A few reasons I don't want another Clinton to get the nomination

During the 1990's:
Signing NAFTA, the Telcom Act, expanding the "war on drugs" to record level of marijuana arrests, and being against industrial hemp legalization.

The damage to working men and women, via NAFTA, the lack media ownership diversity, via Telcom, and imprisoning record numbers of pot smokers are absolute unforgivable blunders that take any shine off the Clinton Presidency for me.
For me he was "Republican Lite".
I don't think the apple falls too far from the tree.

These are some of the reasons I hope Hillary does not get the nomination along with her "if I would have known..." nonsense regarding giving Bush the green light vote to attack Iraq.


NO MORE DLC CORPORATISTS!!!

:mad:

Surplus budgets, good relationships with other countries, booming economy, liberal supreme court nominees, and low oil prices.

If you're going to look at the negative, you also have to look at the positive.

If offered the 90's again, I'd take them in a heartbeat.

...if you didn't mind the escalation of the police state (war on drugs) and the sealing of a couple of major legislations we are suffering under today: NAFTA and The Telecom Act.

Yeah but we had "cheaper" gas prices and more money?



---

The Telecommunications Act of 1996:

• Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200
stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.

• Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit
n audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.

• The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.

• The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.

• The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.

• The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF

Like I said, if you want to bring up the negatives of Bill Clinton's administration, you MUST also take into account the postives...or you could ignore both.

I stick with my statement...if offered the 90's again, I'd take them in a heartbeat.

How does that have anything to do with your original post about the 90's?

Jumping from topic to topic isn't a very good debating tactic. Now, you're not even posting your own thoughts but linking to the thoughts of someone else?

...is not my "opinion".


--

You are the worst debater I've seen around here.

You start debating a topic, then you link to an opinion piece on a totally different topic, now you're off on yet another topic.

You dare to talk about Saint Hillary in any sort of negative way?????

:popcorn:

Forgive me if I toss most of the blame on Bush though. :eyes:

Wasn't that a big catalyst behind further media
consolidation (read: "Clear Channel") and isn't
media consolidation a big part of the reason why
Democrats now *CAN'T* EVEN BUY TIME IN THE MEDIA*
to spread their message?

Tesha

I'm not defending the 96 Act and I'm not suggesting that Clinton (and Gore) were anything other than supportive of the legislation (which had been in the works for several years in one form or fashion). But the fact is that even if Clinton had been opposed to the bill, its not clear what he could've done. It passed by hugely veto-proof margins: 414-16 in the House and 81-18 in the Senate.

Using Bill Clinton's record in the 90's as his reason for not supporting Hillary in 2008 is his topic, not mine. I'm just playing along.

Are you saying that Mrs. Clinton wasn't closely involved with Bill's administration? Those who were there differ.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711

It was a given in the White House, as Chief of Staff Mack McLarty (I know, right wing fascist!) said, that everyone would "just have to get used to" the fact that Hillary, along with Bill and Gore, had to "sign off on big decisions." But having what Clinton domestic-policy adviser Bruce Reed (I know, woman-hating fascist!) called "three forces to be reckoned with" added yet another layer of perplexity and rivalry to the West Wing, where advisers and Cabinet officers knew they could lobby either the First Lady or the vice president to reverse decisions by the president.

I'm really not sure why she's the front runner, except for the financial backing.

Hillary is not Bill. You need to make your argument about her, not him.

Oh, and you know she voted against CAFTA, right?

bzzzt. It wasn't. I think that crap is so pathetic, when people can't respond to a comment, so they just pull something out of their asses.

I don't support Hillary. I though her vote on the resolution declaring Iran's revolutionary guard, atrocious.

See? It's not difficult to respond to a comment directly. You might try it sometime, or is it just too difficult for you?

Enough DLC Dems were already on the "AYE" side to ensure passage.
It was similar to Hillary's NO vote on the last Iraq War Funding Bill.
In BOTH cases, Hillary's vote was a "throwaway".

There was a standing battle on the Floor before the CAFTA vote, especially in the House.
I remember cheering for the REAL Democrats who STOOD UP and FOUGHT for Working Americans.
Just Enough DLC Democrats crossed over to help the Republicans WIN. If the Republicans had needed a couple of more Democratic votes, I'm sure that the DLC would have provided them.
If you were watching CSAN that night, you would probably agree with me. There was something not quite right happening on the Floor (of the House) that night.

Watching CSPAN has cured me of checking someone's Voting Record as the touchstone for an individual's credentials. Vote swapping, incumbency protection, back room deals, and "throw aways" are a Fact of Life in Federal and State Houses.

While the "Voting Record" is worth checking, more important to me are statements from the Floor, and Public Statements made before the actual votes. This is where REAL Leadership is on display, and has a chance of influencing the actual votes. REAL Leadership was on display the night that our Reps sold out Americans who Work for a Living. I don't remember Hillary carrying the flag for Working Americans in the Senate.

