Why doesn't Bill Clinton speak out with similar force--the way Gore does?

on the war, on domestic spying on a wide range of issues it seems like "The Big Dawg" holds back his criticsm or he is only mildly critical. At other times he seems to go out of his way to either praise Bush or find excuses for his blunders. Is it a grand scheme to make Hillary president, by muting criticsm of the most incompetent president in US history?

he is on a short leash from the cabal, I suspect they know where all the skeletons are buried

She is campaigning by the same game book that Bill employed in '92 and '96--to run in the middle and co-op Republican ideas. Only difference is that Hillary doesn't have Bill's charisma to make it sound palatable.

Bill could dust it up with opponents. His wife is playing it far too cool. I don't think you win Democrfaic primaries like that.

I Al Gore enteres this race for 2008, Senator Clinton is going to find she needs more than she possibly has to secure the nomination. Like a miracle.

and are getting ready to reelect her. The Repugs can't even make it to the election without falling apart. She's a power house. Don't underestimate her.

That whole "friendship" makes me sick. Of all the people for Clinton to hang with he picks that nasty ass nazi. :wtf:

isn't it something to do with it not being etiquette for past presidents to slam the present one? However, that doesn't stop the VP? I don't think it is anything to do with him being too friendly to Bush W

Bush is not an elected President.

Gore is.

Think about it.

Sue

because Jimmy is also speaking out against Bush. All the power to Jimmy and Al.

:)

maybe he has a gun to his head

I wondered the same thing.

Then I thought about how John Edwards spoke up more than Kerry after the SECOND election debacle.

I was thinking that maybe they take the most outspoken candidate and relegate him to the VP spot to keep him under control.

Then I remembered that Gore picked Lieberman . . . :shrug:

I have heard far more on voting irregularities etc from KERRY than from Edwards. The onlt additional Edwards comment that I know of was a very deniable "a relative of Edwards" said he didn't want to concede. This is having your cake and eating it to - to people here who think it was stolen, he is on their side; to the public at large, he isn't risking his reputation.

This is more of KERRY has to say/do every thing every one wants; when he does (such as with the DSM - where no Senator has done as much) he gets no credit and is instead criticised for 9 other things.

Kerry has hit Bush on far more issues than Edwards has. (He also said the wiretapping was illegal - but as it was Kerry it didn't count.)

that's why Joe was on the ticket.

to win Florida. Hell if Nader had kept out of New Hampshire, Gore would be pres.

speak out with such conviction ????

Granted some are better speakers than others
.. and Al spoke from the heart today..
But there are a ton of other very talented people
who hate George Bush and are appalled by his crimes..

but they have been WAY too quiet.

Where is the outrage ???????
C'mon Dems, lets make some noise !!!!!!

... and yes, I think it's because he doesn't want to make waves for Hillary - let's not forget that she's the elected official in the household now, not him.

After what the Repugs put him through (impeachment, Whitewater, Ken Starr, etc.), one can only IMAGINE what he'd LIKE to say these days.

But as I said, you've got to ADMIRE his restraint - and you've got to wonder how many Repubs would be gentleman enough to hold their tongues in the same circumstance, in deference to their wife's politcal career.

and I would love to have him now instead of what we are stuck with.
However, he seems to have transcended the world of partisan politics while I have embraced it.
I'm not holding my breath for the Big Dog to save the damsel in distress that our country has become.
Stick a fork in him. He is done. He's not gonna ever represent US again. He doesn't have to.

...which, in my opinion, is a philosophy of deadly compromise and needs to be shelved in favor of an all-or-nothing offensive.

If we would all get on the same page, we'd win. But until then, I see Dems as trying to treat a terrible virus with inadequate amounts of medicine, allowing the disease to mutate and become more resistant. So, it's not just that we're ineffective, we are actually strengthening the opposition. Republican/neoconservative ideology is a fatal illness, and the employment of aggressive measures represents our only hope of eradicating it.

behavior on many of these popular issues of the day.

hoping to graduate like Tony Blair

Just a guess.

Even though he says he has "no plans" on running in 2008, make no mistake about it: this is not a speech crafted by a man content to go down in the history books as a vice-president.

