It's interesting how much I dislike Clinton now

[skjpm]

For the eight years of his presidency, I defended him to all and sundry, getting into a lot of heated debates, and having my own integrity and faith questioned. One of the reasons that I left the Roman Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church was a voting brochure they put out which I felt slandered Clinton.

And now I don't like him. I think he should have been standing up to Bush as head of the Democratic party, instead of enabling Bush with weak-kneed support. And while he has every right not to like Dean, I think he should have chosen one of the announced candidates to support, one of the lifelong Democrats, rather than preening his own candidate. This has only further divided the party. So I think that he is as conniving, manipulative, and untrustworthy as the right has always said.

The nice thing is, I can get some old friends back now.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. I've been dissapointed as well..

I don't know what the fuck that guy is thinking, and I think the party as a whole as moved passed him.

[salinen]

3. Clinton gave us *

How many more votes for Gore if the penis would have stayed in the pants?

[maxsolomon]

10. how many more votes for gore

if americans weren't uptight puritan prudes who care more about paris hilton's ass than the republic?

[goforit]

127. Yep....Clinton has really sank his boat!!!

He's no leader today that's for sure!!!

And neither is his wife.

[GalleryGod]

161. If Gore Stopped Listening to HIS Daughter's Strategy!

This ties in nicely with Al's endorsement of Dean.

Dean,Bradley, & Gore:wtf: Now THERE'S a Knights of the Roundtable!?

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. ya know, i was skinned alive for making this exct post

about a year and a half ago. i hope ya'll will forgive me if i say
i told ya so.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

170. He's now bad because of Dean??

How silly...

[loudnclear]

65. You folks are sounding like the RWingnuts and Anthrax Coulter

Clinton wasn't perfect but his penis should not have been a big issue. No other President was attacked the way Clinton was and several did much worse with women and men.

Lot's of Dems sat on their asses during election 2000 and I bet several hundred are among us at the DU. The election of 2000 was not Clinton's fault. You can blame a lot of people, but in my opinion, Clinton is not one of them. Even with his penis in the breaking news every evening, the majority of Americans were on his side and recognized the hypocrisy.
But how many of you here voted for Nader or sat home because you were angry about Gore not embracing the big dog? I don't think anyone here failed to vote because of the Monica incident.

We are becoming the very mindless, propagandized, sheeple we say we abhor.

[lastliberalintexas]

79. WHY did many Dems sit out 2000?

Could it have anything whatsoever to do with the Clinton centrist DLC strategy? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the base was screwed for almost 8 solid years while Clinton helped the likes of From and Reed rise to prominence? Could it be that Clinton led the way and showed other Dem "leaders" how to become the roll over party we are today? Without Clinton's DLC policies, would Nader have been able to attract the voters he did?

There are plenty of things to blame Clinton for, and they don't have a darn thing to do with his sex life.

But then, I've never cared for the man, so I've never really understood the attraction.

[loudnclear]

102. It was those same "centrist" policies that got him elected in the first

place. Nothing changed about Clinton policies in the 2000 elelction.

[loudnclear]

105. Until we face the facts that most of America is center-left we are doomed

As for welfare reform, there are many stories from women and men who have improved their lives because of welfare reform. And there are many who have not been able to rise above their own demons. Welfare reform was to be coupled with "back-to-work" and other work programs to help welfare families join the workforce...day care was included in this. The main problem was that corporate America and the Feds and the Congress reniged on the follow-up that was to have taken place and with Bush the Republicans in office the clock has turned backwards on welfare, affirmative action, and even small business.

Under Clinton's two terms the middled-class was expanded at greater rates than ever before. It wasn't just stocks...it included good-paying jobs. Then along came Greenspan at the behest of the elites who didn't like the fact that so many "undeserving" people were moving into the middle-class and upper-class and wham...those nasty little rate increases (with no inflation in sight) sent the market spiraling down and the rest is history. All i know is that when Clinton was in office, every able bodied man in my family was employed in a decent paying job. Since Bush has been in office, my own family has suffered 30% unemployment.

NAFTA could work for the US if only it would be implemented as intended. Problem is our very own Congress (led by a bunch of bigots) is not interested in seeing third-world countries or no western countries improve their standard of living. We like to keep slave labor abroad as well as home...hence Bush's immigration policies are designed to help big business more than anything else.

Clinton attempted health care reform and we all stood by and never raised our voices against the smearing and trashing of Hillary's efforts, allowing the right wingnuts to clamour "unfair" without even knowing what the proposals were and in many cases without even allowing the proposals to be drawn up. Yet, Cheney's energy panel is allowed to go full steam ahead, in secrecy and in the interst of corporations and not the American public.

Was Clinton perfect? No. But are you all now saying that you would rather have had Bush Sr. than Bill Clinton?

Well, shut my mouth!!!

The freepers must be having a field day with this. If it wasn't a freeper who started the post.

[CivilRightsNow]

154. Well.. I must disagree.

"Under Clinton's two terms the middled-class was expanded at greater rates than ever before. It wasn't just stocks...it included good-paying jobs. Then along came Greenspan at the behest of the elites who didn't like the fact that so many "undeserving" people were moving into the middle-class and upper-class and wham...those nasty little rate increases (with no inflation in sight) sent the market spiraling down and the rest is history. All i know is that when Clinton was in office, every able bodied man in my family was employed in a decent paying job. Since Bush has been in office, my own family has suffered 30% unemployment."


While Bush is not scotfree and I suffered two years of unemployment under him, we must recognize that Clinton also had his hand in the unemployment that we experienced during the first 2 years of Bush's presidency. Technology and the bursting unmananged bubble had alot to do with the "good paying jobs" that helped inflate the middle class. It was only a matter of time before they came crashing down as the whole dot com craze was ridiculously mismanaged on a federal level. This continuing inability to get us to a recovery point is owned by Bush alone.. but some of the blame, IMHO does lie with the previous administration.

I used to be one of Bill's largest cheerleaders. I dont give a shit if he got a blowjob. When you are the president of the united states of america you should be able to get as many blow jobs as you want. What I do care about is the man pushing this party to the right and enabling a man that has been republican for far more of his life then democratic to take steps to lead our party. I also do not appreciate his stances on Globalization.. the WTO, NAFTA, etc.

As I took the time to research Clinton, I was in HS and college during his presidency, it made me understand how truly destructive he was to the two party system and to the thought that democrats were for civil liberties and the people. Not to mention his foreign policy!

[Nlighten1]

143. I disagree.

What got Clinton elected was his MOJO.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

169. 100% Correct

When people start realizing it was the Clinton the Person and not Clinton the Ideas that won those elections, maybe we'll get some true liberal leadership again. He didn't win because he was a centrist. He won because he was Bill Clinton - an extremely likable man that many people could relate to.

Same reason, unfortunately, that Bush 43 has high approval ratings, as indicated by recent polls that suggest most Americans think Democrats can do a better job.

[NicRic]

145. KICK !!!

.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

171. Yes - we've got our own "sheeple"

n/t

[redqueen]

177. And the jury's still out on which group that term applies to.

:)

[alwynsw]

200. It wasn't his penis or what he did with it

It was his obfuscating about it. I don't care where anyone puts his penis. It's not my business, but when you're a public figure and you get called out on it, either state that it's a personal matter and ignore the press or tell the truth. Either way, be done with it and face the consequences.

[beaconess]

88. How many more votes for Gore if

1. Gore had not tried to pretend he didn't know Bill Clinton
2. Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him in Florida?
3. Gore had behaved as if he believed in something, anything?
4. Gore hadn't allowed the media pundits to tell him each morning who and what he was?
5. Gore hadn't pulled out money and support in key states such as Ohio at the last minute?
6. Gore had won his own home state?

That's just for starters, but it is crazy to blame Clinton for Gore's failure to become president. Had he been on the ticket, Clinton would have won a third term in a walk, so no one can reasonably argue that the electorate was so angry with Clinton that they refused to vote for Gore.

Clinton didn't lose the election for Gore. Gore lost because he allowed the election get close enough for Bush to steal.

[The Screaming Icon]

12. Kiss my Asscroft...

(Great name, by the way...)

I may be biased because I am a Clark supporter (though I like Dean too), but it sounds to me like there's already a lot of sour grapes on this thread. Where is this coming from? Just because Clinton doesn't worship Dean we're supposed to turn our back on his legacy? Hell, this thread sounds like a Freeper decoy.

But yes, I am a Saints fan too, so I sense your frustration all around.

[MadHound]

28. Legacy?! Hah, that's a laugh

Let's see, the legacy of NAFTA, welfare "reform", an increasing, oppressive War on Drugs, allowing greater media monopolization, inventing the unconstitutional concept of soft money, is this the legacy you're talking about? Or is it the waffling on gays in the military, or backing down on implementing a very weak universal health care bill? Oh, oh, I get it! Eight years of peace and prosperity! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! Except Clinton's peace was periodically interupted by war and war like acts, such as the bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory. Or Kosovo. Or the thrice weekly bombing of Iraq.

