As a progressive, I have grown to despise Clinton....

[DerekG]

As I was reading the Zinn reader, I came across an article written by Richard Burton relaying his experiences as he researched for the role of Winston Churchill:

"In the course of preparing myself...I realized afresh that I hate Churchill and all of his kind. I hate them virulently. They have stalked down the corriders of endless power all through history...What man of sanity would say on hearing of the atrocities committed by the Japanese against British and Anzac prisoners of war, 'We shall wipe them out, everyone of them, men, women, and children. There shall not be a Japanese left on the face of the earth?' Such simple-minded cravings for revenge leave me with a horrified but reluctant awe for such single-minded and merciless ferocity."

I was inspired after having read that passage: just as we as a society are conditioned to admire Churchill for rescuing us from fascism, I grew up in a household conditioned to respect Bill Clinton for having endured the onslaught of the right-wing. I now feel betrayed by this perception of Clinton as hero. Now, I hate that many on the DU correctly condemn the horrors perpetrated by Nixon and Kissinger, Reagan and (Donald)Regan, Cheney and Bush, yet look upon the visage of Bill "BIG DAWG" Clinton with admiration.

This brilliant man had the unique opportunity to gut the military budget as the Cold War lay in ruin, but chose instead to nourish it (even offering 7 billion in 1999 for Star Wars). His war crimes in Yugoslavia, his refusal to sign the Land Mines Treaty in 1996, and his role as sentinel over the Iraqi sanctions, begs comparison to the Reagan administration's plethora of crimes against humanity. He had 8 years to bring national health care and social reform to America, and instead gave us Welfare Reform (destroying some of the last remnants of the New Deal), NAFTA, and the Telecommunications Act.

In my opinion, Clinton was NOT a god-damned victim; it was WE who were victims of his unprincipled catering to the right-wing (the fact that he made an effort to attend Ricky Ray Rector's execution, a double-murderer who was left in a state of retardation after shooting himself in the face, should have clued us in to something). I fail to see how a good number of DUers can mock progressives like Michael Moore or Ralph Nader, while choosing to worship at the altar of Clinton. It is men like Clinton, and not Leftists like McGovern, or Jackson, or Kucinich, who have devastated this party.

Flame away folks.

[CWebster]

1. no argument here

lol.

[jos]

2. Agree, but

I think he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. But you're right that his unprincipled stands have hurt the party. Fortunately, people like Kucinich and Dean are the anti-Clinton.

[Terwilliger]

4. he was no victim of a VRWC

he was part of it

[jos]

5. Unless he was in on the plotting

of his own impeachment and vilification, I fail to see how he was part of the VRWC.

[Terwilliger]

15. you answered your own question

[jos]

18. Oh please!

:crazy:

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. I'm with you on this one.

I think this thread is way off kilter.

On edit: Wake up and smell the coffee. In this age of high technology, there will be no perfect heros. There will be no president that will manage to go through two terms without showing some blemish that will be exploited from the segment of population that disagree with his or her policies.

We all need to grow up ourselves and start setting realistic expectations. Presidents before Clinton had rude dalliances, and they will have rude dalliances after Clinton, too.

[Terwilliger]

51. oh please is right

the sycophancy directed at Bill Clinton by some people on this board is very frightening

Clinton could very well have been in on it the whole time. Certainly lying a lot doesn't get you by.

[bitchkitty]

117. That's pretty funny, Ter!

Got any more?

:D

[Terwilliger]

168. how do you know?

You know, Hillary Clinton was quite the conservative young gal.

Maybe they were trying to be better Republicans...trying for the best of both worlds.

[radwriter0555]

57. Wasn't that like 3 years ago?

Bush is the boss now. focus on his dirty deeds. far more important really.

[Terwilliger]

107. OK

here's a question I'd like answered

HOW DID AN UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANT OIL-MAN TWIT FAILED BUSINESSMAN BEAT SOMEBODY LIKE GORE AND THE DEMOCRATS?!?!?!

WHO DO I GET SATISFACTION FROM ON THAT? HOW DO I REGISTER A COMPLAINT? WHAT THE HELL WERE THE DEMOCRATS DOING THAT SO MANY PEOPLE WOULD VOTE FOR KING CHIMP? WHO DO YOU BLAME IT ON THIS TIME?

[Terwilliger]

136. WELL?!?!?!?!?!?!?

If Clinton and Gore were so damned great, why is Bush in power??? WHo ya gonna blame now???

[JVS]

182. Ummmmmm

Nader, the Greens and other assorted leftists?

[Terwilliger]

184. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

absolutely typical

do you think Ralph Nader and his piddling criticism should have been a problem if Democrats had a clear mandate? Democrats brought muddle and that's what happened to the election.

[JVS]

186. No, they wouldn't have made a difference if there had been a mandate.

I was joking. I posted it because according to many people on this board that is the right answer.

[Terwilliger]

205. well

its the same thing I've seen repeated in perpetuity, so I get CRANKY!! (nothing new)

:hi:

[bitchkitty]

183. Stop shouting -

and stop saying that Bush "beat" Gore. He did no such thing, unless you can call a successful theft "winning". I don't. I call it what it is - theft.

[Terwilliger]

185. ah HAH!!

[bitchkitty]

198. Ah hah what?

You know where I am on this issue. I have stated (to you, I thought) that Ralph Nader did not steal the 2000 election. It was stolen by the BFEE in Florida, deliberately and systematically, beginning with ChoicePoint and ending with the Supreme Court.

That doesn't mean that I support or trust Nader, far from it.

