpresidential election, 128 million, registered to vote in the 2002 congressional elections. Another record number, 89 million, reported they voted in the elections, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
About 123 million people were registered to vote in 1998, the previous all-time high. The previous record turnout was 86 million in 1994. Reported turnout by registered voters was 69 percent in 2002, higher than the 68 percent who cast ballots in 1998.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/002278.html

Curtis Gans, director of the independent Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, estimated Tuesday's turnout at 77 million, more than 39 percent of voting-age citizens.

In the 1998 elections, the figure was 37.6 percent — the lowest midterm turnout since 1942

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/06/politics/main528373.shtml

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1026985&tw=wn_wire_story

But Clinton encouraged Americans to support democracy in Iraq, and said they should encourage the Bush administration to work with the rest of the world in bringing peace to the region,The former president said those who opposed going to war with Iraq had to put those feelings aside. "You should want it to work now," he said.

Sorry.... I'm not 100 percent against war in the name of defense, but I'm against the neo-caon, PNAC style of bombing people into peace. I still oppose going to war in Iraq, I don't like Hillary supporting the war, and I don't want it to "work" for Americans, I want americans to get the hell out and let Iraq get back to being a real sovereign country with US MYOB.

We should encourage the Bush administration to work with the rest of the world in bringing peace to the region. Whether you were anti-Iraq war (let's call it that, shall we? No one is really anti-war), you should want peace in the region now. You really should.

When/if the Dems get the White House back, that is exactly what we'll do.

that Bush won the 2004 election "fair and square" I had it with Clinton. I used to support him but no more.

which really make me wonder whether a deal was struck between Clinton and Bush. I don't know but it does make me go hmmmm..

On edit: He could be just trying to help H.C. move to the middle or woo republican voters but even if that's the case, he's lending Bush credibility and helping to cover up a serious problem with our voting system.

"hope the region collapses into oblivion so more people get killed"? He effectively would be saying that he wants more troops dead. When he says "want it to work", he means that the so called democracy will take shape, and terror will subside and cease to exist there. Remember, he is a politician. With me, I DO hope it fails miserably only in the name of winnning back seats in the congress, and the fact that it will most likely fail anyway. This would show the GOP for the idiots they are, and teeach a valubable lesson to them. But Clinton cannot sound like he has a politcal agenda. I believe the war is wrong, and as much as Clinton tries to sound centrist, I still don't believe he woulda done something like this. If you look at his foreign policy which was to bring peace to the Balkans, and work to create peace in the Middle East, just INVADING Iraq is something he'd never do. PNAC even sent him a letter to do so. Sanctions were right however, because they kept Saddam under control, which is why he never turned up with WMDS in the first place.

anti-war people should be thinking or feeling? It isn't as if anyone who is anti-war wants people dead or doesn't want peace-but equally I cannot support Bush's agenda. And I don't want anyone telling me that I need to change my viewpoint, mine is as legit as Clinton's.

I don't think everything Clinton did was bad, either. But I don't think many die-hard Clinton supporters acknowledge the truly horrible things Clinton also did as President. I look no further than his policy on sanctions in Iraq ("it's worth it" from his SOS - ring a bell?) to see that he did not share my worldview.

I've read his book, I've read other writings of his, and the one thing that sticks with me is his closeness to Bush I. He says in his book that he didn't think it was urgent he run because, basically, Bush I "wasn't that bad".

is so easy to take for granted. I like Big Dog. It's heartbreaking to see how far we have fallen in just 5 years.

As for associating with Satan, a lot of people try to be friendly and civil at the end of the day while disagreeing on politics. It was great to see two former presidents from two opposing parties join together to help the tsunami victims.

:toast:

In the U.S., maybe. His influence on peace and prosperity in the rest of the world? Questionable.

Even the best Democratic presidents fucked up in foreign policy. That's what Americans do. :shrug: At least Dems are good on domestic policy.

It's like when I'm talking to a Bush supporter about Bush's faults and they say, "yeah, but Clinton....".