Hillary has been Running for President since 2000 (or before). She IS the DLC. The DLC has enough power to ensure that the Corporate Agenda advances while the Voting Record of their candidate gets protected.

I was not this cynical until I started watching CSPAN and counting "Votes".

It gets really comedic watching you lambast Hillary for NAFTA, Telecom, etc., but wail "Hillary ain't Bill" when the good times of the 90s are mentioned.

posed to you again and again: What has she done, on her own, that any liberal should or even could get behind?

It isn't my fault you either missed it all 100 times or so.

Now, does Hillary get credit for the Clinton presidency or not? Scared to answer? Worried the answer will take away some ammo you use against her?

:rofl:

anyone who could potentially be an ally. Best of luck with that personality flaw.

because there is no reason to support her based on anything she's ever done on her own? That would be the logical conclusion.

I'll be the bigger person, which, sadly, isn't saying much when comparing anyone to you, and answer your question. No, I don't equate her husband's policies with her except with regard to policies she publicly expressed opinions on. I judge her on her own actions, most of which I find thoroughly contemptible. I deeply regret having voted for her during her first run for NYS Senate and she will never get another vote from me again.

I answered your question. Look above. Just take it one syllable at a time.

...opinion on."

So, the opposite is true, then. Looking at the OP...

Signing NAFTA,

She's distanced herself from NAFTA

the Telcom Act,

She's made no statement on this except referring people to Al Gore's role in the passage of it.

expanding the "war on drugs" to record level of marijuana arrests, and being against industrial hemp legalization.

Hillary has been in no position to expand anything on a federal level. But she has promised to end marijuana raids and is very medical-marijuana friendly.

She's looking better to you now, huh?

a fascist war-monger.

...to reinforce you hate.

fascist war-monger.

LOL!

:)

I don't support her; she's my LAST choice, but I did answer your question, and instead of responding to that answer, you dodge it.

She's been a staunch supporter of abortion rights. No one has a better or longer record on that issue than she does. She's been a staunch supporter of early education and Headstart. She opposed CAFTA. Her environmental record is liberal. Her ratings from pro-business groups actually are very poor.

There's a lot to criticize her about: Her vote for the IWR, and her vote for the non-binding resolution on Iran. Also, her pandering to Israel/AIPAC, and to the religious community. There's more, like her trying to discredit her questioner in IA this weekend.

But the bullshit that she has no liberal policies, is just that: bullshit.

I oppose her on reasonable grounds, not ludicrous crap.

Do you really feel social issues are our most pressing concern at the moment? I'm not saying they aren't important nor that they don't influence my own inclinations toward a candidate, however, there are people dying in horrible, horrible ways right now as I type this so that Neo-Cons can pad their pockets even thicker as a direct result of Sen. Clinton's votes. The mauling, maiming and murdering for profit being done by our country in an illegal war seems a more severe concern to me (and one which needs immediate attention and redirection) than policies and programs which already exist and are under no imminent threat. Also, it seems really foolish (at best) to trust someone who has vocally made it clear they she is all for the devastation we are causing to do anything to stop it.

but if it comes down to Hillary or a repuke, that's easy- and SCOTUS deals with far more than just abortion. It's likely that she'd appoint justices and judges to the Federal bench who are in the Breyer/Ginsberg mold- she's publically pointed to them as models.

And where has she "vocally made it clear they she is all for the devastation we are causing to do anything to stop it?"

Quotes please, and no pointing to her recent Iran vote, isn't a quote.

Republican is sitting in the White House. It's too useful a wedge issue for them to ever give up.

Frankly, I think her actions (her voting record and who she chooses to align herself with) say a lot more about the truth of who she is and where she stands than anything that has fallen out of her lying mouth, but, okay, here's one for you:


"I also made a full commitment to martial American power, resources and values in the global fight against these terrorists. That begins with ensuring that America does have the world's strongest and smartest military force. We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war." - HC

The India Caucus.
We don't need to increase the number of young Indian men coming into the US to compete with us for the good paying IT jobs.

She is my last choice, but if she is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her.

Do we want to go forward? The 90's are gone. that was The honorable Bill Clinton. if you want to give credit for the 90's to Hillary then. Bills blowjob is justified via mysonistic terms. He was not really in comand? is that the case? She has accepted the corporate health industry, PAC money, money from republicans, Money from criminals... same old same old is what Gop want. not me I want to move forward, and make America a Better place. new names and new blood in the WH.

Biden!

That's the very first thing that popped into my head when I read your thread title, and, lo and behold, it's first on your list of signficant reasons why no one should be voting for HRC.

It was her husband who expanded NAFTA, not her. As I said, lots of reasons to oppose her; what her husband did, not so much.

