Erase Johnson, Carter and Clinton

Does it strike anyone that what is really going on is that the party elders have decided they want to erase the Clinton years and the Clinton legacy. It's as if the Johnson, Carter and Clinton years are to be wiped from history and the we are to restore the mythic glory days of JFK.

They have plucked Obama from relative obscurity to be the puppet. He is perfect for the role as he is always in search of mentors and he surrounds himself with older men who flatter him and are flattered in return. Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Nunn et al. All the people that Clinton bested in the nineties now get their revenge. They were too cowardly to take on Bush and impeach him. but - classic bullies - they take on Hillary instead and bash her.

What we are witnessing is a concerted effort to destroy the Clintons. And they don't care if they splinter the party in the process with their eckless narcissism. Nor if they bring us another four years of the GOP. because next time around....with Clintons mortally wounded, gone....they can pick another one of their own.

And Obama is the perfect one to play along.The empty suit with the thin record and great personal charm. Well dressed, well spoken, well versed.

Could we have a separate forum for these? They are tiresome.

Your life would be simpler.

It is the increasingly convoluted and cryptic nature of the anti-Obama arguments. I read the OP several times and I can't for the life of me make any sense of it. Party elders erasing the Clinton years? Obama as a "puppet" of unseen forces? "Surrounds himself with older men"? WTF?

This is the third anti-Obama post I've read this morning that I consider weird, convoluted, and hard to follow (or believe). They are frustrating for me to read and try to figure out.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm dumb. Maybe you are making a wonderful, insightful point. I just don't see it.

yours? That does indeed make life simpler. And let me add that eradicating stupid is a fond dream of mine.

Bottom line - it does not serve the democrats to trash the Clintons. It merely plays into the hands of the r/w who do it so gleefully.

It's easy to trash them.
Much harder to put together a winning coalition. we need to do that and soon.

Genghis Khan just endorsed Obama. Explain THAT.
Operation chaos?

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K again.........

aha .. That's the point.

they are not on holy ground.

I agree with your sentiment that they are human and live on the earth just like the rest of us.

And we should treat all people humanely.

I like your Wendell bBerry quote.

he expected to be impeached after the Dec 1992 release of the BCCI report.

So Poppy's buddy Jackson Stephens had HIS Boy in Arkansas tapped to run and underwrote his primary campaign.

What happened to the BCCI report Clinton was handed when he took office? The COWARD who feared crossing BushInc deep-sixed all its outstanding matters to protect BushInc and his powerful cronies.

Cowards COVER-UP, JoFerret, for the powerful they FEAR.

COURAGEOUS lawmakers risk their lives and careers when they investigate the crimeinal operation sof the powerful elite.

It's CLASSIC BIZARRO world to cast Clinton as brave and investigative lawmakers like Kerry who actually RISKED their lives and careers to expose government corruption as just jealous of the cowards.

sad. speaking of erasing history, I hear scaife endorsed her. you remember him? he was the nutwad that accused her of murder, funded the rightwing attacks against both of them and helped insult her daughter. hilarity sat down with him and she now has what she wanted, an endorsement from her worst enemy and the bitterest enemy of our country and Constitution since the civil war. you are sad to ignore this and support this sad stupid thread. examine your conscience.

HillaryClintonforum.net.

The Pot bangers eat this shit up.

:hi: But I wonder when he will get tired of having people laugh AT him instead of WITH him. :shrug:

Trashing the last democratic presidency is self defeating.
Borrowing the language of the r/w is sickening.
Partnering with the GOP is demeaning the accomplishments of the Clinton era outrageous betrayal.
Building a coalition to win takes work.
Pissing off chunks of the base arrogant and foolish.
Unity and hope? Not a chance from these folks.
Sore winners who appear to want to erase anything good from the last democratic presidency as a platform on which to build. Not smart.
GOP must be laughing their heads of at the naivety of this "purist" approach.
We have been here before. And not learned from the experience. This version just has a little different flavor. Bloody tragedy in the making.

nary a scrap of evidence. Sad that you can't do better. All it demonstrates is how cliched and limited your thinking is. How truly pathetic.

...rather than a conspiracy. But it does explain the willingness to trash the Clinton economy.

But it is all a theory. An opinion. a thought, a viewpoint. A reading of what I see happening.
You are not required to agree with it.

It's filled with the usual hate key words, such as empty suit, puppet, etc. It has the added filip of conspiracy. It's a piece of shit. No better than the hate hillary threads you whine about.

It's true those words are convenient short hand.