I don't think that just because even the best Dems have fucked up foreign policy we should let them all off the hook. I expect more from our President than to be good domestically. Probably because a child in Eastern Europe or the Middle East means as much to me as an American child does.

He saved so many people in Kosovo, helped poor Soviet bloc countries to join the free world, and got peace between Rabin and Arafat.

He fucked up in Somalia, Haiti, and didn't help Rwanda. A lot of this is Monday morning quarterbacking. It's so easy to say "He should have...". Americans suck at foreign policy. Even my favorite president, Harry Truman, killed all those poor Japanese civilians.

I think Clinton's heart was in the right place because he pursued mostly humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. He seemed sincere when he said his biggest regrets were not stopping the Rwandan genocide and not passing health care reform.

Yes, that’s exactly my problem.

He seems to hold no regret for the killing of the children of Iraq through barbaric sanctions. His administration insisted they continue, and in ’96 his ambassador to the UN and then SOS said of the half a million children dead from sanctions, “the price, we think, is worth it”.

And no, but I will not forgive his bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia. I am Croatian, and realize fully the scope of the problems there. But Kosovo was a mistake.

These policies, that were supported by Clinton, killed more people than the bomb on Hiroshima. No, I can’t support and did not support someone who felt and continues to feel no regret for those killings.

I realize you are entirely sincere, but I've heard the same arguments on the right to justify invading Iraq, rather than using sanctions or high-altitude bombing.

I know that's not where you are coming from, but the irony is there.

because IMO when right wingers use that argument they're full of shit, knowing that they couldn't care less that we were killing those children as it was actually happening. Those of us that protested and campaigned against those sanctions don't find the right using that tragedy as a way to further their political agenda ironic, we find it disgusting.

They're both true. What it comes down to, though, is that the worst damage he inflicted wasn't his fault. The worst was that his combination of folksy charisma and steel trap mind made the DLC think they had a winning strategy when what they really had was a winning candidate. They had a man who was maybe the best campaigner ever. A person who shone best when he was behind 0-2 with two outs in the last inning. The man could bring it. None of that had a lot to do with his policies, some of which were good, but many of which left the democratic base wondering exactly who was interested in their interests. I have to agree with the post that said basically that that was so 90's, too. When things are booming, well fine. A rising tide and all that. But our safety net kept right on shrinking and now that so many need it, there's so little left. And there's even less for Republicans to do to make it disappear altogether. We need policies that work in bad times as well as good.

In any case, I don't see how any of this translates to a Hillary candidacy. She doesn't have what Bill had. No one does. Taking that away, why her? She's my senator. She's OK. I'll vote for her again. But why her for president?

Hey, don't we progressives handle extremeists the best. (As a little secret, it's almost Christian how we are kind, long suffering, and understanding.) Wrong is so.. black and white.

There are PETA people who think plants have feelings, so we should not eat them. Not to worry, they die off, slowly. There are meat-eaters who think the only good tasting meat is labeled endagered species.

Some gun idealists think that soldiers should not have guns. (Oddly they never talk about atomic weaponry.) Some gun idealists think all pre-schoolers should carry in case their teacher has that once-in-a-lifetime breakdown and brought a gun with.

YOU SHOULD INCLUDE LINKS.

If they hate Clinton, it's for his pragmatism. Clinton picked some issues to offer as gifts, and to keep Democrats in a decent probability of place at an ever rightward travelling table. America loves pragmatists. These hater-guys are -- the extreme.

I liked his pragmatism. Even though I did not like what it cost. Who knows which, if anything, could have been dropped and still kept the people in power over the corporations. If anything, he may have done too much for us.

Clinton came in an obscure governor. Dropped Iran-contra, gave FBI directorship.. Olive branches. Who knows the worth.. not even Bill could know.
Clinton's job program made NAFTA, Welfare reform, and even no health care non-problems. Under repugs: No jobs, AND all the aforementioned. Our base almost exclusively includes trial lawyers, who make money off non-universal health care.