She doesn't say scrap NAFTA, she says "fix it." Political "fixing" is a way to calm the masses without actually "fixing" anything. CAFTA? Ask her to explain her vote. :shrug:

But that's all it is.

Thankfully, you're not qualified to "grade" my answers to anything! :D

damned if she doesn't

damned by labor if she doesn't.

Tough choice. :eyes:

world.

It makes things so much simpler.

happens in so many areas.

For example, the black/white, simplified "All Democrats good/All Republicans Bad/All independents and 3rd parties stupid or traitors" thing.

The "them or us" competition model that feeds every division.

that aren't really there.

Or so I'm told by the people I come in contact with out there in the world.

http://images.google.com/url?q=&usg=AFQjCNEU0N4CwuNARpdSj91emo_VJJEt0w

I'm sure that your inference isn't meant as a personal attack. :D

Bill Clinton's administration restored America to its rightful place in the world. Its pretty lame to pick out a few negative points and post them as though they define the 90s.

1st: when I have taken notice of her votes--admittedly rare--but they are always on the wrong side of the issue. Here the problem may be me, I only notice when she votes wrong but never notice when she votes right.

2nd: "NO MORE DLC CORPORATISTS!!!" I would like to see the whole bunch discredited.

3rd: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (and I am really afraid of the next Bush that seems to be the logical extension of this pattern).

All that said, if she gains the nomination, I will reluctantly vote for Clinton.

I don't know Dennis's position on hemp, but on the others you listed he opposes the Clintons and the other centrist dems.

I don't think that's appropriate.
However, there are plenty of valid reasons to oppose her based on her own record.

point out which US President, in THEIR lifetime, was better than Clinton. Then explain HOW and WHY. And NO, I was not in agreement with everything that the BEST President in MY lifetime, William Jefferson Clinton, stood for. Still yet he was far superior to the Republicans in MY lifetime comprised of the following: Ford, Dubya, Ike, Nixon, Raygun, Bush. Seems to me that some would not bat an eyelash at the prospect of a Rudy/Mitt/Thompson etc in their future. Unfucking believable.

He's the Hillary basher that started the comparison.

thanks.

you can object, as I did in this thread, to using her spouse's record to criticize her. But this term "hillary basher", just like "bush basher" i s intended to disparage the poster and avoid the question.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's conclusion.

I do, however, object to the constant demonization of people that you disagree with or who do not support your candidate.

thanks.

he worked towards peace in the Middle east, and has won a nobel peace prize.


maybe my lifetime is longer than yours. :shrug:

The man was proven correct on so many initiatives he started.

or Truman but my dad did speak highly of Roosevelt around the dinner table. I will not say anything derogatory about any of our past Democratic presidents since the "worst" of them were/are heads and shoulders above ANY and ALL Republicans. Ole Abe would be a Democrat today so he gets a bye.



1993: Israeli-Palestinian peace accord

The first peace accord between Israel and Palestine is signed at the White House in Washington, D.C. With President Bill Clinton presiding, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin hesitantly shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat after signing an accord granting Palestine limited self-government on the Gaza Strip and in Jericho. The historic agreement, which promised an end to decades of bloodshed and animosity, was hammered out during secret talks in Norway. In 1994, Rabin and Arafat signed a formal peace agreement and were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The next year, a Jewish right-wing fanatic assassinated Rabin during a peace rally in Tel Aviv.

LBJ's recognition of African-American equality.

Carter for his Middle East diplomacy, support of labor unions, reformation of the post-Vietnam US military and final elimination of Nixon's price controls.

Clinton comes in dead last among the four US presidents in my lifetime. I find it difficult ranking the other three, but they are well ahead of Clinton.


As a pro-gun liberal I opposed Clinton's stance on firearms.

When Clinton signed NAFTA into law, he said he'd fix it, then did nothing.

Clinton did nothing to change American foreign policy to benefit most Americans instead of harming most Americans to help the powerful maintain their position over us.

Clinton won his first presidential election while promising to lift the military ban on gays. The American public thought he was going to do that ... and still elected him. He had the mandate, then chickened out.

He ignored Afghanistan where the Taliban conquered a modern, liberal secular nation dragging it back to the Dark Ages, forcing female lawyers and doctors into prostitution while executing thousands of those who could not endure a society they had never known before they were conquered.

He continued the occupation of Iraq. France suffered more Islamic terrorist attacks than any other country outside North Africa and the Middle East while continuing to occupy portions of the region. Those attackes ceased when France finally pulled out after several decades. The United States has been in and out of the region many times, but did not stay around and occupy any territory until 1991. The first Islamic terrorist attack on US soil took place in 1993. 911 would never have occurred if the United States not been occupying a large portion of Iraq for a decade before that. Why did Clinton continue this occupation?