[Terwilliger]

206. I know

but I still dont get the mistrust

Nader has ALWAYS been a Democratic party supporter (BIG-time) up until the 90's...why would his trustworthiness change?

[gully]

211. "dont get the 'mistrust'"?

So what if he supported the Democratic party. So did Norm Coleman.

http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

[bitchkitty]

241. I wasn't paying attention

until 1994, but I'll tell you when he completely lost any chance at my trust:

When the GOP ran ads for him in 2000, he didn't say a word about it. Not one freaking word, except something like yea, they do that. If he was as principled and honest as some people think him to be, he should have immediately made it plain that he didn't support these kind of tricks. But he didn't say one word.

Nader is in it for himself. Not the Green party, not the people, not the country. Himself.

When the Greens come up with a real candidate, not just a spoiler, then I'll look at that candidate and judge him on his own merits.

[BushHasGotToGo]

197. If Bush didn't beat Gore, then why is America so fucked up?!?!?

Quit living in fantsy land. Clinton/Gore fucked it up for all of us in 2000.

[bitchkitty]

240. OK then -

I want you to come over to my house and we'll play poker. I want you to bring lots and lots of money, and after I cheat you out of everything you have, I don't want you to cry and complain. Sound good to you?

And don't think that I'll be held to account. If I manage to cheat you out of your life savings, that means I win. Don't be a Sore Loserman either. Deal with it.

Sound familiar?

[Fovea]

125. That is the classic Bush pattern.

You are their best friend up to the day you are their chump.

Just enough Bush soldiers have been pardoned in the past for people to say to themselves, "I will get a walk," only to discover it is the perp walk.

On Clinton--
Clinton is a smart man. He is a good man. But I do not agree completely with his policy. Mostly, I think he should have gone for the kill with Gingrich and Scaife. He was too colligial, and we lost colligiality in government with the Reagan administration.

The third way was co-opting the core issues of the right, while maintaining the core of the left with national healthcare, and gay issues in the military. On the social side, it must be regarded as a failure.

This third was about swing voters. In targeting swing voters, Clinton forced the right further toward fascism to maintain 'branding'. A healthy progressive movement is the only thing that can bring America back at this point. We are at and beyond the excesses of the gilded age.

We need to start over, and re-create America, spelled with a 'C'.

As a further note, consider if we do not reverse this trend right now, we will create a literal world of misery. We will sink the world economy like a stone, and will be punished for it in the future.

[virtualobserver]

245. yeah right, which is why they tried to impeach him....

isn't it.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Kucinich -- yes. Dean -- hardly.

Howard Dean is NOT the great progressive hope that many seem to think he is. Now, I am glad that he is speaking out against the excesses of the RW, and doing so forcefully; but I harbor no illusions that he is anything BUT a centrist Democrat.

Dennis Kucinich, OTOH, is a progressive Democrat. But in the age of television, Dennis will NOT be elected President -- no matter how great some of his ideas may be. He just comes across much better on paper (reading his speeches and such) than he does when engaged in a debate. I wish this weren't the case, but sadly it is.

[jos]

10. Agree with you to a point

I know what you're saying. But Dean has put progressives in the position of taking back the party from the DLC. For that, he deserves a great deal of credit and respect. And it is a lead pipe cinch that neither Bill nor Hillary would have done that.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Dean has tapped into an unrealized resource...

He's run a campaign that is far from typical, eschewing a centralized campaign staff with all orders coming from the top in favor of a decentralized one to capture the power of the grassroots. And it has worked.

Still, I don't believe that he is doing this solely because he is the "man of the people" that we are all waiting for to come and save us. He's doing it because it is a different strategy that tied well into his lack of funds and name recognition in the beginning.

[Eloriel]

122. It's a "strategy"

that found him, NOT one he and Trippi consciously adopted from the beginning. MeetUps found them; the people found them. They -- smart, savvy, willing to SHARE power -- allowed and then facilitated that. This IS the great grassroots campaign of the modern era. Far more than that, though, it is a revolution in the political process.

We on DU have for so long decried:
* politicians who don't listen TO us
* politicians who won't stand up FOR us
* politicians who don't do and say the RIGHT thing over the politically expedient thing
* politicians who go along to get along
* politicians who are bought and paid for by corporate interests

and now that we've got someone who does exactly what we've been begging and crying and pleading and hoping and wishing for, too many of us here at DU can't even recognize it.

I don't get it.

Eloriel

[CWebster]

200. I hear you

.

[Nederland]

204. Oh My God

Can it be that I find myself in total agreement with both Eloriel and CWebster? Will miracles never cease? :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. Kucinich looks great on TV

Kucinich looks and speaks as well as any of the candidates on TV, and is in fact better looking than a few of them.

His economic policies are very popular with the majority of Americans.

[ScreamingMeemie]

158. I agree with the original poster Dean and Kucinich are on the same level

Kucinich is more boisterous, while Dean is following the path that will win over Republican fence sitters even...and gain him the White House.

I like Kucinich, but there ain't no way in hell a lot of my family (liberal conservatives) would vote for him. I took a poll after handing out info on the two.

[Nederland]

207. Yup

Howard Dean is NOT the great progressive hope that many seem to think he is...but I harbor no illusions that he is anything BUT a centrist Democrat. Dennis Kucinich, OTOH, is a progressive Democrat.

Guess that explains why I like Dean and despise Kucinich, huh? :)

[edward]

3. Clinton failed the Democratic Party.

Reagan basically referred to Jimmy Carter as a pussy, and Clinton never so much as said something critical about Reagan. The biggest right wing hate monger of the 20th century and Clinton never said anything negative about him.
Now we have an even bigger right wing crazy man in office.