Don't ask.. was a mistake of moving earlier than Bill wanted. DOMA was further payment.

These people are anti-pragmatists. Maybe, preferably, extreme anti-pragmatists. Maybe, you were right: they're WRONG.

someone is not a pragmatist doesn't mean they're "anti-pragmatists".

And, the issue was about people being AGAINST Clinton, for whom I went to lengths to describe why I see him as a pragmatist.

I’m not “against” pragmatists. I *was* against Clinton because I believed that the positives of his presidency were not outweighed by the negatives of his foreign policy. But I was not “against” him because he is a pragmatist… Most people are – it’s not a black and white thing…. People fall on a spectrum and he’s just too far from me when it comes to justifying certain actions. You’re framing this as a “pragmatist v. idealist” conflict when it’s not one.

No, no, no, your statements fall into question for this, like the "your framing this as" for which you try to frame it as not, and I'm seeing it as still pragmatist vs. idealist. But, not a big deal. If we don't like those perspectives, let me go deeper.

Clinton's foreign policy. I guess you would NOT be unhappy with his wins in Ireland (after centuries of trouble), quelling twice-time World War starter Balkans unrest, peace talks for Isreal without "personalized" bombers, and generally peace most everywhere, except...

1. Rwanda. (And, I think he regrets not spending more politcal capital on Rwanda.) Bill was under seige. CONs were more interested in finding a way to challenge him as wagging the dog, and he knew CONs had to call for the intervention or he'd appear hiding from more than Monica. CONs stayed conspicuously quiet on Rwanda.

2. Sudan. Was brewing. Hey, at least he didn't fall for the fake trade Osama for more genecide/anti-Christian weaponry the CONs kept bringing up until Al Franken made a clear copiable rebuttle.

3. Iraq. The sactions harmed Iraqis, especially children, while Saddam built palaces and kept strict order, apparently without WMD. You'd have to admit that this one is rife with intrigue.

We have invader Saddam. Vets of that battle who don't want to feel their service was in vain. A quagmire of history that WILL be kept quiet from FOX viewers. And an Oil for Food program we knew was being abused. (We knew until CONs PR firm decided it would sound better if we were shocked, shocked I say, shocked.) Bill stopped a few of those ships and we were shocked, stopping some of it.

So, let me guess, your great idea would be to stop sanctions and assume the med supplies would reach the children.

I think my framing was correct.

The woeful ignorance you show regarding the sanctions tells me a lot. It's not just medical supplies that were prohibited. You have no idea what supplies were being used properly. You bought into propaganda about Iraq before it was even cool. brava!

But that's not what this argument was about. This argument is about the fact that it has been alleged that people are "anti-pragmatist" when that is absurd. As I already said, there were actions that Clinton took that I didn't take issue with. There were more that I did. That doesn't make me "anti-pragmatist" just because he is a pragmatist and I disagreed with him a lot. It simply makes me someone who disagreed with him a lot.

I've learned:
Someone against a pragmatist is not anti-pragmatist.
"That" is absurd.
I don't know what supplies are used properly. (and I agree)
What the argument is about. (allegedly)
...
Plus, Clinton wasn't ideal. (such epiphanies)

and I certainly miss having an erudite, knowledgable leader. But he also did and still does some damn dumb things. Monica was both immoral and totally stupid. She was his daughter's age and an employee not to mention his being married. All of the above is bad enough, but he also knew he was under a microscope and being sued for sexual harassment and signed the very law which permitted questions about Monica to be asked in his case. My final straw with him was his behavior in 2004. For this adulterous man who slept with a near child, to have the audacity to call anyone unfit for public office for granting civil unions to gays was beyond the pale. He has literally less than no business telling gays or anyone else about marriage. I would sooner sit through a temperance lecture courtesy of Christopher Hitchens.

... for granting civil unions to gays? Was it for that reason?

he recounts an episode of a gay supporter of his in Iowa having been called by Bill Clinton. The supporter said that Clinton said that Dean had forfeited his right to run for President by granting gays civil unions.