I hope for the sake of our country I am right on this.

as an ex-president to highlight the follies of this administration? Jimmy Carter does it.

books as a patriot along the lines of Patrick Henry.
Whether or not that is enough for him, time will tell.
I sincerely hope it isn't enough.

and then WINNING eight years later on the second try?

Never gonna happen! Forget it, Al!




(Dick Nixon is chuckling down in Hell...)

He will never be a civil rights leader.

how elese do you explain NAFTA, tellcommbill, welfARE 'REFORM' AND THE REST?

I'm not one of those who regards Clinton as a liberal. He's a middle-of-the-roader altogether too compliant to corporatists. Nonetheless ...

The Reichbots would LOVE to get back into their rabid clinton-bashing. It would be exactly the kind of divisive distraction they love. (Notice how discussion of the Alito hearings got distracted into crap about those "nasty name-calling Democrats"??) It changes the subject. It drowns out any discussion of what is essential.

It's something that DUers are doing constantly. Rather than discuss WHAT Gore said, we get into bullshit fan-club banter. It's NOT about Gore!! It's about WHAT he said!

It was one of the most powerful speeches I've ever heard. He is sending a message "loud and clear" that our country is in serious danger if things do not change. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other dems participating behind the scenes - we can't forget the power of the RW smear machine that would destroy any elected official that dared question the boyking.

He's laid the groundwork and opened the door for EVERYBODY to take action and stop this fascist government.

out all the time. I hardly think anyone needs a "grand scheme" to "make" Hillary president. If Hillary becomes President, she will win it fair and square and on her own credentials.

Or at least she thinks she does.

He's not a traitor the likes of Lieberman, but he comes awful close. His policies on Iraq were quite murderous, too, in case you've forgotten, and his domestic agenda continued the Reaganomic destruction of the safety net and regulation of business, so it should hardly be any surprise to anyone who paid attention to the Bill Clinton that was at work behind the amazing charm and apparently nice guy.

People will be discussing Clinton for generations - for the contradictions between his progressive-sounding rhetoric and his right-leaning policies, his amazing charisma, which only seemed to make the right-wingers even more rabidly contemptuous toward him, and the tremendous skills and competence he brought to the job, vs. the amazingly poor judgment he showed in having a fling while in office, when he already knew he was under the spotlight. A lot of people see him as the savior of the democratic party. I tend to see him as a huge missed opportunity, and a departure from democratic core principles that continues to hurt us today.

Hey, but that's just me.

just imagine the chaos if one of the people best equipped to demonstrate how the little Emperor is in the nude again did so - the Repukelicans would be screaming that he's a busybody and whip out (excuse me) the trump card that he got a BJ in the Oval Office, so he should be ignored and chastised, Doobosity would be cringing with Bunker Boy in an Undisclosed Location (tm) and working on 1. a hit team and 2. damage control, the land would absolutely be hidden in a cloud of smoke, with comparatively little light able to emanate. Presidents exchange their party affiliation for the mantle of symbolic responsibility (as opposed to tangible parental responsibility as per Doobosity) for the nation as the occupant of its highest office. This is something Doobosity doesn't understand, for all his crowing about "bein' persunly 'sponsible fer 'tectin the people", but Mr. Clinton does. It is not meet for former Presidents to steal the spotlight from the current occupant, both because of requisite symbolic sympathy ("I feel your pain" applies), and because it's inappropriate for them to take advantage of their intimate knowledge to make the job even harder than it is, that's what the opposition party is there for.

If you watch the media (for all they're worth, and my sole source) you may note that Mr. Clinton is active on a variety of fronts, and in fact occasionally does comment on the current misadministration. Very carefully, and in a gracious statesmanlike manner. Class just can't help making itself visible.

:shrug:

There are many out there who believe the Clinton's and Bush's are in bed together. I don't know how true that is, but a number of things never set well with me when it came to the Clintons.

1. He had his chance against bin Laden, but passed it up (why?)
2. Free trade. He knew where it would lead.
3. Changes in media regulation laws. He knew where it would lead.
4. He knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Scott Ritter accused Clinton and Albright of lying. Clinton kicked out inspectors and bombed Iraq for seemingly minor reasons. He also adopted the PNAC policy of regime change.