And this prosperity part, well that was great if you were in the stock market, but if you were an ordinary stiff you were faced with the stark reality of an economy where the gap between the rich and the rest of us grew to a record setting chasm, whilst the buying power of the ordinary wage earner continued to plumb record depths. And quite frankly the catalyst for this economic "boom" was the high tech bubble, and that would have happened whether or not Clinton was at the helm. Clinton was just fortunate enough to be able to ride it. And I would like you to notice that Clinton managed to burst this bubble, what with his "free" trade agreements and his backing of expanded use of the H1-B visa program. Now all of those well paying high tech jobs are either being performed overseas, or are being filled here in the US by foreign workers who get paid much less.

I never faulted Clinton for his dalliances, and I never will. It really was a non-issue to me, being as that the majority of Presidents have probably gotten schtupped on the side once in the White House. No, what I fault him for is that once in office he forgot that he was elected as a Democratic President, not a 'Pug. Instead of fighting for the little guy, the working stiff, Clinton went to bat for the big corporations. That is what I will remember about Clinton.

[redqueen]

40. Excellent post!

Sums up most of my complaints about the 'big dog'.

I keep meaning to check... I think the 'free speech zones' started after the OK bombing. Wish he'd have stopped that, if indeed it did start then.

[lastliberalintexas]

42. Bravo!

My dislike of Clinton goes back many years. While I defended him from an unconstitutional impeachment, I was never very happy with his policies. After the insurance lobby went after him re: healthcare, he became the prototype for the roll over Dems we have today!

And people seem to conveniently forget that we lost the Congress during his watch, after 40 years of dominating that body. While I don't blame him solely for losing Congress (gerrymandered redistricting was at least partly to blame), he and his cronies were the primary reason that our base became disillusioned and stopped voting, thereby allowing the repubs' energized base to swing elections.

Nothing to do with his supposed dislike of Dean at all. Which, btw, I don't think he actually dislikes Dean, just likes Clark better. One more reason for me to be wary of Clark, too.

[Mairead]

45. Terrific post, MH -- you nailed it!

I've often thought that the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' and the Monica/impeachment theatrics were nothing more than panem et circenses to distract us from the way our rulers were conspiring to push us toward The Pit.

[redqueen]

52. If you're right about the VRWC / ML-Impeachment circus...

ya gotta admit it worked like a charm. And now it's working for the shrub too, imagine that!

[Mairead]

56. yeah, isn't that amazing!

And we still have the same claque saying 'go back to sleep. nothing to see here. it's all your imagination.'

Will we ever wise up and take it to the ballot box or the streets, do you think?

[redqueen]

81. Yes, certainly

However, I used to think Nader was wrong, and that we'd wake up sooner rather than later.

Nowadays I'm more inclined to think that the malaise caused by the greed infecting some people bites them in their own asses before they'll snap out of it. And for that, we may be waiting a very long time. :(

[Tinoire]

66. I don't even know why I bothered posting. Should have just read further &

said ditto. Excellent post and my feelings exactly. And I voted for the guy twice.

I hope to hell Dean or Kucinich wins even though there's very little Liberal about Dean in my book but I can't stomach the DLC anymore. Their agenda is not mine- I'm only sorry it took me so long to notice.

[MadHound]

72. Nooooo, don't say ditto!!!

Sorry, just the anti-Rush in me;) Seriously, thanks for the kind words, you and everybody else. Just calling 'em like I see 'em.

[CivilRightsNow]

157. :)

I, too, should have waited to post. You said what I was trying to get out way better then my sleep addled mind could.

Im surprised this hasnt gotten us all strung up and moved out of here. Clinton is a hero round these neoliberal parts.

[CWebster]

68. Well said

exceptionally well said.

[ArkDem]

90. The Clinton legacy

during Clinton's administration, the Democrats lost:
- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures
In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.
While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.
In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.

[redqueen]

95. no Dem pres since the 19th century suffered such electoral disintegration

Is that a fact?

Wow... I knew it was bad... but I never knew HOW bad.

And to think... I was just dismissed after bemoaning the DLC's 'logic' of how to conduct our business with the factoid that it's 'normal' for the party not in the WH to lose seats.

I guess that blows that 'argument' out of the water.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

174. We'll lose even more seats/ofices if Dean gets in....

n/t

[OneTwentyoNine]

148. So you could now own multiple radio stations.....

Did those changes in law restrict or FORBID Democrats from owning a 1,000 radio stations? Maybe Clinton actually thought that some Dems had enough upstairs to actually use this new law to acquire MORE stations to get OUR word out.

Nah,we sat around,on our asses...didn't want to be like Rush Limbaugh. Meanwhile the Repigs bought everything in sight.

David

[MadHound]

150. You're right, the '96 Telecom Act didn't restrict Dem monopolies.

And that's the whole point! It didn't restrict ANY monopolies, in fact it encouraged them. Doesn't matter whether or not the monopolist is a Dem or a 'Pug, either way a monopoly restricts our variety of viewpoints. Simply by it's overarching control, a monopoly makes it extremely unlikely for any small time owner to make a living with a radio station. A monopoly, by it's very definition restricts broadcast speech.

No, the best way to handle any industry is to encourage competition, the is basic economics. Instead Clinton further encouraged the monopolization of the airwaves, you know, the PUBLIC airwaves. Sad to say, those airwaves are now public in name only.

[minkyboodle]

151. Great Post

I couldn't agree more MadHound.
Scott

[GalleryGod]

164. C-

:nopity:

[GalleryGod]

163. C+ at Best.

And I grade this stuff for my living.:argh:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

173. This party has really split apart... What's happened to it? The outsiders

have taken it over.

[lastliberalintexas]

184. So I'm now an "outsider"?

Never mind the fact that I've worked on Democratic political campaigns for 20 years- from local races to presidential. Never mind the fact that I interned for 2 Dem Congressmen. Never mind the fact that I've been active with my county Dem clubs (in 3 different counties in which I've lived). Never mind the fact that I am currently the president of my county's Dem club.

I'm an outsider taking the party over simply because I don't like Bill Clinton? Amazing.

For what it's worth, I don't like Clinton because of the damage that he has wrought on MY Party- the Democratic party. Bill Clinton is not Satan, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be lionized either.

[redqueen]

186. Interesting

The idea here is that the split in our party is due to 'outsiders'.

I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate in judging being disapproving of Clinton as the sole criterion for admission into that club, but it may be.

What I find more interesting is the idea that it's the 'outsiders' who are causing the split.

Sorry, but I was under the impression that the Democratic party had moved right. I guess I was horribly mistaken, and it's actually where it's always been. It's just us 'outsiders' coming into it and making it seem more right wing than before.

[Tinoire]

190. Naw, you're not the outsider

The wailing, gnashing of teeth and all the hand-wringing is coming from the usurpers we are throwing out as we re-take our party.
It's the people's party- not the DLC's and certainly not Clinton's.

The pandering to corporations is "over there" and we're going to make sure they understand that.

[Cascadian]

141. No. He is being as complacent and timid as many other Democrats

He and people like Hillary, Daschle, Pelosi, McAulliffe should be greatly ashamed of themselves for not making a stand. And why on earth has there not been a call for impeachment. The word is already out that he lied!!!! And we are getting nothing. I wished Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd would call for Bush's impeachment.


John

[formernaderite]

149. By 1994...

I started having some doubts...but continued to defend him until the end. He had the support to enact some real changes until the Republicans took over in 94. All that DLC third way crap shifted the publics notion of "what" was truly important. No wonder Gingrich could bullet point a contract with America.
Gore's choice of Lieberman was perhaps less a choice than payback to the DLC. Sorry, but in 2000 I never bought into Gore's populist rant with Lieberman at his side.
Hillary has voted one way, and ranted the other. Actions speak louder than placating words.
I suspect the Clark candidacy to be a direct result of Clinton deciding Dean was much to independant to tow the line. Frankly, I couldn't care less anymore what the Clintons say or do and I'm done caring. I want a real democrat back in the White House. We need an ideological shift to occurr.

[Cascadian]

188. Tom Daschle has done what Hillary Clinton has done.

He will go through a big attack on Bush and the Repubs through speaking before the Senate and then do an equally astonishing 180 turn and vote along with the Republicans. Hey, Tom. Actions speak louder than words!


John

[brainshrub]

Agree 100% (nt)

[Melodybe]

23. Clinton never said he didn't like Dean!

Clinton said that he will endorse the nominee and that is what I expect him to do.