It is not that Clinton meant that Dean was unfit for office for having granted civil unions, but, that Dean forfeited his chance to win, and since he could no longer win, he should not run.

Clinton also warned Kerry to mute even drop support for gays prior to the election. Kerry would not -- and lost. Now the religious right is empowered putting gay rights years further behind. Not to mention putting the country further behind. Where instead Kerry could have changed his rhetoric after taking office and we'd all be happier, healthier, and living.

The voters weren't/aren't ready. Sad, but too true.

THE RIGHT TIME IS WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT.

It wuddint.

Hope folks here are of an open enough mind to give these items a careful read, and not simply dismiss them because they're critical of Clinton and today's Democratic Party. There's much food for thought here. It's not about "hating Clinton," it's about halting the further lurching rightwards of this country's political and cultural landscape:

History Lesson: When Democrats Lean Right, They Lose
by Paul Rockwell
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Rockwell0721.htm

Clintonomics: a Reappraisal
The Hollow Boom
By ROBERT POLLIN
http://www.counterpunch.org/pollin10182003.html


ANATOMY OF CLINTONOMICS
ROBERT POLLIN
New Left Review
May-June 2000
http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR23702.shtml


Neoliberalism from Reagan to Clinton
by Gregory Albo
Monthly Review, April 2001
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0401albo.htm

Or does "critizism" = "hate"?

It does if you'd believe RW-ers; any kind of critizism of RW policies is explained away by RW-ers as "hate"; supposedly the reason for the critizism is hate.

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

If you hate Clinton, you must be an unemployed freeper:eyes:whatever.

Look, Clinton, though elected as a Democrat actually governed from the pro-corporate right. NAFTA, '96 Telecom Act and other legislation was distinctly pro-business in nature. His supposed economic greatness was built on the dot com bubble, and would have come about no matter who was in power, being that it was a confluence of technological breakthroughs and economic investment. Hell, my dead grandfather could have been in office, and the economic boom still would have come about. Clinton got lucky, and rode it for all it was worth.

Meanwhile, with the man ripping out a large part of the social safety net with his welfare "reform", the gap between the top five percent of the wealthy and the rest of us widened to a record breaking chasm, shattering the records set back in the days of the robber barons. The success of the markets really didn't effect the vast majority of people, simply the few of the investment class. In fact it was the sucker punch of the boom and bust of the dot com bubble that inevetiably ruined many in the middle class as they watched the market, which was being touted as never coming back down, collapse and leave them penniless.

As far as gays in the military, blaming other Democrats is an easy way out. Clinton was the commander in chief, and it is his job to make these tough decisions. Back in the day, Truman faced stiff resistance from both inside and outside his party to integration of the military, but rather coming up with some lame ass compromise that did more harm than good, Truman took the bull by the horns, did the right thing and integrated the military. Clinton, sadly, wussed out.

Clinton was probably the best Republican president we've had since Lincoln, but don't think he was a progressives' friend. He was, and is, determinedly pro big business, and governed as such. Sad to say, he did a lot of harm along the way with that philosophy. Even sadder, with his limited lip service to progressive ideals, he was able to fool the Democrats into believing he was the best president since FDR, while in reality he did very little to help the common man.

I do not want to speculate about the circumstances of anyone's life because I have no way knowing their circumstances. I do know this ... that for people raising families in the 90s, the times were very good. And arguing against people's pocketbooks is a losing proposition and that is what you are doing. Tell the families who were lifted out of poverty that Clinton was bad. Tell the soldiers who lived through the military operations he ordered who came home whole and alive that he sucked which would, btw, be every one of them.

Sorry, but I simply do not buy into your paradigm.

Who lost their social safety net. Tell my friends who watched their well paying manufacturing jobs go to Mexico. Tell my Mexican friends who were forced to move to the US because NAFTA and big corporations made the US/Mexico border a toxic wasteland, and US corporate agriculture took away their jobs. Tell my DJ friends who were forced out of their jobs because Clear Channel were allowed to buy up even more media channels.