But I started thinking about this when I wondered why it was the r/a and now the Obama campaign always talks about the Clintons, about the Clinton machine rather than the actual candidate. And then it was obvious - it was more than just Hillary many of them want to defeat. It is the whole era and set of associations. Hence Obama's slurring and trashing of the Clinton economy.

The GOP and the r/w generally wanted and still want this. (Heaven forfend there should ever have been a successful democratic presidency). But when the Obama campaign adopted all the right wing claptrap and then so many supporters jumped on they found a ready made set of labels, slurs and abuse to use to attack Hillary. So many Obama supporters and elements of the campaign itself took on the language, tone and style of the r/w and joined in.(For evidence compare anti-Hillary freeper-style and anti-hillary DU style. Almost indistinguishable.

It's VERY easy to attack the Clintons and their "baggage". It is easy to trash them and tear them down.

It will be much harder to put together a winning coalition.

My suggestion is that we all start building it now.

what did she do to try to impeach him ?

fuck no. she enabled him. over and over again.

has to start with the House. Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi that said impeachment was off the table.

-----
The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

initiated in the House. I'm responding to the OP's claim that certain Senators have done nothing to encourage the House to do so.

I guess that goes with the claim that he is the "Manchurian Candidate". All these ridiculous claims we have to keep track of.

Which means the OP is actually pro-GOP.

Much harder to build a winning coalition.

The Clintons have trashed themselves.

ever mention how the party elders manage to get millions of us to vote for Obama without us even knowing it.

them over, it would have been easy enough to do back in 1998. Instead the entire party was willing to come to the Clinton's side and defend them. As far as wiping away the Johnson and Carter years, that was Clinton's doing. Bill "The era of big government is over" Clinton is the one who did not renew democratic backing of Johnson's Great Society programs which had been slashed during reagan-bush1. Instead of restoring Johnson's legacy he kept slashing. Similarly Carter's peaceful foreign policy was abandoned by Clinton in favor of a continuation of Bush1's pursuit of small popular wars with low risk commitment. What has happened now is not that the party has turned on Clinton and his wife, as it is the case that the party has other ambitions than being Bill and Hill's personal platform for political advancement. Instead of being willing to accept that other people had things they wanted to do and be graceful or team players, the Clinton's decided to go all in and get down and dirty. As a result they have made themselves quite unpopular, and rightly so.

and came out looking like weaklings for doing so.

Many of those same weaklings are key members of the Dem "do-nothing" Congress we've had for the last 2 years. Most Dems have little or no respect for them. They were willing to turn on their own party's president because of the GOP's manufactured scandals. What cowards. That they now support Obama comes as no surprise.

Now we see the same leaders cozying up with the likes of Newt Gingrich on television ads praising them for helping clean up the environment. Ugh.

I'd run for Congress myself if I didn't already have good Dem leaders representing me.

That would have been the easiest way. What did they do to Clinton?

Mr Clinton got caught hiding the salamie. He lied about it. HRC said it was a Conspiracy
by the republicans to bring down Bill - I think the Repubs are still pissed. What do you think?

happy to see him downed. I think he ran roughshod over them, sometimes outfoxed them and now they can exact "revenge" or payback time.

But I think it is VERY self-defeating to join the r/w in trashing the Clinton presidency and the Clintons as so many have done on here.

It's simple to do but very destructive.

The GOP would love to be able to find agreement that there have been no good democratic presidencies in recent times. (or 'ancient" times in their view.) We should not aid them in their re-writing of history.

Dems in Congress who run from "safe" districts unaccustomed to running against the GOP and those from right wing districts afraid for their re-election prospects were more than happy to turn tail and knife Clinton in the back.

They did so any time he was attacked by the right wing, not just on impeachment.

But at any rate - it serves no democrat to tear down the Clintons and the Clinton administration.

Unlike the Repugs who manage to make saints out of their former Presidents (even managing to rehab Nixon at the end of his life and carrying Nixon's policies forward with disastrous consequences) ..the Democrats revile their former Presidents except FDR and they haven't even managed to counter the Repugs Revisionist history on him. Truman gets a bit of a pass but what really can one say about his domestic policies when world events were what he's remembered for...and dropping the "Big One" on Japan.

Democrats are exceedingly disloyal to their own. It's a worrysome thing and wasn't so noticeable to many of us until Clintons managed to get in the WH... From then on it's a pretty sad parade of back biting and blame throwing. Look at how Al Gore was treated over Election 2000.