[brainshrub]

2. Agree 100% (nt)

[The Screaming Icon]

4. Oh. come on...

You can't possibly be serious! Clinton is not the head of the Democratic Party. He should be, but the Democrats a)stabbed him in the back, and b) the party is so overrun with egos right now that it really has no leadership. If you doubt that, witness all of the 7 candidates tearing each other down.

You sound to me like someone who is just bitter that Clinton hasn't thrown all of his support to Dean a la Michael Moore to Ralph Nader back in 2000.Is that enough of a reason to hate Clinton after all he did for you and for us?

Enjoy your apparently thin-skinned and fairweather friends.

[trumad]

9. Weeeeee lets bash Clinton

just like the repukes are doing this week.... WEEEEEEEEE!!!

[OneTwentyoNine]

67. Yep,Rush and the RW media aren't enough...now on DU eom..

...

[INTELBYTES]

112. If he is so defensible, why don't you make your point.

I agree he has ruined the party, and excuse the tin-foil hat, but I'm not to sure the conspiracy that hillary is trying to thwart a Dem from winning in 2004 so she can run in 2008 isn't true.

[ariellyn]

122. What? You have got to be kidding about this...

No proof exists about this whatsoever. It's just part of the brainwashing the CONs have tried to do to increase the hate for Hillary because THEY are afraid she'll win in '08. Looks like they got to you.

[Claire Beth]

11. agree

Our anger should not be directed at Clinton. Many factors play into our current situation. Not to mention Bush wasn't TRULY elected.

[Claire Beth]

5. well

A lot of controversy follows the Clintons. At this point, it might do more HARM than help for Bill Clinton to endorse ANYONE. They know this.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. yes

8 years of prosperity, relative peace, taxation on the rich was made more fair, an attempt at universal healthcare, signing the medical leave act, he vetoed the late term abortion ban, Americorps, ect. Yeah, he really was an evil nazi.:eyes:

[Lindacooks]

34. Exactly

The Repukes are going to come out with enough dirt on every single Democrat alive - we don't need to be dissing our own.

Get over it. Clinton was a million times better than chimpy, and the state of the entire world, then and now, is proof.

[Demobrat]

7. I'm starting to feel that way too.

The RW attacks on his personal life when all else failed were and still are dispicable. But this supporting of the military industrial complex candidate rather than an actual Democrat makes me question his motives.

[hang a left]

37. Uh huh

"But this supporting of the military industrial complex candidate rather than an actual Democrat makes me question his motives."

Also let us not forget his call in during Larry King's interview with Bob Dole. And what the hell is he doing as a Bilderberger, along with Kissinger, and Kenneth Lay?

It reminds me of a saying I recently read; "If you want to win the fight, you have to control both sides." Just some food for thought. Wolves in sheeps clothing is another saying that comes to mind.

I am a liberal's liberal. I question sheep's motives?

[Dookus]

8. well....

in general, former presidents traditionally don't attack current presidents. It's an old tradition, and probably a good one.

[skjpm]

19. Did I say he was an evil Nazi?

It's interesting how quickly words get changed here. I think he did a lot for this country as President. But I think that he has the low, slick character that the Right said he did. And I think that the protocol of not criticizing the current President can be thrown out when innocent lives are at stake.

And I'm not disappointed he doesn't support Dean. I am angry that he doesn't support a lifelong Democrat--what's wrong with lifting up Edwards or Kerry as the anti-Dean, if that's what he feels we need? Both of them are just as stong and as experienced as Clark, and they have given their lives to the party of which he is, yes, the nominal head.

[Dookus]

27. You responded to me, but I never said anything about nazis.

[Mairead]

54. "It's an old tradition, and probably a good one."

Why do you think it's a good one?

To me that idea only makes sense if we assume our rulers are on one side and we're on the other. Then they naturally want to not rock each other's boats -- they have a common interest in not getting us upset.

Sort of like what happened during Coup2K, when the corporate media was working hard to keep us quiet by pretending that nothing was wrong and that there really wasn't a coup taking place. Instead of doing what we naively suppose to be their Constitutional duty by keeping us informed, they were doing the bidding of the ruling class--their owners--to keep us out of the streets. 'Everything's fine, pay no attention to the alarmists who are shouting "Coup! Coup!", go back to sleep'

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

172. Great point

And there's a reason for it. No one would want to inflict the same pain on someone else that they once had to endure. This ain't a pretty job, that's for sure.

[RememberTheCoup]

13. Clinton doesn't have a candidate...

...so I don't know what you're talking about. He said from the start that he wouldn't endorse anyone in the primary. One the one hand, you think the party should move past him, and on the other, you lament that he's not endorsing your candidate. You're like the restaurant patron who complains that the food is inedible and the portions are much too small.

[TeeYiYi]

22. I think he does . . .

Don't you remember his "Clark is a Star" comment?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=303777#306906

TYY

[Cocoa]

14. your former idealized view was probably a mistake

and you may be overreacting in the other direction now.

[TheBlob]

15. I'm in a similiar situation

but I'm not ready to give up on Clinton yet.
I defended him strongly for 8 years.
I too am frustrated that he isn't defending himself or the Democratic party right now.

But in the world of politics, timing is everything.
He has his book coming out this Fall.
This to me is his last chance.
Last chance to speak up and defend his administration and it's policies before the November election.
Last chance to set the record straight against all the Bush bullshit that has been thrown at him.
Last chance to tell the American people the truth about Bush and the GOP.

He may surprise us all and take the gloves off at the Democratic Convention. But this Fall is his last chance for me.

[Military Brat]

16. I totally disagree, and I am disappointed you feel this way

Clinton did a lot of work behind the scenes while he was President to make us stronger. He was constantly swimming against a right wing tide.

Now he is working in the background again. Don't judge him because he isn't producing knee-jerk reactions. When it comes time for him to speak, he will do so, and eloquently.

As for "preening" a candidate, I presume you mean Clark, and I think the correct term is "grooming." That is Clinton's choice, if in fact that is what he is doing. They are both from Arkansas, and perhaps politically speaking Clinton thinks Clark is the best choice. Or maybe he will endorse Dean. In the meantime, please try not to drive any more wedges into the Democratic party.

The American Prospect had a great article on Clinton a couple months ago. The man is not, by any means, passive when it comes to bush.

[Kanary]

20. And *I'm* disappointed that you don't remember the cuts he made!

Whether people die at the hands of a Republican or a Democrat, they are just as dead.

You will find more people willing to make the effort to vote, when you are care about their concerns.

Kanary

[Tim4319]

17. I am going to play devils advocate.

I know Bill Clinton isn't the best person but, I can understand why Clinton is walking on eggshells. Because, speaking from past experience, the minute he opens his mouth to say something, the Republicans will immediately put the word out that Clinton is trying to outshine the presidential candidates or, he is trying to take all of the attention away from the protential nominees. They already blame him for everything that is wrong in the world today. But, I do not totally blame him for not saying too much.

With that being said, he is still a key figure in the Demacratic Party and carries a lot of weight. I know the minute he lets known who he is supporting, that candidate will immediately become the front runner to represent the Demacratic Party.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi Tim4319!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kanary]

18. Clinton pushed through cuts that hurt poor people

While the cheerleading for him continues, the few times it's brought up that he hurt many people, and there were probably many deaths from his cuts, there is hardly a peep out of anyone here for that. I'm very upset that hardly anyone even *knows* about the cuts he put through. Concern for poor people sure doesn't show itself very strongly here.

Kanary

[redqueen]

47. He benefits still from the demonization of politics

People treat it like a team sport. He's on 'our side' so we must support him! Put your blinders on and salute, damn you! He's better than the evil demons on the other side, right? So shut up and vote! If you don't vote for the less evil demon, then you're helping the reaaaally evil demons!

Taking into consideration the fact that most Dems are now as sold out as their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the fact that incumbents are re-elected something in the neighborhood of 90% of the time (or better, in the House it's more like 98%), you're guaranteed a spot at the trough, and the quiverring masses just keep on sending you back.

Nice setup, eh?

[Kanary]

62. And that's why votes are lost

I think you've laid it out very clearly why a lot of people don't vote.

I keep reading here on this forum about how poor people don't vote because they're
Uneducated
Self-destructive
Alcoholic, stooopid and worse....

Yet, why would they bother, when there is hardly any candidate hearing them, and if they vote for who is available, then the cuts come anyway. Maybe poor folk have enough smarts to not be willing to put on the blinders and salute? I think you got it exactly right.

Yet, along will come another post about getting out there and registering more people to vote. sigh...

Is there any point in trying to get the point across?

Kanary, feeling totally hopeles

[redqueen]

82. Indeed they are

I'm with you, those that don't vote out of laziness aside - the rest of them see clearly it makes little difference.

I think there's a point. I think eventually enough people will 'get it' and stop legitimizing and supporting and buying into a system that is so corrupted and betrays them so often -- hopefully we're close to that 'critical mass' now!