You may not buy my paradigm friend, but that doesn't make it any less real. Go read your Howard Zinn, Greg Palast, or Jim Hightower, among others on the left to see how really "great" Clinton was for the working stiff and poor:eyes:

from the late 80s on.

Yet still think he was a great guy. Blinders must be nice friend, but sorry, I'm too much of a realist to wear them.

Clinton was the best Republican president since Lincoln, but still and all, he was, and is, a corporate puppet. Those who paid his bills got to make him dance, the rest of us simply went along for the ride, up and down.

From a dozen shootings at night within earshot to 1 every 5 or 6 months. I saw people actually getting jobs and making it.

I do not think that you are a realist at all. I suspect that you are blinded by ideology. Kinda like looking at the world through rose-colored glass, but exactly opposite. Looking at the world through shit-colored glasses would be it, I think.

Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the rest of us widened to a record breaking chasm, topping the mark set back in the days of the robber baron. In my neighborhood, crime went up. After my neighbors and I had to replace car parts shot out by dueling crack houses, we were able to force the landlords into more responsible leasing practices, but that merely moved the problem to somewhere else in the city.

Neighbor on one side, single mom, lost her good paying manufacturing job to Mexico, and wound up having to take two lowpaying service jobs to make ends meet. The family in back of me are from Mexico, forced out from Sonora due to their farming livelyhood being undermined by NAFTA. Moved to Chilpancingo to work in the factories, but started getting sick from the toxic waste instead. Thus now they are living in the US, at substandard wages, in cramped crowded conditions. Among other things that I gave these people was a portable radio, so that they not only had a little entertainment, but could also know when a tornado was coming(they had no clue what was happening the first time they went through a tornado warning).

These are just a couple of examples of the effects of Clinton's pro-corporate agenda. Nice to see that your neighborhood came out OK, but I believe that it was an exception to the rule. If you go and look up the stats(Kevin Phillip's Wealth and Democracy is a good place to start) you'll find that despite the hype of the Clinton years, the rich got increasingly richer, while the rest of us for the most part were left to rot. It is more a measure of just how bad Bushco has been for this country that we actually look back on an administration that was as pro-corporate as Clinton's with longing. Doesn't mean that Clinton was good for this country, he wasn't. It just means that Bush is that much worse.

I'm NO Freeper, wouldn't be caught DEAD being called one, but the Clintons have been doing a different dance lately. Even more so than when he was in office.

As I said before, I just don't understand this strategy because it's sure turning me OFF!

To me, Clinton is a standard bearer for the party of FDR and JFK. I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think parts of the party today listens too much to its left wing.

so many in the left wing of the party are leaving it.

And if the left cannot win within the Democratic Party, they do not have a PRAYER in the general electorate.

My point was that the Democratic party is NOT listening too much to the left wing of the party. If the Dems were listenening to them, and still losing, they might change tactic but not abandon a powerful mouthpiece. However, that's not the case. The Dems are NOT listening to the left wing of the party, for good or for bad. And, the left wing may not have a prayer in the general election, but you'd better believe that mainstream Dems still want them on their side so it's in their best interest to *start* listening to them.

if the left won elections, they would be right there at the table. And further, if the left cannot win EVEN in the Democratic Party, what chance will they have in the general electorate?

...that's so objectionable?

We've seen 'suggestions' from both Republicans and 'new' Democrats that there's something sinister or 'radical' about being in the 'left-wing' of the party.

What's wrong with fighting for worker's rights, civil rights, choice, equality and government/corporate accountability? It's what the whole party should be doing right now...as the Bushies try to turn our country into a banana republic.

failed statist economic policies, deference to corrupt international bodies, and general loathing of American power and culture.