[diplomats]

19. That's not true at all

Clinton often referred to the huge deficits built up by the Reagan-Bush administrations. Guess you weren't paying attention. This is what I can't understand about certain liberals: Clinton was hardly perfect, but they live in a fantasy world where they think a hardcore liberal can win the presidency. Not in this day and age, folks.

[edward]

44. Exactly. The deficit was just there.

He did not criticize Reagan. Saw the debates he was in for the party nomination as well, he just said we have to do something to pay the debt down. Dole disagreed with him in the presidential debates as well.
And if you want discussion, please delete the smarky comments.

[GreenArrow]

6. I'm with you...

Never liked Clinton, never trusted him.

[Mairead]

8. No argument here, either. He was a Republican with a Dem label, and

it showed. That there are so many acolytes at DU speaks more to their youth and/or right-wing leanings than to Clinton's worth.

It's really scary to realise that the current generation of younger adults --the under-35s-- have never experienced anything but right-wing government.

No wonder we're up to our nostrils in the cagle.

[scarletwoman]

9. Nope, no argument here either.

He's a corporatist, an imperialist, and servant of the Overclass. It just happens that he's much more charming and intelligent than the usual run of Republican a**holes.

sw

[Clete]

12. Clinton was neither a liberal nor progressive, but

unless I see his name as a member on any of the various right wing think tanks, I can't believe he is one of them. I do believe he was a victim of a VRWC because he got in the way of the plans for world domination of the PNAC as will any other candidate who threatens that vision whether Democratic or Republican. Look what happened to John McCain, a Republican, and a far better presidential candidate than George Bush.

[loudnclear]

217. Not progressive, not liberal, but pragmatic..

But pragmatic is not what I like!

[cosmicdot]

239. does the Council on Foreign Relations count?

or the Trilateral Commission?

According to this link, it credits them to Bill's bio

http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/rhodes-scholars.html

to mention the Bilderberg Conference would get labeled tin foil hat
but .......

http://www.centrexnews.com/members/bilderberg/
http://www.bilderberg.org/1991.htm
http://www.global-gts.com/gt00101.htm

[ikojo]

13. No flame here...

You give an excellent analysis of the Clinton years. People like to say that the economy was good during his years and while that may be true, the disparity in wealth increased greatly under the Clinton administration.

Clinton signed welfare "reform" into legislation: this pushed many low-skilled welfare recipients into the work force where they competed for wages in the low-wage job market. Employers were given tax incentives if they hired former welfare recipients and in some cases were not even required to pay them minimum wage but could get by with a training wage.

Clinton also pushed NAFTA through a Democratic controlled congress. Yes, he had to sell the farm to get it through but he was successful. He also pushed through PNTR (permanet normal trade relations) with China as well as partied with the WTO reps in Seattle while the REAL Democrats were in the streets protesting the corporate agenda (I was there.)

There was also no real increase in the minimum wage under his watch.

Need I even mention "Don't ask don't tell?" this from a "liberal" president?

Basically, Clinton was the best Republican president the Democrats ever elected.

I know he won two terms but fewer people voted in 1996 than voted in 1992. When he ran AND WON in 1992 I was so hopeful that it meant a sea change from 12 years of Reagan/Bush. I was disappointed when I saw him cave to the right-wing time and time again. First it was nominees as Attorney General and then it was the gays in the military.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Analysis?

That was a polemic, not an analysis. The author is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, but there was little analysis. It was from the gut, and likely heartfelt, but you give too much credit in thinking it analytical.

A broader view would, i'm quite sure, reveal a different conclusion when all variables and all results were analyzed.
The Professor

[no name no slogan]

61. The "Good" Clinton Economy

HA!!!! I love that line! Actually, I've done much better under Shrub than I have under Clinton. My family makes twice as much as it did even three years ago. HOWEVER, I will NEVER vote for a Republican, unless it's the Harold Stassen variety (Google it for more info).

The wealth disparity grew, that's true, but to be completely fair, real wages for working people began to rise after 1996-- the first time they had since the early '70s. So there was a "trickle-down" benefit to us poor working stiffs, eventually.

I've never understood why Clinton is treated as such a sacred cow. He may have been a Democratic president, but the party has certainly gone straight to hell in a handbasket since the late 80s. The DLC has done more harm than good, and it's time real liberals and progressives called them on it.

[robbedvoter]

120. I have to ask: Is your first name Ken and your last Lay?

Cuz you write:

"HA!!!! I love that line! Actually, I've done much better under Shrub than I have under Clinton. My family makes twice as much as it did even three years ago. "
Bully for you!

[no name no slogan]

161. Would Ken Lay support Dennis Kucinich? I doubt it.

I just happen to be doing better financially under the Shrub than I did under Clinton. Believe it or not, there are some people-- even LOYAL DEMOCRATS-- that are in that position. Just because you're not and you're a Democract doesn't mean that everyone else is a Republican.

[bitchkitty]

199. You and others like you are the exception,

not the rule. I wonder, why didn't you point that out? I don't think you meant to come across as boastful, did you?

Sorry, I just ran out of unemployment and can't find a job. I'm a bit of a tender blossom on this subject.

[swinney]

223. CLINTON HAD GREATEST ECONOMY IN HISTORY.

INCOMES FOR ALL STRATA GREW.

236,000 JOBS PER MONTH COMPARED TO 167,000 UNDER 12 YEARS OF BRAIN DEAD AFFABLE DUNCE AND VOODOO WIMP.

DOW AND NASDAQ CHARGED INTO ORBIT.

HOURLY WAGES INCREASED.

WORLD LOVED BILL CLINTON. HIGHEST POLL RATINGS DURING PEACETIME IN AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE.