Only time will tell...

But don't feel hopeless! That's letting the terra-ists win! ;)

[lyonn]

73. Clinton helped police departments across the country

Police officers pay was raised and more officers hired after Clinton got in office. Consequently we had a lowering of crime during his era. Bush has cut that policy - when we need them more than ever.

[CivilRightsNow]

160. He also helped incarcerate 1 million more people during his terms!

His Crime Bill of 1996 gave 8 billion to building new prisons and no increases to speak of in rehabilitation and prevention programs, just some reshuffling. He extended the death penalty to a whole range of offenses that were not previously included!

Violent crime continued to increase nationally during his presidency!

Maybe you had a lowering of crime in your area!

Also, in 1996 he signed and supported the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act. (Can you say Alien Sedition and McCarran- Walter?)

During his first term he passed legislation that cut funds for state resource centers that supplied lawyers to indigent prisoners.

In 96 he signed legislation that made it virtually impossible for judges to put prison systems under masters to make sure that horrible prison conditions were improved.

He also signed a statue that withheld federal funds from being used for legal services if lawyers used those funds to handle class action law suits.(Civil Rights, corporate.. all the little people law suits)

[Kanary]

166. Ummm, how does that help the poor who were cut off??

They had more police to keep 'em in line?

Kanary, who wishes more "progressives" had some heart.

[gate of the sun]

125. this was one of my BIG beefs with him when

he was president. I agree with you. People are allways cheering him on like he was mister wonderful but the cuts he put through with the change in welfare and Nafta have hurt a huge amount of people.

[Kanary]

165. Thanks for seeing the other side of the issue!

It's really hurtful to continually see the dismissal of those who went through a lot of pain because of his policies.

Chopped liver I'm not.

Thanks for your post!

Kanary

[CivilRightsNow]

168. He did indeed.. and much more

Here is some Clinton trivia for the defenders.

Who were Clinton's key appointments to the Treasury and Commerce Departments?
A. Wealthy corporate Lawyers. Ron Brown
Secretary of Defense? Director of CIA? National Security Advisor?
A. The same cold war players

Clinton appointed more people of color then his Rethug predecessors. But who were these people? Ron Brown- wealthy Lawyer
Joycelyn Elders- asked to resign after saying masterbation was a proper subject in sex ed.
Lani Guinier- Never made it out of the starting gate at the Civil Rights and Justice Department because she had strong ideas on voter representation and racial equality.

What about his Supreme Court appointments?
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Both defended the constitutionality of capital punishment and upheald restrictions on habeus corpus. Both voted against gay rights (ie the st. patrick's day parade decision.)

As for the lower federal court appointments, in 1996 the Fordham Law Review published a study that noted his liberal appointments made liberal decisions in less then half of their cases.

He dropped any appointment that seemed even the least controversial like a hot potato.

In 1992 while he was campaigning for Presidency he flew back down to Arkansas to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded man. (And some on here bash Bush constantly about a similar situation?)

He and Janet Reno approved the attack on Waco killing atleast 86 people.


He enthusiastically signed legislation to remove welfare benefits
from legal and illegal immigrants.


In 1996 he signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppurtunity Reconcilliation act of 1996. Peter Edelman resigned over this one and later wrote: "His goal was reelection at all costs... His political approach was not to calculate the rists but to take no risks at all... His penchant for elevating shadow over substance has hurt poor children." This law would save 50 billion over 5 years. Billions less then the plans that Clinton approved for a new generation of fighter planes)

Then he brought Greenspan back on.

With that, he ditched his 5 billion dollar proposal to spend more on schools that he had used as a major campaign platform less then a year earlier.

Also: From the Boston Globe, May 22, 1997: " After White House intervention, the Senate yesterday... rejected a proposal... to extend health insurance to the nations 10.5 million uninsured children... Seven lawmakers switched their votes... after senior White House officials... called and said the amendment would imperil the delicate budget agreement."

The number of people without health insurance went to 40 million during his presidency, increasing 33 precent in the 90s.

Under Reagan the govt reduced the number of housing units getting subsidies from 400,000 to 40,000- Clinton's admin ended the program completely.

Tell me all you want about how Im doing the freeper's work for them, but the fact is.. these things happened. This is how far to the right our last DEMOCRATIC president went. While I can understand why in alot of cases and considering the climate of our country... I feel that it was a mistake that we may never recover from.

We cannot vote for a right leaning Democrat. Too much is at stake. Do not let Clinton's presidency become the left leaning one that Democrats will be judged upon and compared to. Do not vote for a war monger, be them chicken hawk or seasoned general. The time has come to not only take our country back... but we must take our party back, we cannot do the former without the latter.

[displacedtexan]

21. Newsflash: Clinton's not running against W.

Nor is he the head of the party. say 'hello' to your old friends.

[madrchsod]

26. he`s not???

dam,where have i been? i could have sworn that someone said it`s all his fault.

[ramapo]

24. Me too...

I've felt this way for quite awhile. I feel he didn't live up to his potential and squandered away an awful lot with his shennanigans.

He screwed up health care reform, boosted globalization without putting in any safeguards, and signed telecomm deregulation which has given us Clear Channel, et al.

He (and his Mr. Ecology VP) backed away from higher CAFE standards and screwed up that incinerator issue in Ohio.

He showed us how to beat the GOP, inspiring much hatred on their part. On the other hand he gave them so much to work with.

Clinton did plenty of good and I'd take him back in a heartbeat over the current * but all in all he was a disappointment.

[madrchsod]

25. oh no

"lets bring up clinton and slap him around threads" funny, i thought he wasn`t the president now ,maybe i am wrong.

[Bandit]

29. Why do you assume he is "Head of Democratic Party"?

Bill Clinton is not running for anything and is a private citizen. He is not head of the Democratic party any longer. Granted he was for eight straight years and we miss his leadership but he is no longer the head of the party. The two most likely to be considered head of the Party, Dean and Clark are both speaking out quite a bit. Never seizes to amaze me the contortions people will go through to find a way to hate Bill Clinton.

[citizen snips]

30. So what...

if Clinton does not support Dean. Bill Clinton is a centrist meaning he is more inclined to support Clark.

[beaconess]

91. Hence the Clinton-bashing post

You're either for Dean or you're a horrible person.

[citizen snips]

117. Nope.

Your statement just shows how horribly biased you are.

[NavajoRug]

31. By the time Clinton left office, I had become convinced . . .

. . . that he was really nothing more than a slick politician with some very serious psychiatric pathologies at work inside him.

To this day, what bothers me more than anything else is that my Republican acquaintances were right about him all along.

This country would have been better off if he had lost in 1992.

[leetrisck]

35. Had Clinton not won, your Dynasty

would now be complete - the present dictatorship.

[NavajoRug]

108. Had Clinton not won . . .

. . . a Democrat would probably have won in 1996. No way in hell Dan Quayle would have been president of the United States.

And Congress would still be controlled by Democrats today, too.

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. or at least stepped down after impeachment so we'd be working

on getting Gore re=elected .

[NavajoRug]

109. Excellent point . . .

. . .

[shrike]

155. You honestly think Gore would have been elected in 2000

if Clinton had stepped down? I don't. The R's would have had even more ammunition in their arsenal.

[ButterflyBlood]

61. oh come on

4 more years of Bush I and possibly someone like Newt Gingrich or Dan Quayle in the White House in 1996 would make this country better?

[OneTwentyoNine]

64. Kidding RIGHT?!?!,we'd now be on the 23th year of Republican rule...

Were you asleep during the Reagan/Bush years?? Better off without Clinton in 92? Holy shit,workers would STILL be getting about $3.65 minimum wage per hour under Republican rule. The deficit would probably be about 2 FUCKING trillion.

Better off?!?! No matter how deep your hate runs for Clinton I personally would NOT have been better off with Bush or some other PNAC thug running this country.

SOAB....What site is this?

David

[lastliberalintexas]

76. Not necessarily

WE LOST CONGRESS DUE IN LARGE PART TO BILL CLINTON'S ALIENATION OF THE BASE.

If Bush I had been re-elected in 92, we'd probably still have Congress today, which is actually more important than the presidency when it comes to actual policy formation. The presidency can be used wonderfully as a bully pulpit, but Clinton didn't even do that.

We had Clinton as president. So what? When we lost the Senate, we lost our chance to make REAL and LASTING changes, since we no longer controlled appointments to the federal bench. Clinton was in office, but Hatch and his cronies sat on appointments until they had a repub. And Clinton and the majority of Dems were silent on this and REAL ISSUES because we were too darn busy defending the man for his personal failings.

You are correct- those personal failings never should have gotten the attention they did. But the man BY GOD KNEW he was being investigated by the RW, and still couldn't control himself! He LET it become the issue that it did.

