Memories of Clinton....

I remember Clinton when he first won the election in 1992. He was so young and handsome compared to the first Bush, the man he beat. He was smart and articulate, and people didn't hate him yet. Not even the journalists hated him. I remember he was interviewed outdoors wearing a black wool overcoat and sitting on a bench. He spoke intelligently about his upcoming term. He looked hot. I think I fell a little in love with him that day.

Soon the propaganda and baseless charges and smearing began. He was pursued and harassed to such an extent that if * had to endure even a twentieth of it, he'd run screaming into the night like the scared little freak that he is. Some of it started to stick, and some started to hate him. Most of what the other side threw out there was baseless, but one thing wasn't. IT WAS JUST STUPID AND IRRELEVANT AND NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS.

I finally saw this man for myself almost exactly a year ago. He appeared in a very affluent area near my home for a fundraiser. I happily paid two thousand dollars to attend with my hubby since the money went to elect a Democratic Congress. I saw him up close.

He was charming and sweet. He spoke well and seemed energetic, but laid back. He was very thin, though, and almost seemed like a cardboard cut-out of himself. It was soon after that that he had his heart surgery.

I've been severely disappointed by Clinton since we invaded Iraq. I am no longer in love with him. I wonder if he is "all there". I try to make excuses for him, mostly based on his health problems. I have been seriously wondering if he is being kept from the real news because of his heart condition. He seems so unaware, so needlessly accommodating.

Today I read on DU (I boycott the corporate media) that he is beginning,slowly,to criticize * and his Iraq and Katrina policies.

DON'T STOP, PRESIDENT CLINTON!!! I may no longer be in love with this man, but we need him desperately now! I'd love to welcome him into the Democratic wing of Democratic Party. Or am I just being naive?

The only thing I can think of is Hilary voted for it, and he has to stay behind her.

I too have had the opportunity to meet the President and Hillary at different times. I think he was a wonderful president and I get teary eyed everytime I see him on television. I am surprised that there seems to be a high level of disapproval for him and now Hillary on DU. I like them both and will strongly support Hillary if she runs for president. I was a strong Clark support last election cycle but happily joined the JK camp.

about how far a former pres can go. I understand this and he is slowly getting his message out.

Everyone has a right, and an obligation, to speak up when a President recklessly leads us into an unnecessary war.

Especially an ex-President, who knows in great detail, the facts in the case.

That would be leadership. Instead we got silence, and silence implies agreement.

...that the Clintons decided that even 1 vial of anything was found in Iraq, that it would ruin Hillary's chances if she'd voted "no." Actually, I too expected something to be found there. The difference was that never was Iraq an imminent threat. That is something that the Clintons knew too.

Clinton is very smart and an excellent politician. He also did not trash this country they way the republicans are willing to do.

He would have known what the story was in the beginning of 2001 - but I don't know what briefing if any an ex-President would get. Kerry, (in the Truthout story posted many times) spoke of Democrats he trusted assuring him about the information Bush provided. Clinton would have been someone the Democrats would have gone to because he would have had the most information a year and a half before and because he's brilliant.

On MTP yesterday, his answer was that from his experience with Saddam, he did not move without being pushed. So Clinton said he would have wanted the resolution himself, but he would not have invaded before the inspections ended. His answer yesterday matches the one Kerry has given for 2 years.

In retrospect, I wish he would have spoken up in the Jan/Feb 2003 time frame to say we should not go to war - as Kerry and a few others did. His voice would have carried more weight. He has been to quick to praise Bush and too slow to condemn him.

Clinton has the verbal skills to state that *'s policies are wrong without going over the top. He can stay above the fray and still make his point. The times demand it. Agreeing with * and his poppy is inexcusable and morally wrong.

Has anyone every noticed that Rethugs are always breaking these so called "unwritten rules" all the time and no one gives a shit?