IT WAS NOT NAFTA FOLKS. FORGET IT. IT IS CHINA CHINA CHINA GET IT.

TAKE AWAY MEXICO EXPORTS OF OIL TO US AND BALANCE IS NOT HUGH.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT 60% OF OUR OIL IMPORTS COME FROM THE AMERICAS?

40% FROM GULF. HOW MANY REALIZE IT?

[e-mail]

[TheYellowDog]

77. I guess that you have

never bought a foreign product, and never driven a foreign car. :shrug:

[RichM]

14. No argument at all. In fact, the general hero-worship of Clinton on DU

speaks volumes about the impoverished quality of political analysis driving today's version of liberalism. These Clinton-worshippers are so dumb they don't even see that Clinton sold them out! It's pitiful.

Politically, I despise Clinton. I regret his impeachment mainly because it was done for the wrong reasons. He should have been impeached BY THE LEFT, for his betrayals of us.

[diplomats]

Thanks for insulting my intelligence, RichM

I don't "worship" Clinton, but appreciating the good things he did does not make me "dumb." The incompetence and mendacity of the Bush WH makes me realize how much better things were in the '90s. Just keep this in mind: The next Dem president won't be any more liberal than Bill Clinton was (he may not have the flaws but he won't be more left-wing politically), so you'll be pissing and moaning abount him (or her), too.

[RichM]

41. Aww, don't take it personally. And - I'm sure you're right that the next

Dem president won't be to the left of Clinton, & that I won't like him/her any better.

IMO (and in retrospect), things weren't really much better in the 90's. (I realize that most DUers think this, but I don't.) I think it was a stage in a logical sequence of deterioration that led directly to today's horrors. Clinton helped hand the country over to the rightwing. In many ways, Bush is a continuation of Clinton, not an antithesis. The main difference is in style (the Busheviks are far more vulgar, brutish, & less subtle). But the effects & policies are much the same.

If Daddy Bush had won in '92, we also would have seen NAFTA, Welfare Reform, the Telecom Act of '96, and the increasing inequality of wealth. We would have seen identical defense budgets. Clinton gave us all that, but still managed to look & sound like a "liberal." This is a tribute to his smoothness.

I don't expect you to agree; mine is a minority opinion here. :hi:

[John_H]

202. "things weren't really much better in the 90's"

Who said irony was dead?

[MoonAndSun]

45. Thanks for the name-calling.

how can I stand it?

[Cheswick2.0]

46. I don't see any Clinton worshipers on Du...on the other hand

those that worship on the alter of st ralph are clueless.

[edward]

47. Those who worship at the alter of the bar

are drunk. And clueless.

[Terwilliger]

53. Cheswick

PLEASE! You must not see very well.

[Pepperbelly]

74. thanx for reminding me why I despise the actions/words of fringe lefties .

The ones who are ALWAYS ready to sacrifice some one else's well-being for their fucking ideology.

[Terwilliger]

137. I see

so penny ante bullshit offered up by the lesser of two evils will give several more dollars a year tyo a poor family and you're ok with that?

I think you need to have some ideals yourself before you can bitch about other people's ideals.

[TheYellowDog]

196. *cough* Communist

Lesser of two evils my butt.

[Terwilliger]

208. *cough* Communist?

is that a Communist with a cold? :D

[swinney]

224. PRAISE THE ;LORD AND GIVE US MORE CLINTONS

THE GOOD TIMES--THE CLINTON YEARS.

HAPPINESS REIGNED AROUND THE WORLD. WELL! MOST.

CLINTON ALL TIME GREATS.

HENRY HYDE SAID "HAD BILL CLINTON NOT MESSED WITH MONICA HE WOULD HAVE GONE DOWN IN HISTORY AS ONE OF ALL TIME GREAT PRESIDENTS."

HENRY KNOWS GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS. CHECK THEM. QUIT NITPICKING.

greatest president of twentieth century. Hallelulah! God Bless his Greatness.

FACTS SPEAK FACTS SPEAK FACTS SPEAK LOOK AT THE RECORD.

[gully]

227. Agreed. "PRAISE THE LORD AND GIVE US MORE SWINNEYS!"

:toast:

[papau]

16. Why Flame? - You are wrong - but your opinion is welcome.

The Pres can lead, but the "checks and balance" game means small improvements are the rule -

and Clinton was great!

I am a FDR kid, and I do not tecall a better Pres in my lifetime for getting "progressive" concepts to take life and get funding.

:-)

peace.

[Mairead]

169. You mean like destroying the safety net?

Wiretaps? Surveillance? Loss of privacy? All of the above?

Which of Clinton's 'progressive' actions do you have in mind, here?

[IrateCitizen]

17. I don't despise him. But he did leave me disappointed.

He struck me as the kind of person who had boundless potential -- the kind of ability and charisma that just about anybody would die for. He came from a humble background to become the "leader of the free world".

And the guy was smooth as silk. He could sell ice to an eskimo. Whenever he spoke, he made you want to BELIEVE him.

But he was also held captive by his own ambitions. He, like most politicians at that level, was more worried about his "legacy" in many instances than the consequences of what he was doing for a great number of people. And considering the vast witch-hunt that was out against him, he allowed his own appetites to get the better of him.

I guess he disappointed me so much because he left great hopes unfulfilled. I felt like he just sold us out too many times, and in doing so, dealt a great deal of harm to an already struggling party. The Democratic Party was already struggling to recapture its identity when he came along. I think we may be worse off in that regard from his contributions.

[JHB]

20. Regarding the Clintons, there are three kinds of people...

...Swooners, foamers, and sane people.