For those who forget, we got some progressive taxation and legislation through Congress (the ADA and Clean Air amendments, anyone?) despite the fact that Bush I was president. HOWEVER, that legislation is now being emascualted by the RWers on the bench!

We're lost for a generation because of the federal judiciary, and some of you people don't even seem to realize it. Or realize that much of that is Clinton's fault.

[Hep]

33. DOMA left me disenfranchized in 1996. Voted *ugh* Libertarian

n/t

[Demeter]

36. IT's Interesting How Little Difference It Makes

whether you like Clinton or not. Unless you are in frequent and meaningful contact with a person, you are unlikely to be reacting to anything other than 5th-hand information from the unliberal media and the GOP spin-dry cycle. Garbage in-garbage out.

And with a psychopath like our current commander in chief, even daily contact wouldn't give a very clear picture of the real events.

Try to stick to raw data, not spin. It's healthier and better for you.

[CivilRightsNow]

183. Here is some raw data for you

During his presidency America spent atleast 250 billion a year to maintain the Military even though the cold war was over and ther was really no need for us to be prepared to fight two regional wars. Colin Powell said during that time (1991) "I'm running out of demons. Im running out of villians. I'm down to Castro and Kim II Sung."

Infact, in 1994 Clinton decided that the 1+ trillion dollars that his secretary of defence, Les Aspin, had reccomended over the next 5 years was not enough and he held a Rose Garden ceremony on Dec 1st to announce that he was going to seek a 25 billion dollar increase over the next 6 years. By the end of his presidency it was about 300 billion a year.

Even though we had just dealt with trying to clean up the arms we had sold Iraq with the Gulf War Clinton continued to supply arms to many nations. He approved the sale of F-15s to Saudi and F-16s to Taiwan.

Baltimore Sun (May 30, 1994): "Next year, for the first time, the United States will produce more combat planes for foreign airforces than for the Pentagon, high lighting America's replacement of the Soviet Union as the world's main arms supplier. Encouraged by the Clinton Administration, the defense industry last year had its best export year ever, having sold 32 billion worth of weapons overseas, more than twice the 1992 total of 15 billion."

In 99 he lifted the ban on advanced weapons to Latin America.

He dropped bombs on Baghdad 6 months into his presidency in retailiation for BUSH I based on information from the friggin Kuwaiti police. The Kuwaiti police? Come on now! I bet they gave him the intelligence on the "Intelligence Headquarters" that they bombed which was really a suburban neighborhood. They used Article 51 of the UN Charter for this one.. one of many acts of preemption based on a twisted interpretation of a UN Charter.

1993, Somalia.. enough said.

The US under Clinton insisited that the UN force in Rwanda be cut back to a skeleton crew in 94, a force that could have potentially saved tens of thousands of people. Instead, over a million Rwandians died. Infact, Clinton was one of the most outspoken proponents of not getting involved to stop the genocide. But Bosnians.. we intervened there . Guess Clinton had no use for the Africans. Just like what Bush is doing now.

He pursued business as usual with Suharto and his genocidal regime, selling them weapons and even throwing his weight around to help defeat the proposal in the Senate to stop selling those weapons. We even sold them Broncos and Bell helicopters that were used to level villages. Just like the Sikorski's that we sold Turkey to destroy the Kurdish villages.

During the last year of Clinton's presidency we stopped supporting Sudharto because of the mass amount of resistance and press... and guess what Sudharto collapsed, unable to continue its reign of terror without our help.

Clinton's Administration refused to sign the UN Proposal banning land mines and cluster bombs. He also opposed the international war crimes court in 1999.

Clinton's administration extended the blockage of cuba, denying them food or medicine. As well as the sanctions on Iraq.

He bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in retailiation for the embassy bombings, with no proof. Destroying the supply of medicine for thousands of people in Sudan.

Sources: A great deal of Howard Zinn as well as pretty easy to find information readily available with simple internet searches.

[Catfish]

38. I save my dislike for Republicans,

and there's never a paucity of targets. Those in our own party might be more convenient to criticize but the true damage to our country, our values, and our way of life comes from Republicans. I think they are more worthy of my scrutiny and dislike.

I don't expect perfection in politicians I support, I guess I like them flawed. Since I've got my own issues, maybe I can relate to them more. I'm grateful to Bill and Hillary Clinton for their years of service to this country even though I might not agree with them on all issues. Besides, Bill Clinton isn't running for anything, let him live his life and express his opinions in a way that suits him. Just as we all do.

[Ferretherder]

119. Very, VERY well said, Catfish....

...Couldn't agree more!

[VOX]

124. All right, Catfish! Democrats lack the discipline to stick together...

Which is, unfortunately, one of the few things the Republicans do well -- stick together. (That, and start wars, feed the rich, etc.)

:toast:

[Kanary]

167. You're so right.

If those danged poor folks on the street as a result of his policies just had more discipline to grin and bear it and "stick together", the party would be ever so much better.

Of course, they'd still be ignored by that better party, but...


Kanary

[Mairead]

129. "the true damage comes from Republicans"

And the most harmful are the ones wearing donkey suits, like the Clintons.

[CivilRightsNow]

185. Amen!

n/t

[Kanary]

131. You can say that, since he and his policies didn't hurt you personally.

Of course, he did damage to the party, but...

Kanary

[Sophree]

39. Clinton is giving advice

to all the candidates, in a very fair and even-handed manner. Even Dean.

If his preference is indeed Clark, we might want to take notice, since the advice would be from the most masterful politician of our time. Same thing goes, if he is indeed leaning away from Dean.

[jonnyblitz]

41. He scammed us into thinking he was for the little guy.

I have read so much since he left office that cited all the right wing crap he pulled off. I think I didn't dwell on it too much at the time because I found his enemies a bazillion times more repugnant.

One of the most disgusting things he did was place ads on right wing christian radio for his 2nd election campaign touting his support for Defense of Marriage Act to prove his bonifieds as a moral leader worthy of their consideration while at the same time counting on gay support for his re-election. The ad got pulled when he got called on it. :puke:

[YNGW]

43. In retrospect...

...Clinton should have resigned, putting Gore in office, Gore would have run as an incumbent president without the "Clinton baggage" he felt like he needed to avoid in 2000, and he would have won comfortably. Clinton put himself ahead of the country and the party, and he's still trying to run the show from the DLC. I still believe Bill and Hillary want Bush to win in 2004 so she will be set to go in 2008, and they'll trainwreck the Dem nominee's chances for their own political power.

[Catfish]

49. Um, and what did he do

that warranted resignation? He was the object of a right wing conspiracy to deprive us of a President elected twice. He was supposed to resign and give them what they wanted? Do you think they would have stopped there? Gore is not the President of the US because George Bush and his thugs stole an election, not because of any Clinton Baggage. Clinton left office hugely popular, I think if Gore hadn't distanced himself from Clinton, it might have been a smarter move.

[YNGW]

57. I'm just saying...

... in retrospect, we might not be where we are now. Clinton resigning might have saved the party. It's a long term look. Nixon resigned in 1973, the Repugs lose face and the WH for 4 years, but then gain it back for 12. It's a trade-off. Instead, since 1994, we've been losing our shirts, and it's not looking pretty this year. We're on a 10 year slide with seemingly no end in sight.

[Catfish]

60. We just look at the same events differently.

Clinton won in 1996, Gore won in 2000 and I think the Dems would not have lost so much ground in the House and Senate races in 2002 if more of them had seemed not so much like Republican "light". They were scared of Bush and really didn't give voters a reason to vote for them. Nixon resigned because he committed criminal acts, in my opinion. I don't think Clinton did and I think he benefited the party more than hurt it.

[beaconess]

92. Gore didn't lose because Clinton was impeached

Gore lost because he was a horrible candidate.

[YNGW]

97. I didn't say that.

But, since you mentioned it, it sure didn't help matters.

And Gore did run a lousy campaign.

[JanMichael]

46. NAFTA was a fraud. So were the Iraq games.

So was the Wefare "Reform".

Wait, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 sucked ass too.

But I still love him like a lemming should.

[redqueen]

50. "But I still love him like a lemming should."

Well done! You just summed up in a single sentence the one characteristic of the electorate that has done more to destroy politics in this country more than any other. IMO Laziness comes second after this mind-numbing fealty to party rather than active pursual of a good candidate.

As long as they can count on the lemmings, why worry about the Green party? Or progress at all? They can sit back on and collect checks, and we'll just keep telling ourselves it's still better than what the 'other side' would do. And the 'other side' tells themselves the same thing, and round and round we go!

[Kanary]

80. *THAT's* the problem... I flunked Lemming 101

*Now* I get it...

~~gigglesnort~~

Thanks.... so glad to finally hear those who can see this clearly... I really appreciate it!