We have some big housecleaning and realigning to do as Democrats. We have to recognize the weak links and work to strengthen our core beliefs...whatever they are at this point isn't holding us together.\\\

The average age of a senator is 60.

Any 40 year old who is surrounded by a random gathering of senators would, because of the math, be surrounded by older people.

A 60 year old similarly surrounded by senators would find half of them younger.


Is it fair to say the 40 year old attracts a greater proportion of experienced senators than the 60 year old?

She is pissing people off and they're giving her shit about it.
That's not a concerted effort to destroy the Clintons. It's called cause and effect. If she's such a magical fighting machine, she'll get over it.

Some of you Hillary supporters are getting way too comfortable with trashing other Democrats. Follow the leader, I suppose.

:rofl:

they're doing it all on their own.

We tend to forget that the right wing noise machine did the dirty work in the 90s, and did it well.
For some, they will never be able to hear the name Clinton and not think about a blow job in a blue dress....or other poison penned pieces like he murdered Vince Foster....or that Hilary is a lesbian.
Put the blame where it belongs

Sciafe endorsing Hillary and Rove saying she is the dem candidate he would support and saying how he likes she is doing the Repulicans dirty work for them?

So the 200 plus super delegates that endorsed her before a single ballot was even cast were trying to destroy her.

The party establishment lined up behind her. Its the people who have decided that they want something new and not a Clinton the Second.

He's willing to throw away the legacy and lessons learned from one of the most successful Democratic administrations in recent years - Clinton/Gore - just to score points against Hillary.

That means Obama is putting personal gain ahead of party and country. Its the same thing Ted Kennedy did in 1980 when he helped get Reagan elected.

Next to inexperience, this is the biggest reason why I don't support Obama. I don't trust him because he doesn't show good leadership.

Bill Clinton.

Who sought the endorsement of Scaife?
Who has ABC in the pocket?

Make me laugh.

The problem with your polemic is there is no "there" there. It's merely a mindfuck.

Obama is a well-known entity. So is Clinton -- everything we know about the Clinton puts them firmly in bed
with the most repulsive elements of the far-right. Your little mental exercise in damning Obama with faint criticism via a weak conspiracy theory has only assertion and no proof.

Sometimes the devil you know is SO bad, it's better to opt for the devil you don't.

in truth, we don't REALLY know what he would have been like as president if he lived to squeek in with a second term (he barely won over Nixon in 60)

I happen to think a lot of the Hillary bashing comes from either pure jealousy, or trying to get back at Bill. :)

are you jealous or trying to get back at him or his family?

Are you a false dem?

Just because he was attractive and a good speaker doesn't make him an icon, except for the fact that Americans apparently desperately need to create myths of greatness from tragedy.

He might have turned out to be a stinker of a president, given time. He may have become one of the best. But this reverence for a notorious bed-hopping adulterer, while everyone is still slamming Bill for a silly blowjob, is mind boggling, to say the least.

You bash him for his rumored sexual exploits and ignore his accomplishments. Sure, Bay of Pigs was a mess, but his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was extraordinary and very successful. Just imagine if GWB had been president then.

And Kennedy was never directly questioned about his sexual exploits where Bill was and he lied to cover them up. Worse than that, he knew his sexual exploits were the focus of the VRW that was out to get him, that had his life and his presidency under such scrutiny. Instead of caution, instead of using good judgment he allowed an intern to gratify him "because he could" (his words, his reasoning as found in his memoirs).

You and the poster I responded to have no qualms with bashing JFK's presidency yet you are both all up in arms that someone might point out the failings of Clinton.

That is hypocrisy at its finest and you and the other poster don't see it.

Straight Shooter? I think not.

Good gawd. They were legendary. What do you want, proof on film? It might be out there; they're working on identifying the object of Marilyn's affection in that fellatio film (see recent news items on the subject).

As for his competence as a president, there's just no way to evaluate it; he wasn't in office long enough.

I don't revere any politician. They all have failings, but this idea that JFK was some kind of saint is as ridiculous as the right wingers worshipping Reagan.

As for hypocrisy, the very people who condemn Bill Clinton absolutely venerate JFK. By the way, the Kennedys are a dynasty in the same league as the bushes, yet no one gripes about that political dynasty. JFK, Jr., could have run for president and he'd be getting the same adoration as Obama. Go figure.

defending bill by slamming JFK, you joined in the party and you continue with the bashing.

And yes, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis puts him well above those who have followed - he didn't succumb to the knee jerk use of violence, his restraint prevented nuclear catastrophe and world war III - but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your continued bashing and hypocrisy.