Congratulations, you've discovered that BC has his dark side and was never as progressive as the swooner camp liked to think...

...however, the backlash of your discovery has apparently propelled you over to the foamers. Well, get off it. Part of the reason his record was so bad (from a strict progressive viewpoint) was because swooners like your household just trusted and supported him and never put pressure on him, unlike the conservatives, who just made up shit if it would advance their cause.

Clinton was (and in many ways still is) a politician, and on those terms a damn good one. We've learned there's much worse.

[diplomats]

34. Having to deal with a GOP-controlled Congress

for six of his eight years sure didn't help, either. With a Democratic Congress a lot of progressive legislation would've passed, no doubt.

[no name no slogan]

72. Too bad he gave Congress to the GOP

Too bad the Big Dawg and his minions in the DLC managed to alienate the liberals and progressives and effectively handed congress over to the Republicans.

As I've said many times before, Clinton NEVER won a majority of the popular vote in his presidential runs. He actually REDUCED the base of the Democratic party. In his attempt to draw in "centrists" and conservatives, he effectively pissed off the left and progressives, who supported him in 1992.

His betrayal of the Democratic base (and his half-assed corporate-sponsored health care plan) kept a lot of liberals home for the congressional races in '94 and '98.

If trying to become a pale shadow of the GOP isn't a good way to kill of the Democratic Party, then I don't know what is.

[Myra]

42. I agree with you JHB

President Clinton did some bad things.
But he did many good things, and tried to
do much more (e.g., universal health care).
He had to operate in an environment where there
*was* a fuckin' "vast right wing conspiracy."
(Reference "The Hunting of the President to see
what the poor guy was subjected to.)
Hillary, pink dress and all, was correct about that.

Clinton was no doubt crippled by this fight just to
survive the endless VRWC and their attack dog media
and complicit supreme court (who ruled a sitting pres
could be sued), and corrupt hit man Starr (another
miscalculation by the well meaning Clinton to allow that).
But I guess he figured he had nothing to hide.
And, in fact, as Starr's failure proved. He had little to hide.
Unlike everyone in the BFEE.
It was yet another attempted coup by the rabid right wing.

That particular coup attempt was unsuccessful in disposing
of him, but I believe it forced him to alter his
agenda to survive.

The "don't ask don't tell" BS compromise is a perfect
example. Yeah, it was a betrayal of his gay constituents
and of all of us who trusted him to do the right thing.
But he was a new president, who was shell-shocked by
the right wing backlash of his attempt to eliminate
discrimination of gays in the military. Perennial
sunuvabitch Colin Powell is more to blame than Clinton
in that debacle.

Yeah, NAFTA and the welfare reform and other things
are totally vile. And I resent them and Clinton for
them. But we'll never know what kind of president he
would have been had he actually been *allowed* to be President,
and had a Dem congress with spine (instead of turncoat assholes
like Lieberman), and instead of spending eight years just trying
to survive the endless (and well funded) attacks from
the, all too real, "vast right wing conspiracy."

Anyone who underestimates the damage they caused, before,
during, and after *President* Clinton's two terms, is
really missing a lot of pieces of the puzzle.

[msmcghee]

84. Right on.

"That particular coup attempt was unsuccessful in disposing
of him, but I believe it forced him to alter his
agenda to survive."

I can almost picture the repuke leadership sitting around saying . .

"Maybe we will and maybe we won't convict him in the Senate - but we can impeach his ass in the house, DeLay will see to that. And we will create such a shitstorm for his last 2 years in office he'll have to pull back on his agenda. Under fire, anything he does we can claim "wag the dog". With a little planning we can tar Gore with the same brush in 2000. At the worst an impeachment attempt is like 2000 campaign funds donated by the taxpayers. At best - we get it all. With the media firmly under our control, what do we have to lose?"

[IrateCitizen]

49. Your response was the best one I've read, JHB

Spot on. For me, I guess one of the reasons that I was so disappointed in Clinton was that he made me think (hopefully) that he was a progressive, that he would roll back all of the damage done by Reagan and Poppy Bush. When it turned out that he wasn't, I felt a bit of my hopeful optimism wash away.

Then, when he championed the passage of NAFTA, I actually left the Democratic Party for six years. That's how betrayed he made me feel.

But like I said, I'm a progressive, and he clearly isn't -- and perhaps why I may be a bit more disappointed than others.

[shrike]

162. Amen

I've always thought Clinton was an okay president. Did some good things, did some bad things. Certainly not a great president, but not the demon that the far left and right wing present.

And, as the other posters have said so eloquently, Clinton is YESTERDAY. Today is Bush, focus on Bush.

[BiggJawn]

21. If I wanted to hear how bad Clinton is...

I'd go listen to "Excrement In Broadcasting".

You realize, of course, that a never-ending fascination with the "crimes" of Bill Clinton is one of the cornerstones of our "oposite numbers" at that OTHER place, don't you?

I don't agree with you, since I'm old enough to remember what it was like under Nixon, Kisinger, and Ray-Guns.

Yes, he didn't do a lot of wonderful things that some think he should have. But have you forgotten about Newt Gingrich and his "Contract ON America" gang? seems that way.

I'll take "Big Dawg" over the BFEE ANY day of the week.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Good Being Sacrificed On The Altar Of Perfect, Huh Jawn?

I thought the same as you. Must be an age thing.
The Professor

[neebob]

23. Like it or not

We wouldn't be where we are now if Clinton had been less of a buttmunch.

[diplomats]

33. We wouldn't be where we are today

if Jeb Bush weren't governor of Fla., and all the votes had been counted. BTW, among people who voted in the 2000 election, Clinton's approval rating was 60 percent (sorry I don't have a link).