Kanary

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. I never liked Clinton even though I voted for him

He led the party to the right, instilling in it the mistaken belief that we should become, what amounts to, the moderate wing of the republican party. His "triangulation" was simply a cover for making the party more right wing.

His sex life was of no interest to me, but his pathetic defense of it was cowardly. If he had had any backbone, he would have told the press to piss off and not answered any questions.

Good riddance to him and the DLC.

[rumguy]

53. Say what you will...Clinton made Dems the fiscally responsible party

Why do you think so many polls show that Americans trust the dems with the economy more than the repukes? Answer: Clinton.

[Toot]

55. Yep, I think he's a shyster.

I didn't care about what he and Monica did, but it had a major impact on the 2000 election, IMO, and I'll never forgive him for that.

And if Clinton was so great, why did we lose so many House and Senate seats when he was in office?

[OneTwentyoNine]

74. Gee,ya think 24/7 media whoring could play a part?

Radio,TV,most newsprint...screaming 24/7 that Dems are bad Repugs are GOOD over and over and over. Bending the truth,out and out lieing...hell its a wonder there is a Dem in office ANYWHERE.

50-75% in this country wants their FACTS spoon fed to them. They don't want to take the time to look up and research FACTS. Clinton is long gone,Repukes have run the country for four years and yet 67% or more STILL think SH was responsible for 9/11.

Now just where did they come up with those facts from? Reading and research?

David

[redqueen]

83. Too bad Clinton didn't make good on his campaign promise

to push for / enact legislation akin to the Fairness Doctrine.

Ulterior motives? Naaaaaah... he's 'one of us'!

[physaf]

193. Precisely.

That is exactly my question, too

[demodewd]

58. Bye Willy!

Clinton willfully allowed the Iraqi sanctions and bombings to carry on and who was he kissing up to with that policy? And now we hear soft mumblings from Bill that he thought there were WMDs along with his page 15 support of the invasion. Little minor blips of Clinton's support of Bush Iraq policy that don't manage to get front page news. And that's where the line really is drawn isn't it? Our global military/resource plundering/dollar intimidating interests. You truly want a new set of national policies...alternative energy investment on a big scale..bilateral mideast and global negotiations...a move away from Sharonist Zionist influence...a reexamination of NAFTA,WTO ,GATT principles in the direction of international and national labor rights..you move away from Clinton and Hilary and Lieberman and Kerry and Clark.

[Loonman]

59. Clinton brought the Democrats into the 21st century

Bush wants to bring us back to 1955.

Dean wants to bring us back to 1969.

[SahaleArm]

71. Hmm - should this read how much I hate the Democratic party?

This thread just proves how out of touch this place is. If Clinton were able to run against Bush in 2004 he would win, big. All while getting < 5% of the DU vote.

[Tinoire]

63. These past 18 months my disappointmen in Clinton has grown by leaps/bounds

It took years of reading the news and observing what has happened to our country these last decades. We're so conditioned in this 2-party system to blame everything on the "other" party that we rarely examine our own faults.

Since being at DU, I've evolved from a big time Clinton admirer to an extemely disappointed and disillusioned voter.

NAFTA? GATT? WTO? Welfare reform? 8 years of continuing the war against Iraq with daily bombings and sanctions? The war against Yugoslavia? Plan Columbia? Corporate welfare?

But we barely raised the minimum wage and the number of homeless people went up. Under Clinton. Before Bush (who only made a royal mess out of everything and made things a LOT worse).

I am beyond disgusted. This is what I expected from the "other" guys- not from our own.

I am not leaving the Democratic Party because we still throw bigger crumbs to the people but I want nothing more to do with the DLC, which I consider immoral beyond belief, and I want to see the size of those crumbs before they toss them.

[redqueen]

86. 2-party sys + demonization + gerrymandering = screw what the people need!

All they have to do is make an apperance of doing something, and they're virtually guaranteed another spot at the trough come election time.

Great setup eh?

[Tactical Progressive]

69. You're just looking for an excuse

When exactly was he supposed to come out against Bush? After the media lied to tar him as a vandal and a thief leaving the White House? As their sneering lies and hatred, which they called everybody else's 'Clinton fatigue', were simmering down while they kept one eye open to piss on him if he said anything? After 9-11? The media would have used any opportunity to lynch him right on the rubble of Bush's national security negligence.

I've listened to Clinton a few times and he's been very Presidential in his criticism of Bush, but he has repeatedly pointed out what we're doing wrong in foreign relations and the economy. That's exactly what he should be doing.

I'd like to see him do more after the Democrats have a candidate, but even that may be counterproductive considering how far right the media has become. It could well be sound-bite smears from all the pundits, we'll see. One thing I'm not going to do is start calling him all the right-wing names that you just did. They are undeserved and what's more, I think most Democrats have alot more to answer for not supporting Clinton once it became apparent what he was really up against, than he has to answer to them.

[Loonman]

70. Why should Clinton back the Dems after they stabbed him in the back?

Left him to the wolves.

[Toot]

75. How did the Dems stab him in the back? He made his bed, and laid in it.

[NavajoRug]

110. Stabbed him in the back? You have got to be kidding me . . .

It was Clinton who did the back-stabbing, not the other way around. After the 1994 Election Day debacle, Clinton actually had the fucking nerve to suggest that he was being seen as an unpopular president because the Democrats in Congress forced him to sign a bad budget bill in 1993.

It was at this moment that I -- along with anyone else who remembered this -- recognized him for the untrustworthy opportunist that he was. BILL CLINTON WAS THE ONE WHO EXERTED INFLUENCE ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SUPPORT THAT 1993 BUDGET BILL. Who can forget Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey's pathetic statement in 1993 about how he didn't think it was a good bill, but would vote for it to preserve "party unity" after Clinton begged him to vote for it?

Fucking bastard.

[GemMom]

175. The 1993 Budget Bill was influenced by Hillary

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Clinton Health Care Plan would have increased federal spending by $1.584 trillion over five years. (CBO Analysis, 2/94) Nearly all of this enormous cost would have been paid for with new taxes on working Americans.

[NavajoRug]

187. Your numbers may be correct, but the context is completely wrong.

Hillary's health care plan wasn't part of the 1993 budget bill. It was a separate bill that was never passed by either house of Congress. I'm not sure if it even made it out of committee in either house.

[physaf]

196. As far as the Health care ideas,

I don't think Hillary's plan ever made it as far as getting reviewed by either side of Congress.

[physaf]

195. You are absolutely right

Clinton forced all the budget bills through, and really hurt the little guy in the process, as was stated above.

[Sparkle]

77. Past Presidents should be careful with their criticisms of

present occupants of the WH. Clinton knows this. And as far as Clinton being everything the right said he was then you're nothing but a weak kneed Democrat.

Oh, btw, Clinton says FU too.

[lyonn]

78. Dean is capable

I figure Dean is strong enough to take care of himself. That's why so many of us like him. He does seem to speak what he thinks. I like that too. Too many of the candidates seem to be so obvious in their game playing. Someone earlier said they didn't believe Clinton should enter the election process at this point. No doubt he will endorse who ever is nominated. If you recall, Clinton had to battle congress during most of his term. That's a big deal. Plus defending himself in court, etc.

[outinforce]

84. Your Post Contains This Clue

Your very post contains this clue:

"I think he (Clinton) should have been standing up to Bush as head of the Democratic party,"

Didn't Dr. Dean describe himself as being from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"?

Just who is it that annointed President Clinton as "head" (what an interesting choice of words....) of this Party?

Is it possible that someone else (someone who has had the guts to take on Bush) might be hoping to become "Head of the Democratic Party"?

[lastliberalintexas]

87. As tradition goes,

as the last* elected Dem president, Clinton is the de facto head of the Dem party. When we elect a new Dem president this year, s/he will become the new leader of the party. That is how it's been traditionally, anyway.

[outinforce]

98. I Didn't Know That

In fact, I seem to recall that in the world following the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson was not the head of the Democratic Party. And it also strikes me that after the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan (and especially in the first election year following that election -- 1984) President Carter really did not serve as the "head" of our party.

But I could be wrong about all this.

[SideshowScott]

85. WOW for a second there i thought i was on another website that rhymes with

Rree Feebublic. Hey clinton bashers.Sure you able to say how much you hate the guy and crate a post that like sugar to the f#####R ants.. I still like clinton and hes siad some pretty nasty stuff about the Bush admin in case your were not listening. I am proud of him..Sure i was dissapointed with the whole monica thing..But im more mad at the ways the republicans went after him to get him on anything they could when they were guilty of the very same things. We had a great run with the big dog..Id vote for him agian if i could!..Well there still is hillary!

[redqueen]

89. Somewhat encouraging.

I know if I'd had this conversation while Clinton was in office, I would have been crucified by my Democratic (and yes, even liberal) friends.

