I have been saying this every since ray-gun became the preznit

that he was only a spokesperson for the cabal, old nixon hold overs if you will along with the financiers that were actually pulling the strings. Right on through the bush1* cabinet to be stalled out during the Clinton years. They are back now with a vengeance, they know they have lost 8 years that were supposed to be 'their' good years, in power. They're pissed about it and they continue in letting us know, in your face type shit, about it. If Clinton hadn't derailed them in '92 it would have been a much smoother transition for them, we were pretty used to things going to shit and then along comes the BC from Hope and he helps to give most of us the best 8 years of our lives, now they have to make such drastic changes in such a short period of time in order to accomplish their goals. Well, I know their plan and I think many Americans know there plan also and so I have hope. But only if we continue to kick'em while they're down, trust me they sure kick us every chance they get, our country depends on it. We can save the feelings of any remorse for doing it until we have secured our countries fate and only then.
thats my sunday morning 2 cents worth anyway
spelling:

Carlyle Group, Halliburton (http://www.WarProfiteers.com), Bilderberg, Illuminati, MK-ULTRA etc. etc. etc. and leave URLs of sites so that people who are waking up can find information to begin the long days journey into night of the never-ending bush crime family and their cohorts crimes against America and the world.

I agree with most of this, but I don't think the Clinton years were the best years of our lives, I think the '60s were. (Apologies if you weren't born yet or you're sick of boomer exceptionalism!)

But seriously, in the '60s-70s we established in law civil rights, gender equality, environmental protection, and the principle that nobody, not even the president, is above the law. These were all things that America professd to believe in, which was why America was so prominently a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, but we never quite got around to actually implementing; finally we got around to it (and not without a fight).

Since then reactionary forces have consistently attempted to roll all of that back. Clinton was at best a thumb in the dike, and completely failed in the economic arena (welfare "reform," utility deregulation, neoliberal mercantilism). The shitstorm the VRWC threw at Clinton was way out of proportion to his actual achievements, but I think to get to where we are today it was necessary to discredit even the rhetoric of equality that BC used so masterfully: "I feel your pain" etc.

My opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.

about Bill Clinton, it was about this criminal cabal in the whitehouse now and their rise to where we are today. The reference to Bill Clinton was to the prosperity that we enjoyed during his terms in office, the goodwill shown to Americans by the other countries of the world, or most of them anyway. The fact I felt safe and secure in that my country wasn't running around threatening other countrys, you do as I say or else. the illegal war of aggression and occuping of Iraq. I could go on and on but you know. Anyways good sunday morning to you. :-)
Its just hard to mention the word Clinton here at du, so sad :-(

I kinda folded a bunch of things together in my post, and arguably still haven't sorted them all out in my own mind.

I do think the economy was "better" in the '60s than the '90s. Growth was more widely distributed, more people came up out of poverty into something like full participation in the consumer economy, there were many more jobs that felt like careers as opposed to waiter gigs while you try and sell your screenplay, etc. Most especially, CEO's made 50 times what line workers made, not 300 times. In the '90s we had instead a very visibly overblown dot-com boom, which made a bunch of money for a few smart people, chewed up a bunch of money from some less smart (or more easily bamboozled) people, and certainly hid the problem that the old economy of real goods and services was being outsourced.

Your mention of Iraq does of course implicitly invoke the elephant in the room of the '60s revival wing, the Vietnam war. We didn't go into Nam with shock and awe blazing, we did it stealthily and gradually, a few military advisers here, a couple CIA spooks there, and it wasn't until 1968 (if I recall correctly) that our troops were directly fighting the North Vietnamese, with neither side's proxy army really necessary, and all our comforting illusions evaporated. The major boosters of that war were the red-baiters and the military-industrial complex, both well represented among Nixonians and the cabal in charge today. (You've probably noticed how closely the PNAC policy prescriptions resemble the kind of strategies we used to accuse the Commies of; the laughable notion that a free and independent Iraq would lead to newly hatched democracies all over the Middle East is just our screwball attempt at a domino theory.)

I hope that my ragging on Clinton isn't just a DU-inspired anti-DLC reflex. The point where I think I decided I'd had it with him was when he booted Joycelyn Elders, at which point I decided that he was just too prepared to compromise. I believed then, and believe now as strongly as ever, that the Republican brain trust bequeathed to us by Nixon, Reagan, Bush41 and their various fixers are all basically criminals and should never be compromised with. Instead Clinton allowed them enough input into welfare reform, NAFTA, telecom/cable/utility deregulation etc. to seriously fuck over the American people. Enron wasn't an accident, Phil Gramm wrote the legislation that made it possible, and Clinton signed it. It really is the economy, stupid, in many ways Clinton didn't even notice. The best we can hope for under existing law is a future of untrammelled corporate feudalism.