And politically it was the Republicans who rode his coattails into office, not the Democrats.

did not invade Afghanistan, and are angry that Clinton "occupied" Iraq (which is a new and interesting definition of "occupy")

And somehow, you praise JFK for narrowly managing to avoid accidentally blowing up the world, think that LBJ's Vietnam war was less damaging than Clinton's "occupation of Iraq," and his Great Society helped the Republicans less than Clinton's failings.

Got it.

... led the opposition to the Taliban. Had we supplied them, they could have stopped the Taliban. We did not need to invade Afghanistan.

Are you saying we did NOT occupy the southern third of Iraq for ten years?

The fallout of the Bush/Clinton occupation of Iraq were two attacks on the WTC. What was the negative fallout of LBJ's Vietnam? On the positive side, while we were fighting in Vietnam, communist insurgencies in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippinnes, etc failed largely because they lacked the resources the Soviets were pouring into Vietnam.

The Republican response to the Great Society and the Civil Rights movement was to move leftward. The Republican response to Clinton's moderation was to move rightward and take the country with them. You seem to be confusing the issues with the parties. I am not opposed to the Republican Party. I am opposed to regressive, anti-liberal, anti-people, authoritarian policies.

I could play Point/Counterpoint here but my post would open up some old wounds like NAM, Bay of Pigs, gas lines, failed hostage rescues, Tonkin Resolution, etc, etc, etc but even with all the warts WE are still better than them. Sorry for the late reply, I had to make some changes to my "ignore list."

The question was not, "which Republican president was better than Clinton and why". Certainly Reagan and the two Bushes were worse than Clinton. But we are not preparing to choose between Republicans and Democrats at this moment. We are choosing between Democrats for an election in which we could nominate a sock puppet and probably beat the Republican.

This is a rare opportunity to change direction. Instead, we have threads like this saying we should settle for just slowing the move in the wrong direction.

I will not at all mind voting for her. Let's see: eight years of peace and the largest economic expansion for the middle class in American history, or protecting pot smokers...a tough choice for America.

Ask the parents of the DEAD Iraqi children.

The Iraq Sanctions under Clinton are responsible for the deaths of OVER 500,000 Iraqi children.
Maddy Albright confirmed this number on MTP.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

This figure (1/2 MILLION Dead Children) was released in 1996. There are no numbers available for the next 4 years of Clinton's term. There are also no stats for the # of DEAD Iraqi adults due to the sanctions.

Organized LABOR continued to decline. American Factories continued to move leaving their workforces without jobs.

Peace & Prosperity?
I guess that depends on where you lived, and whose JOB went overseas.

as it has every year for decades. Blame Clinton if you like, but the pace of the decline of organized labor did not accelerate under his presidency. That's the long-term market, not Clinton.

Factories continued to move abroad, as they have been for years, and as they still are, and as they will continue to. Outsourcing is not something that can be legislated away.

The Iraq sanctions were unfortunate. Both Saddam Hussein and the United States bear equal responsibility. However, they are not inconsistent with peace. Not all tragedies are war.

and will pave the way for yet another undeserved Repuke in the White House.

is why she is leading every single Republican in head-to-heads.

I don't know why the anti-Hillary folks love to talk like losers so much. They're so afraid of the big bad Republicans, they probably sleep with a night light.

I have to sneak up on my night light now....

I am very afraid of the big bad Republican's - Why?

Take a look around.

But thanks for the insight into those of us who have had our lives destroyed by the most vile bunch of thugs to ever occupy the WH.

who can't win battleground states. And can't get to 270 electoral votes. She'll struggle to even win all of the Kerry states from 2004. Remember, Senators don't win. Only one Democratic Senator (with no executive experience) made it to the White House in the last century. And that one was a nail-biter.

Thankfully, I'm like you and that doesn't scare me so I don't have to vote for Hillary to be safe.

Right?

Hillary looks good and looks moderate to most Americans.

and Democratic-leaning Independents. To everyone else she's perceived as yet another establishment
liberal Democratic Senator. And one with a lot more baggage than most. She's a bad national candidate. Nominating a candidate who is this unlikable all over the spectrum is a sure path to defeat.

She looks like she will say anything to get back into the WH.

There are NO republicans who will vote for her... None. Find one, bring them here and kiss 'em on the cheek 'cause she will not be elected if she is the nominee.

I dare you to find that many moderate voters to get her elected. The Right Wing spin machine is hoping for her to come out on top because they have plans to run Rudy or that moran Thompson.

Otherwise -- Welcome to The DU

It's fun here isn't it?

:rofl:

If the Democratic Congress passes a bill about media concentration, hopefully it will be to reduce it instead of to increase it.

Anyway, I hope all of us will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, but if anyone wants to donate/volunteer just for Congressional or local candidates, that is fine.