[neebob]

48. No argument there

but I also think a lot of people voted for Bush instead of Gore because of Clinton's behavior and Bush's promise to bring integrity back to the White House. I'm ashamed to admit I actually thought about giving him a chance, but in the end I just couldn't get past Bush Sr. having been director of the CIA. I was always more of a Democrat, but I didn't consider myself one. Only after 9/11 did I really begin to pay attention to politics and realize the Democratic party is not the lesser of two evils.

[BiggJawn]

67. "Onner and Dignitude"

Do you think people actually fell for that lie? Yeah, I do, but then I use the phrase "Sheeple" almost daily.

I still can't believe that people voted for Bush because of his coded promise not to get a blow-job on top of his desk, which is ALL that "Onner and Dignitude" Bee-Ess was about.

Of COURSE he could keep that promise! Sum-bitch hasn't been able to get it up for more than 10 years.
Coke and Booze will do that to you.....

[Nederland]

213. We also

...wouldn't be where we are today if Al Gore had managed to capture a lousy 50% of the vote. I mean, is that too much to ask of a candidate running on a record of eight years of peace and unparalleled prosperity? If 60% of voters approved of Bill Clinton, why did only 48% vote for Gore? At some point, you have to blame the candidate.

[nini]

26. explains why the repukes hated him so much

..and went to the extent they did to get him.

:eyes:


I can see why those farther to the left than some of us would be disappointed in him but to say he was in the right wing's pocket is stretching it a bit. I too was let down by some things he did and did not do so I agree he wasn't perfect. But he got alot of good things done too that I have to give him credit for.

I don't think I'll live long enough to find someone I agree with 100% on everything.

[StandWatie]

30. Because they are ignorant

[Dude_CalmDown]

27. No flames here - I agree

Moore said something along the lines of: Bill Clinton, the best Republican president we've ever had.

[leetrisck]

28. Who would bother to flame you

when most of your diatribe is pure *. I don't ever recall hearing Clinton say "I'm a victim" - that's more in line with the miserable little bastard that presently occupies space in this country.

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

29. The *ies are so far to the right of Clinton, as to make Bill look angelic

Why belabor the point when we have more pressing needs, like our daily surivival?

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Yeah...

Clinton was a conservative...which makes me just shake my head in disbelief at all the brain-damaged morons who insist he was a liberal. By the European definition of "liberal", perhaps, but not by the American one...very much in favour of "free trade", deregulation, international military adventurism (even if it was "cooperative")...and as far as Clinton's vaunted "charisma" goes, charisma is a quality I have come to be deeply distrustful of. It's useful for politicians, used car salesmen, televangelists, and other disreputable characters, I suppose...allows them to sucker people into thinking they have their best interests at heart (and Clinton was charismatic enough that he could probably take a Louisville Slugger to your kneecaps and convince you that he was doing it out of love and friendship).

[roughsatori]

32. I don't despise him, but I am deeply disappointed in him NT

[Cocoa]

35. where have you been?

attacking Clinton from the left is sooooo 10+ years ago.

I for one, and I know I'm not alone, have evaluated how useful such an analysis is, since Bush took office.

[library_max]

36. No flame

Just pointing out that your condemnation of Clinton begins with the assumption that the country would elect a left-winger like Nader if the Democrats would only give it a chance. Those of us who understand politics know (sadly) that it just ain't so. Clinton was the best deal we could get. We'd be a damn sight better off if we still had someone like Clinton in the White House, perfect progressive though he ain't.

[AP]

37. I'm reading about how Wilson tried to get a league of nations

passed, but he was so unwilling to compromise, that it was doomed. Wilson was a very good man who witnessed the attrocities of the Civil War. He gave himself a stroke working so hard to get the LoN passed in the Senate. The Republican opposition was so well financed and so organized, Wilson stood no chance of getting it passed without being less of a moral purist.

When FDR wanted to get the UN passed, he studied all the mistakes Wilson made. FDR had to go into full politician mode to get the UN passed. It's amazing how many twists and turns, and double-backs and smoke and mirrors he had to use to outwit Republican opposition.

Sometimes, for the sake of progress amd the good of mankind, it's way way way better to be an FDR than a Woodrow Wilson.

[BurtWorm]

39. Fine. Just don't forget to return your focus on 2004.

Don't...stop...thinking about tomorrow...

[Terwilliger]

54. I wont stop thinking about tomorrow

I think both parties should be torn asunder and 10-15 new ones come back in their place

[BurtWorm]

63. Great. How soon can we manage that?

[Terwilliger]

91. dunno Burt

what are you willing to do?

[BurtWorm]

108. You go first.

Hint: my plan involves the Democratic Party.

[Terwilliger]

132. then you're a fool

but please...go for it

[ulysses]

40. I know the feeling

In the middle of the 2000 campaign, a conservative coworker of mine (with whom I got along pretty well - we had good discussions and civil) was ranting about Clinton. I asked why he hated the man so much, given that he'd been the best thing to happen to the GOP. Took him the rest of the day to pick his jaw back up. Confused him even more when I then defended BC against the Monica witchhunt. ;-)

Hyperbole? Sure, but not by a whole hell of a lot. Clinton drew in sharp focus the state of the party, and it's not a state for which I care.

[chookie]

43. Excuse me dearie, but the house is on fire *now*

Glad you are feeling so content and comfy now that are taking the leisure to critically analyze and excoriate the Clinton administration is retrospect. Glad that you and no one you know are being effected by the policies of the Bush administration! Life is good! Good for you. Gee -- when so many people are suffering, and dying, it is great to hear a story like yours -- of someone leisurely studying history, devoting your energy into trying to understand why such a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity was really actually bad.

