Would This Be A Fair, Or Unfair Statement About Bill Clinton

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Would This Be A Fair, Or Unfair Statement About Bill Clinton

That he was a good President, but not a good Democrat.

[Wickerman]

1. I'd always tell my father, when he bitched about MY president

that he should calm down - Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we have had since Eisenhower.

[Commendatori]

2. The sad thing is that he's probably going to wind up being the

best president of my lifetime, but he was too poll-driven and caved in to Repugs too often.

The bottom line is that I don't think any president I've seen is really any good - Clinton was just the best of a bad bunch. A president is supposed to stand up for his party's ideals, and I didn't see that from Clinton nearly enough.

[Bandit]

11. "but he was too poll-driven"

You mean he had the audacity to ask the people how they felt about issues and acted upon that input? How dare him. I guess he really believed he worked "for the people" and not some corporate cronies.

[Commendatori]

15. Wow, that'll teach me

Because I want a Democratic president to stand up for his party instead of relying on shaky sampling data. Welfare reform really helped the poor that he said he supported, right?

The polls I've seen show that between 70-75% of Americans consider illegal immigration a problem. When Kerry wins, should he work "for the people" and start rounding them up?

Polls also show that Americans want a less complicated tax system and don't believe in the EITC. Should we ignore the people who depend on it?

I want my president, who I hope will be Kerry in January (even though I overwhelmingly prefer Edwards) to stand up for the party he represnts. Would you support enacting every Republican idea that the polls show are supported?

[Delano]

3. I am NOT a Clinton democrat, but that is not a fair statement.

He may have dragged the party way too far to the right, and not supported many progressive causes, but he was NEVER disloyal to the party, dissing other democrats the way Zell and Holy Joe do, so no Clinton was a conservative democrat, but a class act. Democrats could have chose another canddidate, but they chose Clinton twice, and he didn't misrepresent himself - and I'm okay with that.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. wouldn't you say, though

that he dissed Democrats when he went against them with welfare reform?

Didn't a majority of House Democrats oppose it?

[outinforce]

5. I Think That If You Want To Say That,

then you'd also have to be prepared to say that the members of the Clinton Administration who remained as part of the Administration after welfare reform was passed also dissed Democrats.

I would think, for instance, that you would have to say that Donna Shalala, who served as Secretary for Health and Human Services, and under whose aegis welfare reform was put into effect, dissed Democrats.

I don't think I would want to say that.

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton, following the enactment of Welfare Reform, mandated that the US Government hire 100,000 people as part of a Welfare-to-Work Program. Do you think that dissed Democrats? I don't.

[Delano]

7. It's a genuine difference of opinion, which is fine.

He didn't call them "un-American" for defending welfare, but that's essantially what Zell, and to all lesser degree, Holy Joe have done to the activists trying to unseat Bush.

Hell, Zell has ENDORSED Bush! Clinton would NEVER do that, even if it was his good pal Bob Dole.

Sorry, Clinton was a good conservative democrat. I wish he had been more of a liberal.

I'm willing to overlook his disinterest in progressive causes because of his enormous charisma and ability to motivate the electorate. The democratic party never had a better campaigner.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. "Dis" is short for 'disrespect' not for 'disagree'. nt

[Justitia]

10. I agree with this stmt

and putting aside policy positions and scandals for a moment, Clinton had remarkable leadership qualities and substantial personal charisma, which I personally believe provided a warm welcome for him as our American representative to the wider world.

That alone is an invaluable asset, sorely lacking with our current nat'l embarrassment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. I didn't agree with Clinton on much.

But that doesn't make either him or I a bad Democrat.


Party is not ideology.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. if Party is not ideology

what is it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. A political party is

an organization that works to advances the political goals of it's members. Any party that has millions of members is going to have millions of goals - some of them conflicting.

[Bandit]

12. "Party is not ideology.

Hmmmm. Could have fooled me. Don't they even have a platform defining their ideology?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Yes.

Could have fooled me. Don't they even have a platform defining their ideology?

Apparently you have been fooled. Yes, parties have a platform but it doesn't 'define their ideology'.

Are you required to agree with everything in the party platform in order to be a Democrat?

[trixie]

17. Idealogy is good but evil must be overcome

You have to remember that we had 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush. We didn't have the luxury of getting into ideology we needed a change in our direction. I liked Jackson in the first primary but then, as today, I vowed to back whatever Democrat we put up to defeat the tyranny of the Republicans. My opinion of Clinton has changed throughout his administration and his life after the administration. He was pro-life in the primaries but eventually agreed that women should not have their bodies legislated. I found him too conservative for me but then a lefty like myself would have been defeated. We need a moderate like him to bring the Reagan Dems back home. I was pleased (very pleased) with his job performance in the White House. I was hopping mad about NAFTA but years later I can see his point of "if jobs are going, lets keep them with our neighbors" view, I guess better to be in Canada than India. With the affair aside, I feel he is a man of good character and is truly out for the welfare of the people and upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bush couldn't wait to rip apart the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I say he is a great president and Democrat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Unfair. He was neither.

Of course, that depends on the definition "good".

He was a lousy Democrat in that he turned the party over to the tender mercies of the DLC and dragged the country to the right.

He was a lousy president for any number of "compromises" in the name of his "triangulation" theory. But, he was a really lousy president for his foreign policy machinations in Africa.

[Richardo]

18. Tail wagging dog...the DLC did not 'drag the country to the right'

The DLC dragged the PARTY to the right, arriving at the center, because that's where the majority of the voters are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Same difference.

The DLC/Clinton "enabled" the country to move to the right (or, center if you prefer) because they went with the flow.