Seeing the amount of thoughtful responses is a good sign. Now that the bushista is ticking off five out of six of his supporters, we may see a similar eye-opening start in the 'other camp'.

Dare we dream of electoral reform in the near future? Are we anywhere near sick enough of being played for fools to change anything?

[markburgess]

93. Clinton hand-picked Clark because he knows he can maintain control through

him. Clark has no allegences to any Democrats with the exception (perhaps) to the Clintons. It is just another calculated move by Bill and Hill to maintain their grip on the party aparatus and purse strings. It gives them ultimate control to determine just who gets to run for office as a Democrat, maintaining their sphere of influence and ensures only their loyalists get elected. This serves them well to pave Hillary's way to the nomination in 2008 (yes, 2008 - lets face facts, that's how the Clintons want it).

Thoughts anyone?

[neverforget]

94. Listen to Hannity much? It sounds like you subscribe to his view.

Hillary in 2008! Let's let the Dems lose in 2004 so Hillary can win in 2008! Yeah that's the ticket! What a bunch of right wing conspiracy fantasies.

[markburgess]

96. so you mean other Democrats don't suspect this too?

I find that hard to believe, particularly since I've heard it in some form or another from many others. But that isn't the main point, I sorta figured that part was a given. My post is more about why Clark was chosen by Bill - because he has no loyalties to anyone in the Democratic party except for the Clintons.

That's what I was looking for feedback on.

[neverforget]

106. without evidence of said "loyalty only to the Clintons", then it's nothing

but conjecture. I think it's a conspiracy theory so here's a :tinfoilhat:

[markburgess]

107. Clark has never been loyal to Democrats as is well known

The Clintons are the only Democrats Clark has ever had much contact with at all.

What would be more productive than asking me to prove a negative is if you could provide proof of Clark's loyalty to any other Democrat, or Democrats in general.

[physaf]

197. My take is that either Clark or Kerry

would be nothing more than 'Pub Lite. Sorry. If it isn't Dean, I'm really going to be set adrift.

[democratreformed]

118. 70 - 80,000 draftClark members (of which I am one) chose Clark n/t

[Deja Q]

99. I hear ya... but for a different reason.

Conniving, manipulative, and untrustworthy is right. He supported a lot of repuke ideals: DOMA, DMCA, 1996 telecom act, NAFTA, 1995 welfare "reform" that did nothing for CORPORATE WELFARE, the firing of Jocelyn Elders (a very smart person who actually gave a damn but was too "controversial"), I could go on.

And while there was an economic boom, look at the statistics: 1 out of 4 jobs was under $8/hr, and the other three weren't always terrific either. CEO pay went up 500% while workers did twice the effort and got nothing more in the end. Workers are underpaid while overworked and the rich, who Clinton did support, make it big. This is the sort of "economy" I don't want to see. I want to see ALL benefit or otherwise it isn't worth diddley. Even in the 1950s, the economics were more supportive of the lower- and middle-classes than what Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush had done. We are in a big divide these days. Clinton could have stopped it. But didn't. He's as sleazy as all the other politicials.

[Lorien]

142. HT, you pretty much covered

the majority of the issues I have with Clinton. He was heads and shoulders above Smirk, but he was another pro-corporate political animal like the majority of them. The entire system is corrupt, and it's nearly impossible for anyone who is not "one of them" to even be given a voice.

[Tinoire]

191. Thank you. Well said. n/t

[liberalpress]

100. As I like to tell my Freeper friends...

...the man is so over. Let's go find a candidate that can give us eight years of peace, prosperity, and pride. We, the PEOPLE are in charge. Let's act like it.

[ulysses]

101. I've been over Clinton since welfare "reform".

Wonder how all those folks have fared the last couple of years, since the 5-year cutoff and the recession hit about the same time...

[opihimoimoi]

103. Bush is the Target..... we should be thinking of how to remove the Weed

from the Bush patch.

[ulysses]

104. hey, opi!

Bush is *a* target, but I'd very much like to see us get over the infatuation with BC. Not Satan incarnate, but not a particularly wonderful model for the future of the DP, either.

[corporatewhore]

138. I think you are right we need to rember

that bush is only one target (although a gigantic one)

[Kanary]

134. Ummm, so it's passe' to be concerned about those cut off from any support?

Is there only room for one concern?

If so, that's a big reason why the Dems aren't doing so well with much of the population.

Kanary

[redqueen]

176. When was that cutoff?

From a September newsletter from the Children's Defense Fund

An analysis of government survey data shows:

-- In 2001, the number and percentage of female-headed families (with
children) who were without work in an average week, yet had no welfare
income, reached the highest point in the 26 years for which data are
available.
-- The increase in these families in 2001 (17 percent) was by far the
largest one-year increase on record.
-- The number of children in such jobless families with no TANF income
during the year surged by 626,000 children in 2001 ¾ a rise of 18
percent.
-- These children live in households with few other resources. Indeed,
the sharp rise in their number can account for all of the troubling
increase in extreme child poverty in 2001.

For more information about the Children's Defense Fund report, visit
http://www.childrensdefense.org/pdf/no_work_no_welfare.pdf.


A new report from the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP),
"Living at the Edge: Employment is Not Enough," focuses on the
low-income families who are struggling to stay off of the welfare roles.

The study finds that low-income families earning between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level face many of the same hardships as families officially labeled as poor: missed rent payments, utility shut-offs, inadequate access to health care, unstable child care arrangements, and running out of food. One source of these problems for low-income families is the loss of public benefits such as health care and child care subsidies that help them keep their jobs and move toward long-term economic stability. As families increase their earnings above the federal poverty level, they rapidly lose eligibility for these assistance programs. The report concludes that low-wage work, by itself, is insufficient to move families from poverty to economic self-sufficiency.

For more information about the report, visit www.nccp.org.



Additionally, I've read that the incidence of malnourished children showing up in clinics is increasing in the US. Can't find it now...

[ulysses]

178. that would be 2001, yes

Thanks for the links - first numbers I'd seen on what I figured had to have been the case.

[redqueen]

180. My pleasure

There's much more out there, for those that care to open their eyes to the fact that Clinton's policies really did more harm than good.

[oasis]

111. Hope you'll be able to stomach his address at the 2004 convention.

[NashVegas]

113. In Spite of Everything, There is One Word in Clinton's Defense

And you're using it to read this.

The man signed a lot of legislation I didn't agree with.

But isn't it ironic that at the same time he signed the deregulation legislation that allowed traditional media to consolidate like mad and strangle independent voices, and at the same time kept the government's hands off of this medium, which people are now leaving traditional media in droves for?

Whether it was Clinton's intention or not, it is his legacy, and a wonderfully subversive one.

[Cappadonna]

114. Clinton is what he is -- a political animal. To make him otherwise......

.....misses the point. Clinton isn't an ideologue and never really claimed to be. He is a career politician who main job to keep his butt in office and the villagers (that would be us) from running to through the streets with pitchforks. So Clinton like Clark? So what? They're both self-made farmboys from Arkansas who happen to be serveral time smarter than the faux-texan New England prep boy stooge now squatting in the white house. Same can be said for Gore and Dean, both are sons of rich guys who chose to establish themselves outside of their family names. (Again, unlike president buzz lightyear) To read more into it says that some of us need to relax.

I don't worship clinton, but unlike alot of far liberal Dems, greens and others on the left, I don't deem him Satan either. Clinton did his job, he managed to keep everything running smooth without pissing off too many people. (Except for, again, the political extremes.)

Suck it up, its politics.

[corporatewhore]

115. I filmed an iraqi woman

who was over here with aid from Voices in the Wilderness to get treatment for her youngest son who had one hundred peices of shapnel in his body because of us bombs and her oldest (he was thirteen) was killed.Everybosy was shocked when they found out the date 1999
It really makes you think who the "Them" are

[Tinoire]

130. 1999... It's just been one long 13 yr war against Iraq

From 1991 to 2004. It's depressing that so many of use the crafted lingo of Gulf I and Gulf II when it's just been one long drawn out and very sad war.

[Turkw]

116. Bill's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, may the Teflon go on

forever, 'cause he needs it.

look, he did speak out against Bush on a few occasions, once about Bush's hands off tactics with North Korea. But for the most part ex-presidents don't go after sitting presidents. If he did, the right would use it to stir up the base, he needs to let those passions fade.

If he started actively endorsing a candidate now, it would hurt the party and him. I'm glad he is not endorsing anyone now, not even if it were Clark. It is not the right thing for him to do.I don't think he has all his eggs in one basket anyway. Besides I do think he will happily endorse and fund-raise for the nominee. He loves this stuff.

I'm sure we will hear from the big dog in the future.

[Ferretherder]

120. What I REALLY love is...

...everybody saying 'Clinton did this', and 'Clinton did that', but NOBODY says 'Clinton TRIED to do this, but Congress voted it down and did THIS!