I can't wait until you turn your intellect to examining the Bush administration! Boy -- if you think Clinton was bad, wait till you start looking at Bush!!!!

As for me -- I see that America took its serious wrong turn in Nov 2000, and I am concentrating my efforts in putting the brakes on before we rush any further down the road to utter disaster.

But perhaps, in ten years or so, *if* we are able to rescue our nation from the catastrophe that the Bush administration has begun, we can take up this discussion again then.

Bye for now. Gotta go.

[BeachBuckeye]

123. I agree!!

And if you want to know what the REAL problem of the Democratic Party is, just read this whole sorry thread. Its filled with outrageous crap from some who haven't the slightest understanding of real politics but feel comfy in their little dream world.

[Tinoire]

246. On fire now you say? Then WAKE THESE PEOPLE UP!

WAKE THESE PEOPLE UP

before the whole damn thing burns down!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Not hatred, but deep disappointment

One of my friends analyzed Clinton as "having no deep-seated principles that he wasn't willing to give up in a futile effort to make the Republicans like him."

I didn't have high hopes in 1992, since I knew that Clinton was DLC and I already hated their interventionist, Reagan-ass-licking, Pentagon-coddling ways, but I thought that maybe he might actually try to keep some of his campaign promises.

First, he let the Repiggies get away with talking about his "failed" administration only two weeks after inauguration. The Dems and their allies should have subjected that comment to so much ridicule that the Republicans became the butt of Leno and Letterman jokes.

Then he let them intimidate him out of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military (which he could have done by executive order, telling the officers that anyone who objected would be court-martialed for insubordination--this is what Truman did about racial integration).

Then there was the health insurance debacle. He tried to play nice again, letting the insurance companies keep as much of their business as possible, but ending up with an unwieldy plan that was hard to defend and easy to shoot down.

He never caught on to the fact that the Republicans smell blood if you give in to them. After caving on gays in the military and national health care, it was as if he had a "kick me" sign on his butt.

He made a mistake common among beginning schoolteachers faced with a hostile class. Every experienced teacher will tell you that you have to establish your authority in the first two weeks of class, being stricter than you normally would be and perhaps even singling out some of the ringleaders. But inexperienced teachers try making the hostile students like them. It doesn't work, because students aren't hostile to a teacher they've just met because they dislike that teacher personally. They're just bullies, and you have to stand up to them right away or have a miserable year.

Similarly, the Republicans didn't necessarily hate Clinton at first. They were bullies and sore losers who hated the very idea of a Democrat in the White House.

Yes, Clinton had to deal with a hostile Republican Congress, but if he had stood up to the Repiggies in 1993 instead of trying to compromise with them at every opportunity, perhaps the voters would have respected him more and selected Congresscritters who were Democrats.

[ulysses]

58. !

Reagan-ass-licking, Pentagon-coddling ways

Lydia, I've always admired you, but I very much like the new, down-home version! :D

[DemExpat]

52. I'll take Clinton over a Repub, or a Nader any old day, thank you

and it's politicians like him who can get elected in the first place.....
That's the system....
I admire him for his peace efforts and negotiations.
Call me deluded.....:eyes:

:hi:
DemEx

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TioDiego]

59. Clinton was a great president.

Why bash him? You know, last night after the debate, I was thinking that we really have some great candidates. And now I see this crap.

[jonnyblitz]

60. took ya long enough to come around.!! read "Stupid White Men"

chapter 10, Democrats DOA!! It goes through a litany of the crap he pulled that should make any true progressive angry as hell! Not all of us drank the KoolAid in the 90's.. We were on to his right wing ass. The only thing was his enemies were so much worse that it was hard to dislike him at the time...

[sandnsea]

62. Yeah, he was just like Bush

the bastard.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheYellowDog]

65. And I'm glad Ricky Ray Rector was executed,

it showed to the country that Clinton was not a bleeding heart death penalty opponent, and it probably helped a tiny bit with his win in the 1992 election. Rector was a murderer, a double murderer like you said, and he deserved to die.

[IrateCitizen]

66. And I am certain that on that day many died who deserved to live...

Can you give it to them? Then don't be so eager to dole out death and judgement.

Sorry to steal from Gandalf, but I think that line sums up my opposition to the death penalty better than anything.

[TheYellowDog]

76. I could give it to them, Irate.

I would have no problems pulling the switch on any convicted death penalty inmate, so don't give me that crap argument.

[MrPrax]

68. Great Post and well stated

Throughout most of the 8 years Progressives kept telling themselves the same thing?
"This guy is on our side"
or the converse, "We're suppose to defend this clown"

And in all honesty, many of Clinton supporters were saying the same bilge...
"You don't Gingrich to get in, do you?'
"At least Clinton is better than Dole!"

Either they supported his crap or they couldn't be honest enough to admit to living in changed times, and 'it ain't your daddy's democratic party' anymore

Even more galling is the moral superiority to which some of these folks attempt to 'marginalize' their potential supporters and claim They are the True Democrats!!

[dfong63]

69. well said, esp re the military budget

[tom_paine]

70. Clinton only looks "bad" in retrospect -- at the time it seemed correct

(also, considering that "bad" certainly doesn't included 8 years of peace and prosperity, but rather the deleterious effects of "triangulation" long-term to the Democratic Party)

Ive said this many times before:

I don't think ANYONE fully appreciated the sitaution from the RICO-violating "elves" and "Arkansas Project" to the corruption of the Judiciary at key choke points by Federalist Society Loyalists to the combined effect of Corporate Consolidation and bullying/intimidation/taking-control-of-the-PR-cycle by the Right-Wing Sub-Media.