Sometimes it's hard to remember this is the party of FDR, JFK, Scoop Jackson, and Patrick Moynihan.

since when?

deference to which corrupt international body -- the u.n. -- the one we help make corrupt with u.s.a. fingers all over oil for food?

general loathing of american power -- there you might be on to something -- i loath our militarist interference in the internal politics of countries like viet nam -- or iraq for that matter.
i loath the innocent bombing of civilians and leaving depeleted uranium shells all over the landscape to poison the population.

the culture? you mean the one loaths the hard work of academics -- the one that tries to bring back creationism as science -- the one lauds that football in highschool above any one else's desires for what should be in school -- the one that keeps the lively hood women on a backburner because antiquated thinking -- the one that can't be bothered to fund adequate education for the poor -- that can't find health insurance for 40 million plus people -- the culture that ranks among the lowest in post industrialized nations in academics --
the culture that can't get me firstism out of it's blood long enough to permanently park those suv's for everyone else's sake -- the one that whines about a decent minimum wage cause they'd have to pay more for the pizza they'd buy anyway --

oy -- what are you talking about?
the left does not trash fdr or jfk -- we resist vigorously economic policies that permanently give away our economic future.
we promote the livelyhood of all workers and hold them to be the real source of wealth in this country.

the democratic party has also held in it's grasp mlk, huey long and paul wellstone.

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

i wanted to return tha to you.
you lost it some where.:eyes:

but your description of a dictatorship in alliance with with multi-national corporations sounds suspiciously like the u.s. since the 70's.

europe doesn't pay for it's own defence because the u.s. wants it that way, duh?!?!
not unlike it doesn't want the e.u.

uh -- do you pay attention to the news regarding our own prison systems and the sytematic locking up and excuting of innocent people? and amazingly -- a way out of proportion african american population. racism of it's worst kind still readily available in this country -- right off the shelf of underpaid workers at wal-mart.

america is not now nor has it ever been exceptional.

it's another country in a universe of other countries -- but unlike some rather more homogenous countries -- the wealth, the lifestyle we all enjoy today was the result of the rape of africa.

and i'll remind you that to one extent or another -- all western countries are socialist countries -- yep that's right -- socialist.
that is the tradition of western liberalism -- that is the tradition of fdr -- that is the tradition of jfk -- and it's all there in the history books for you to read.
i suggest you do -- and spare me the propaganda.

admire seeing worship in it's purest form.:toast:

I used to be a BIG Clinton supporter, even drove 5 hours to see him once during his first bid for President.

I think he "weathered" the bombardment by the Repukes VERY effectively and stood his ground. I don't think many people could have taken all that crap and still remain as popular as he was. I also think if given the chance he would have won a 3rd term.

Having said all that, he was very moderate, and I'm pretty liberal. I still endorsed him. Today, from what I see both he and Hillary are playing some sort of game. I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish. Some say she's cozying up to the RW to win in 2008, but then she leaves her "base" hanging.

I would prefer she stood the Democratic ground instead of placating the conservatives. If she wants the nomination she had better get her butt back in gear because of right now... I can't support her. And I certainly don't understand the recent poll taken that says she's the front runner. From the posts here, she certainly doesn't SEEM to be.

We have to be VERY careful in supporting her, STRIKE ONE: This would be an enormous step for the American people to take, electing the first a WOMAN as President!! STRIKE TWO: She's a Clinton and no matter how far she moves to the right, the LIBERAL label will be exploited. STRIKE THREE: And this is a "below the belt" hit from the RW but soooooo many people I talk to have the impression that she's a Lesbian! I don't think so, but if you don't think that will come up then you're living in LaLa Land! I live in Florida and I hear it ALL the time.

I'm sure I could think of others, but for right now that's enough.

Have a look...

http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html

Sorry, this changed my mind on Clinton.

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

After the drunken kool-aid-aholics wake up!

I don't believe the same of his wife though and NO ONE will convince me otherwise. Are there REALLY Bill Clinton "lefty" haters? I think they must be upset that he keeps his enemies within arms reach.

they all of sudden become DINO or repub lite. We can not all agree on everything all the time.