Then there's all that mysteryious shit regarding Web Hubbell (didn't he steal some classified papers?) and Vince Foster. There were all those stories about Mena Arkansas and CIA drug trafficking. I don't know how much is valid or true, but its possible there's something to it. Even if you don't believe this stuff, points 1, 2 3 and 4 have me suspicious.

Yes, Clinton defended some progressive causes, and I am happy about that, but don't let that cloud your judgement. When it came to what the corporatocracy REALLY wanted, they got it. You have wonder why? Was it just politics (knowing that it'd pass without him)? Even if that was the case, why didn't he defend his position publicly? Instead, he hopped onboard that free trade bandwagon.

He is charismatic to be sure, and I miss his ability to speak coherently (look at what we suffer with now). But I don't want his charisma to blind me to the fact that he is in bed with the rest of them.

Hillary too. Pro war...pro free trade.

You have a good grasp of Republican faux facts and talking points, especially the part about having a chance to go after Bin Laden. Perhaps you can elaborate on that one?

I had heard that talking point on TV several times and bought into it. When I searched it, I discovered that only newsmax has reported it on the web. Newsmax hired that jerk Dick Morris, who is a GOP operative, thus it is not trustworthy.

I could not find a legitimate source and don't have time to do many searches.

I still don't trust Bill or Hillary. I don't know how many of those other stories are true.

But then....I don't trust ANYONE in a position of power, unless they are truly a grass roots candidate, and we'll never see one of those win the nomination. Look at what happened to Dean.

Should have been your first clue it was a lie.

But, the stuff on TV is often not true, so I looked it up on the web. Its only now that when I look for a reference, I can't find anything except newsmax, which I acknowledged is untrustworthy.

Its hard to sort through all the bullshit on TV. The MSM can't be trusted. And still, I do not trust the Clintons.

in that Hillary needs it from Bechtel & gang.

Pure lust for power. Same thing that's informed Billary's decisions for decades. Not that I don't think he was a helluva lot better than *, and does actually HAVE a soul. At least Bill is a real person. I think he really did feel our pain. Hillary... not so sure.

mistrustful of the clintons.

ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING.

IMHO.

Anyone who blindly follows the Clintons (or anyone) is no better, as far as being a citizen in a healthy democracy, than the bushbots. Not that I am 100% critical of EITHER Clinton. I quite liked Bill until his recent chumminess with Papa Fascist and his comments re: Tony Blair heading the UN. I just don't trust ANY politician. Not totally.

Stay close to the enemy and attempt to keep things in check, because he fears the power at the hands of a tyrant.

that gang of criminals, even though the same gang of criminals, tried to get him fired from his Presidency.

no doubt.

Now look, we have far worse laws...and many laws...being broken left and right.

We can celebrate what we got today or throw mud at others. Just because. :puke:

Gore has found religion, so to speak. He is less centrist than he used to be.

he can still be the Ms. number one political adviser!!!

Gore's strength has always been that he can see the big picture - - see what the results of actions will be long before other people can. He's also somebody with a very strong sense of duty, a very strong moral compass, somebody who works very hard to be a good Christian, a good citizen - - to be the change we wish to see in the world. Gore would make the same speech against a Dem President, if the Dem President was running amok like Smirk is - - no matter how many people it p*ssed off in the Dem party.

Clinton is a different person, with different strengths. He is more "political", in both the positive and negative senses of the word. If HRC wasn't in office, he'd still be making the same mild criticisms - - because Clinton would be more concerned about the political consequences of having a harshly critical ex-President shooting his mouth off, how that would generate conservative and moderate backlash that could make him less able to do the good works he wants to accomplish than he would be with defending some abstract ideal.

Clinton always sees things in shades of gray, even when they are 100% black or 100% white.

Gore always stops to check the gray scale to make sure that what is labeled "gray" isn't really black or white.

Neither personality type is right or wrong. Gore's personality is just better suited to the times we're in now. And that's one of the reasons why many people erroneously feel that Gore has changed since 2000 - - he hasn't. The world has just changed enough that Gore's strengths are seen as strengths - - rather than weaknesses.