I remember when Clinton was in office and traveling overseas and the Rethuglican congress was savaging him. And then I can recall when Reagan and later Bush were in office and the Dems tried to do it and were shut down quick because of the "don't criticize a president while he is traveling overseas" unwritten rule.

Hell, let's not forget the savaging of Chelsea Clinton by these same assholes.

These assholes have gotten the gaming of the political system down to a science. If a Dem gets elected to the Presidency (not likely) the assination will begin immediately.

The lapdogs will immediately turn to bulldogs. And I'll be willing to bet that not one of the corporate media whores would refer to a Dem president as "our new President" in those gushing, glowing tones they used for * after he was selected.

which is one of the worst btrade deals this country has EVER done. Itbhas hurt the American worker enormously. He pushed for that and it has been disastreous for this country.

I think he has the heart of a centrist Democrat and wouldn'tn be very left except for health care and environment

I don't like the appearance of what he says and does either. But I've concluded that it's a very clever thing he's doing overall, and I'm willing to suffer a bit if that helps him succeed at it.

The game is that he, and folks like Kerry, understand the American electorate and the Parties a lot better than they ever tell the likes of us.

The story is that Democrats are becoming the party of educated, i.e. Modern, white voters and upwardly mobile nonwhite ones and skew young. Republicans and 'conservative Democrats' are the pseudoeducated, anti-Modern ('Christian'), essentially downwardly 'mobile' groups of American voters and tend to skew older.

These Republican voters are under such social and economic pressure that they are active voters for their percieved interests every election. Nonvoters and Indies tend to skew 'conservative' at the polling booth for the same reason. Democrats are under less pressure of the kind and less strongly motived.

So the solution to the problem of Democratic minority, despite overall greater popularity of what the Party stands for, does not lie in campaigning for Indies or getting passive voters to the polls. It lies in breaking the Republican coalition apart, snagging the well educated white and non-Right nonwhite ones aka liberals and moderates over to the Democratic Party or into not voting. Sweeping Indies over to Democrats in the process by putting them between two moderate Democrat-favoring blocs.

The way to do this is to wedge Republican moderates and hardliners, on the one hand, and to de-wedge moderate Democrats from Indies on the other. (The diehard Left vs liberal vs moderate Democrat splits are real, but Republicans have no power to exploit them now.)

And Bill Clinton does this every time he appears in public. Usually he papers over Democratic disagreements but always takes a position that is borderline moderate Democrat and Indie, which really pisses the likes of fervent DUers off. But he invariably hammers at the issue in a way that moderate Republicans can agree with and hardline Republicans have to oppose/reject. He's always straddling to Indies and driving that wedge on any and every topic. It annoys us no end but it always does serious damage to Them. Bush Sr. is the perfect inadvertant collaborator/enabler for this game.

So, let him play. It's not easy to accept that Bill Clinton does not see the Democratic Party line as a religious doctrine to respect and believe in in public. And he's not interested in explaining to anyone exactly why he has become so friendly with and 'naive' toward moderate Republicans lately.

in love with Clinton up here as well. What a dynamic and dashing duo Bill and Al were! I saw Bill on TV the other day and couldn't help but think how the media wore him down, same for AL. The Monica thing should have never been so widely covered. If every blow job was brought to light, imagine. It was a matter between Bill and Hillary and no one else.

One grasped the elephant's trunk and said "The elephant is like a snake." Another felt the tail and reported "The elephant is like a rope." The one who felt the elephant's foot was convinced that "The elephant is like a tree." And so it went, with each one getting a small piece of the picture and none seeing all of it.

Since he was Governor of Arkansas (and did some good things for us), that parable has been as close as I can get to describing him. I have some rather dark suspicions about the way he's cozying up to the Bush Crime Family: Poppy's blessing will be necessary for Hillary to appear to be elected. Bill owes her BIG TIME. Thus, the sucking up.

He worries me lately, but I cannot bring myself to hate him. bu$h, on the other hand (tentacle?), is worthy only of scorn on his best days.

Remember New Orleans