:hi:

many generations. It's personal. :sarcasm:

You tell such truth here!!

And it saddens me so to see our party descending into such chaos....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq-senators_x.htm

Clinton says insurgency is failing
BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.



"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.

The five-member U.S. Congressional delegation arrived in Baghdad as a series of suicide bombings and explosions killed 55 people, including an American solder. Much of the violence was aimed at Shiite Muslims, commemorating Ashoura, the festival marking the death of the founder of their sect 14 centuries ago.

"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.

Oh, sorry, wrong person.

It's the left-wing run for power. And they don't care one bit about the Dem Party or anything but their agenda. One need only look at Ted Kennedy screwing Carter in 1980 to understand this truth.

the investigations that BRAVE lawmakers like Kerry and Gonzalez conducted for YEARS even under pressure from other cowards in the DEm party to stop investigating BushInc's illegal operations.

Or did you forget that?

:rofl:

Nicely played, Sir!!!


:patriot:

Does it strike anyone that what is really going on is that the party elders have decided they want to erase the Clinton years and the Clinton legacy.

When I hear the term "party elders," the first people I think of are Gore, Carter, and (Bill) Clinton. I wasn't aware that Gore and Carter had declared their support, but I'm pretty sure I know who Bill is supporting. (Yes, there are other elders, such as Kennedy and Daschle, who have declared their support for Obama, but it's not quite the tidal wave that you portray.)

Even if there were something to your argument about wiping away the Clinton legacy (and there may be something to that), I don't see why you lump Johnson and Carter in with him. Most people, I think, would agree that the Johnson and Carter presidencies were more progressive in outlook than the Clinton presidency. If anything, I would expect an Obama presidency to restore some of that progressivism rather than "wipe" it "away."

They have plucked Obama from relative obscurity to be the puppet. He is perfect for the role as he is always in search of mentors and he surrounds himself with older men who flatter him and are flattered in return.

Senator Obama was not plucked from relative obscurity. His national appeal was blossoming as early as 2004 when he spoke at the convention. His support has grown steadily and relentlessly since then. No one cast a spell for him. Even Senator Kennedy could not help him much in Massachusetts. His steady, persistent growth is evidence not of a "pluck[]" from "obscurity" but of his tremendous charisma, the resonance of his message, and, to a lesser extent, the craptacular campaign of his opponent.

In any case, if you want to get into demographics, I suspect you would find more older people (men and women) in Senator Clinton's corner.

They (Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Nunn et al.) were too cowardly to take on Bush and impeach him.

I'm not sure you want to get into a debate about which Democratic senators were too cowardly to take on Bush.

Well dressed, well spoken, well versed.

You forgot "articulate" and "clean."

http://wonkette.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-discovers-clean-articulate-black-man-232908.php

:eyes:

How would you distinguish the "party elders" who'd want to erase Johnson, Carter and Clinton, vs. non-elders who (I guess?) support Clinton over Obama? Just trying to understand your point of view.

it was like have a peaceful raygun in the white house.

As for the other D POTUSes you mention. Glory days? Really?

perfectly.

Keep attacking President Clinton. There has never been a good democrat in the WH since - well decades at least. If ever. Well maybe JFK. He was good looking. Right?

Those democrats. Hopeless. Better vote GOP to be safe.

otherwise Gore would not have had the lection stolen by poor ballot design in Pam Beach because it would not have been close

The hypothesis that there is an effort afoot not just to defeat Hillary as a candidate but also an effort to destroy the memory of the Clinton presidency as having any positive aspects. Can democrats be so sick and self-defeating. have we all gone crazy? (And this has nothing to do with preferring Obama, or Hillary - making a choice.)

Reap the whirlwind. Reap the whirlwind and weep.

(This is a very dangerous, disturbing and destructive game. It is wonderful news for the GOP. It is a shameful exercise in self-destructive narcissism worthy of the GOP.)

is something to be proud of. Bill & his selfish libido did the party great harm.

And certainly nobody wants to deal with and hear about every day for the next four years...the world is not all about Bill and Hillary, enough already.

That's rich. Who do you think this democratic primary was designed for (with the super Tuesday move)?

their triangulating ways. After Clinton lost the Congress in '94, his strategy became adopting all conservative ideas as his own, and showing contempt for liberals in the Congress. I don't see what this has to do with Carter or Johnson. Clearly, Carter does not like Clinton, nor Clinton Carter, that's for sure.