WHAT THE FUCK, Huh?

Anybody got a clue how our government works around here? ANYBODY?

Bill Clinton is not God; is not perfect; is not a LOT of things. But Bill Clinton TRIED to do SOME things that were VERY good, indeed. So did his wife. They were pilloried by the right-wingers at every turn, no matter their intentions, and the media just had a FIELD DAY with the trumped-up 'controversy', and all we can do is join in the chorus!

Say what you will - Bill Clinton was TEN-THOUSAND times better than what we are suffering through, right now!

[ariellyn]

121. They win when we succumb to the media's continual assault on Clinton

Clinton wasn't perfect but he sure as hell was not as bad as * or Regan or Bush I. He was a president of the people in my opinion and he did not try to tear down our democracy. He brought fiscal integrity back to the economy and he maintained our position in the international community. He was not confronted by record protests wherever he went, and, while he made a mistake, he was not a serial liar and he showed plenty of character while he was hounded with lie after lie by the media. I will not throw away my respect for him because the CONs continue to denigrate him and to try to diminish his name while they try to elevate village idiot, Ronald Reagan. Clinton was a great president and he is a great man.

[Catherine Vincent]

123. Thanks for setting up this thread to bash our last duly elected POTUS!

This is the second one I have read today. What is up with you people?

[opihimoimoi]

126. I came to support Big Dog/

As far as I'm concerned, HE is the MAN

Bush is so jealous of Big Dog he can taste it.

[oasis]

136. Shoots Opi, any friend of the Big Dog is a friend of mine.

Come, we leave thread that try talk stink about da' greatest prez.

:toast: To eight years of America under the stewardship of the Big Dog.

[Kanary]

137. Do me a favor

In a few months, when you hear people complaining that they can't get poor folx to register and vote, remember this thread, eh?

It will explain it to you.

Kanary

[RandomKoolzip]

128. Hey guys, can we live in the future....please?

n/t

[shrike]

158. Thank you

Clinton is not president. He will never be president again. Bush IS president. End of post.

[redqueen]

181. Sorry, but what's the old saying?

Fool me once...? You'll have to excuse those of us who are gunshy from supporting a centrist full of promises before, who obviously regret it. Can you not understand why people who supported Clinton are now VERY wary of Democrats who would further the shift to the right?

[corporatewhore]

132. As clinton said I feel your pain

after NAFTA WTO welfare deform the bombing of iraq the continuation of sanctions in iraq (which unicef says killed around 1.5 million iraqis) the continued occupation/bombings of vieques
Sure he is better than bush but certainly we can do better

[Bridget Burke]

133. Why is hating Clinton interesting?

It's a very old story in some circles.

To make it really interesting, please supply a link to one of your Clinton-supporting statements, back in the day. Perhaps your old friendships were never really in peril.

[elsiesummers]

135. Oh my God this thread is horrible.

It could be a manifestation of the suppressed anger from the stifled Dean-Clark wars.

[Cascadian]

140. You must admit Clinton should be more forthright and stand up to Bush.

He has not done that. All I have heard is "Give Bush a break." Once again, what does he mean by that?


John

[shrike]

159. Wish people would make up their minds

On the one hand, I hear Clinton should stand up to Bush, on the other I hear he should get out of the way and let others lead the party (I subscribe to the latter view). He can't do both, people.

[Catfish]

152. That's what I was thinking

I think some anger from GD2004 migrated to this thread.

[Tinoire]

156. Nonesense. This has been a common sentiment from way BEFORE

Clark had decided to run. We're Democrats but we're not blind. It's not like Clinton's corporate pandering wasn't news.

CEO salaries went from 8x that of the average worker to 400x. You really think no one noticed? Or that no one noticed the increasing numbers of homeless on the street?

Not everyone is into dangerous hero worship.

[Cascadian]

139. Clinton was not the best president

He also has disappointed me especially being cavalier about Bush. "Aw shucks! give the guy a break!" Remember when he said that?
He was not a bad president but not the best. I called him on some questionable policy decisions like NAFTA, the bombing of Serbia, "Three strikes you're out", "Don't ask don't tell", signing the Republican-inspired Welfare to Work law. He is probably the only president or politican that has succeeded in the "Republican Lite" act. On the plus side, he has charisma, he balanced the budget, we had come close to peace in the Middle East, and I had money and a job. But Clinton was certainly no liberal president.

John

[NicRic]

144. Interesting how much I miss Clinton now !

If everyone would just look at the record ,they woould see what a great President Clinton was and after years of being abused by the repugs with the help of the media. The spineless Dems that stood by while the repugs did everything they could to unseat this guy and he still out smarted them at every turn. If Clinton could run he would wipe the floor up with anyone the repugs throw at him . I dont blame him one bit ,if he wants to keep a low profile for now ! bush will self destruct anyway and Clinton is smart enough to know this ! Also I still think Presidents influence is coming ,in helping oust this worst White House our country has ever seen ! While the rest of the world was laughing at us for trying to destroy what we should have treated as a national treasure, a young intelligent President who's policies effected millions of lives in a positive way. Clinton doesnt oue anybody anything ,he kept doing the job he was elected to do ,while under constant bagering ! He is still top dog !

[noonwitch]

146. Me, too!

He passed the welfare reform act because it was probably going to pass regardless. I'm not really thrilled with the way it was implemented in my state by Engler, but something had to be done. Welfare is no way to live your life. It doesn't pay that well, it encourages people to not work and not succeed in school. I had teenaged girls I worked with who would get pregnant at 17 and drop out of school, then go get ADC. That's not right, and it needed to stop.
My beef with welfare reform is that for the most part, it does not allow much time or money for a working parent to go to school part time, whether it's college or trade school, in order to work on developing a career. It's McDonald's and Taco Bell, for most of the former recipients.

I loved Clinton, and still think he was a great president. He got things done, and sometimes had to compromise to do so. If he had been president on 9-11, the attacks might not have occured. Even if they had, when he got on tv he would have never looked scared to death the way Bush did. That was really unnerving to watch.

[fernandovaz]

147. yes

[Kanary]

153. Would you please ask the poor how great he was?

Why are all you apologists so resistant to even replying about what is being said about how much Clinton hurt the poor with his Republican Welfare "reform"? Is there so little concern about what happened to all those people who have disappeared from sight? Can you not speak to this at all?

Once again: In a short time there will be posts decrying why poor people don't register and don't vote. You need look no further than this ignoring of their needs and the pain they have suffered at the hands of Dems like Clinton.

Kanar

[GalleryGod]

162. Thanks For Volunteering for My IGNORE List!

:argh:

[redqueen]

179. Too much handwringing from those who don't want to hear this

No ugly truths about Clinton allowed!

It's telling that the defense is all bluster and very little fact. The sloganeering is touching, but not as informative or persuasive as facts would be.

And to those living in poverty or Iraq, the 'peace and prosperity' line might seem just a tad insensitive.

Please... if you're so convinced that he tried to do so much good but was constantly thwarted... share the details of what exactly you thought were his most valiant fights. Thanks.

[Loonman]

182. What's Dean and the rest of the (noms)gang going to do?

Wave a magic fricking wand and change the whole party?


I need to see some centrism, and I haven't seen it, yet.

[Ksec]

189. NAFTA was a huge mistake

Im not much of a fan of his. He let his dik lead him around like a common pervert

[Bridget Burke]

194. You oppose NAFTA?

There's a lot to be said for your opinion.

However, you really need to stop obsessing about his "dik".

[Character Assassin]

192. Clinton? Who's Clinton?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

198. Yeah...Clinton was really a bad man....

...the economy was the best we've ever had, the administration had a good handle on terrorism, the U. S. wasn't at war with an entire religio-cultural segment of the world's population, Social Security was untouched/functuioning well, Medicare was doing what it was supposed to do, there were no tax-cuts for the rich, and we had a budget surplus that was supposed to have lasted at least ten years.

Yes, indeed. That Clinton was a real screw-up.

Just think how "bad" things might have gotten if he could have served another term or two.

Newsflash for you: Clinton has been out of office for three years.

The individual currently occupying the White House got there by the efforts of a bloodless coup. IMHO, you ought to be a LOT more concerned about the individual currently, and illegally, occupying the White House instead of bashing a guy that no longer has any political power.

[mitchum]

199. Bill Clinton is the first/last moderate republican I will ever vote for

[Penible]

201. doh!

The most radical and significant conservative measure taken since FDR, was the eradication of the federal entitlement to welfare. Moynihan and Edelman were the ONLY persons of note to make a protest.

Who was behind this radical move? Yep .... Bill.

The second most radical conservative measure since FDR was NAFTA.

Who was behind that? Yep .... Bill.

Yet progressives defended this sociopath (yep ... Bill Clinton) like they were grateful, giddy debutantes.

It is all a matter of integrity.