And although others may flame me, I actually agreed with welfare reform. Maybe because I lived in a region where it was so egregiously abused that it affected my view. Or because I do believe, like any progressive, if something is broke, you DO fix it. It seems awfully conservative to want to hold onto the status quo. And the far Left seems awfully reactionary when it comes to admitting pet programs need an overhaul. The reeking stench of patchouli fills the air... *throws brick at bucket of tie-dye*

Clinton's own theory on why he was/is hated (at least by the Right) is that he was "an agent of change". Well, to the purists, he may be "a corporate NAFTA whore" (or some other ad hominem meaningless epithet), but trust me, the vast majority of the corporate, Republican culture saw him as the devil incarnate. Face it, it makes people feel good and morally superior screaming impotently from the sidelines that they want "change", but when a rare opportunity for real change comes along, no matter how slow or incremental, you can be sure the Left purists will be even louder critics than many on the Right. Orwell had this cannibalistic paradox nailed in "Homage to Catalonia", but that's a post of mine from long ago I won't revive here.

Clinton is a complex man of great gifts and massive flaws, which makes him all the more frustrating to detractors and admirers alike, in some kind of symbiotic fashion. Perhaps the Age of Diminished Expectations Chimpy presides fittingly over casts too favorable of a nostalgic glow over Clinton's eight year administration, but there is enough evidence that the nostalgia has merit, and perhaps history will vindicate most of his accomplishments hence.

Some more of those accomplishments:

100,000 more teachers.
More afterschool programs.
Peace in Ireland (and isn't peace one of our cherished progressive values?).
The capture and arrest of Milosevic for genocidal crimes
Stopping North Korea from furthering their nuclear program (now in ruins, thanks Chimpy!).
Most aggressive push for peace between Israel and Palestine since Carter brokered the deal between Egypt and Israel a generation earlier.
Successful containment of Saddam Hussein and speeding the elimination of his WMD's (as we all sadly know too well now).
Jobs, jobs, and jobs. Not just service-sector filler either.
FMLA - I know too many people who have benefitted from this personally to dismiss as trivial.


There's more, but just one trumps the entire list of positive accomplishments of both Bushes easily.

Clinton signed welfare to work acts while governor of Arkansas which, like the one passed while president, was modeled after JFK's proposed Welfare reform that he was never able to get through Congress.

“In our generosity we have created a system of hand-outs, a second-rate set of social services which damages and demeans its recipients, and destroys any semblance of human dignity that they have managed to retain through their adversity. In the long run, welfare payments solve nothing, for the giver or receiver; free Americans deserve the chance to be fully self-supporting... (the Welfare state has)largely failed as an anti-poverty weapon.” - Robert Kennedy

“No lasting solution to the problem can be bought with a welfare check.” - John F. Kennedy

Though many feel Clinton's welfare reforms had their flaws, many fault Clinton not for the flaws of those programs but rather for implimenting welfare reforms period.

But I think calling welfare reform "rightwing" as the "purist left" often does ignores the feelings on the subject from FDR, JFK, LBJ, Robert Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter???? Welfare reform??

WELFARE REFORM: To establish a streamlined, simplified welfare system with strong work incentives that promote family stability. To take those able to work out of the system and provide them job training and a job. To give those who cannotwork because of age or disability nationwide, fairly uniform benefits varying only accordingto the cost of living from area to area. - From Jimmy Carter's campaign brochure in 1976

the Democrats lost:
- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures
In addition 439 elected Democrats joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders went the other way.
While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.
In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.

and a bunch of rich CEOs and investors in the late 1980s. Bush, Carla Hills, Newt, and a bunch of other repuke liars and crooks wrote this damn piece of garbage and there are democrats that still defend it. Unbelievable!

I miss BC and I miss the days when I didn't worry about our country the way I do now. Sometimes I think people are not happy with anything.

those whom "Ceaser" needs support from.

Hillary will never have my support in 2008 and neither will any Dem who voted for IWR.