Absent that understanding, and living in the pre-2000 dreamworld that we lived in a strong, healthy democratic-republic, the triangulation and policy shifts that Clinton performeed sure were the right way to go. By doing so, he allowed much good to occur and "took the heat" from the VRWC that would have otherwise been directed towards what it is directed now, Imperial Propaganda and Looting and destroying the Old Amerikan Republic. It is only AFTER the Corporate TV Pravda "campiagn" coverage and the Freeped Polls and the laundered lies and the Bloodless Coup of 2000 that the true dimensions of the Assalt on Old America became clear just how bad it was...

Only then (and hindsight is 20/20 and not a good excuse) does some of the precedents that Clinton said seem so disasterous as it relates to the DLC, Lieberman, etc. etc.

So I think it's unfair to judge Clinton for reacting to the symptoms and not the deeper, not-as-easy-to-see disease.

[edward]

73. Don't agree.

The attacks on Clinton were vicious and mostly unwarrented from day one.
Clinton was alledged to be a great politician, yet getting impeached is not what happens to even crappy politicans. He really did not have the support to prevent it from happening. It was his fault. That is what is so sad about the whole thing.(not talking about blow job)
He really had the glow of charisma, not loyalty.

[tom_paine]

75. You're missing one BIG thing, edward

I think that the "lack of loyalty" that you percieve from the Democratic Party was more a function of the perniciuous and Orwellian nature of the "disease" that I spoke of generating Orwellian alternate realities and Potemkin Villages that scared the Democrats off.

Sort of like their post-9/11 grovelling.

Not that I am excusing it, but the blame here lies not so much with Clinton as it does with the rest of the Congressional Dems, many of whom to this day (like Lieberman) do not cannot will not acknowledge the results of the Right-Wing Sub-Media and all the attendant attacks on the Old American Instsitutions from the Press to the Judiciary.

Blame where blame is due.

We are ALL to blame...

[edward]

79. Sure. Valid. Still...

Clinton was the leader. It was his duty to set the agenda. He never criticized the right wing even remotely the way the right had been butchering "liberals" from the days of Reagan.
You have to defeat your enemy, or at least define the enemy.
Clinton acted like a prince in the court of a king, never willing to defy the king. We suffered for it.
(by the way, even senator Dole was suprised by the give away to media companies.)

[tom_paine]

194. Ok, you made your point

Again I think his basic civility in response to the 'Pugs was a calculated strategy to make them seem more shrill and crazy, thereby exposing them to the electorate.

Again I say that, had the Old Paradigm of the Old American Democatic-Republic still been in full strength and effect, instead of dying, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

But the Busheviks always knew they would forge ahead and accept temporary losses, knowing that soon the Amerikan Empire would be theirs lock stock and barrel as long as they didn't waver, show conscience or shame.

Which turned out to be a remarkably prescient philosophy, eh?

Though it wouldn't have been if we lived in a strong, healthy democratic-republic.

[David__77]

71. I "leave Clinton in the past."

I was opposed to many Clinton policies. I was in the streets protesting the bombardment of Yugoslavia. But I think I prefer to focus on the present and future, and support those now who are officials and candidates offering the right message. Clinton is kind of a non-issue at this point.

[demgrrrll]

80. I agree. Fine for folks who don't like him and fine for folks who do and

who cares. Interesting that someone would choose this particular moment and time to bash Clinton with such unparalleled fervor.

[edward]

81. Ok, I'll ask then, what is "interesting" about it?

[demgrrrll]

85. I don't know, just interesting to me on some level. n/t.

.

[Tinoire]

90. The only reason Clinton is being criticized right now

is because of the amount of posts on this board trumpetting his endorsement of a possible Presidential candidate we know nothing about who has the DLC's support.

Otherwise I don't think you'd be seeing these posts... The archives are full of what Progressives and Liberals thought of Clinton's presidency - ok but not stellar.

[Township75]

78. Didn't Clinton pass a lot of tNewt's Contract With America...

I could be wrong about this, because I was a young lad then, and didn't follow politics too closely.

I think the CWA had 10 parts to it....only 2 did not get voted on in the house: ending the assualt weapons ban, and term limits. The rest was at least voted on in the house, and I thought Clinton ended up signing a lot of it...for example, line item veto, welfare reform, and a balanced budget act.

But like I said, my memory my not be so good.

[Brian Sweat]

82. Clinton didn't cater to the right.

He didn't cater to the left either and that it what really bothers you. Clinton's policies were slightly left of center instead of extremely left of center and the extreme left hates him for this.

[edward]

83. Reagan accused welfare mothers of ruining the American economy.

Yes, Clinton is to the left of that.

[Richardo]

86. You, as a progressive, will never have a President to your liking.

Clinton is a Centrist. His genius was bringing the Democratic Party to the middle in order to be elected. Arguably, he on some occasions went too far right. But given the RW putsch of 1994, the non-stop proctological exam by Dr. Starr, and impeachment, he actually held up pretty well. His highest approval ratings came when he was fighting the RW.

Claiming he is some right wing saboteur is as ridiculous as the wingnuts who claim he is a socialist.

Clinton knows how to play to the middle - and that's where the voters are. The majority of our fellow citizens are by and large a mainstream, middle of the road amalgam of progressivism and conservatism (true conservatism, that is. As in "if the Constitution ain't broke, don't fix it" conservatism. The wingnuts who call themselves "conservatives" are no more conservative than you or I. They are dangerous win-at-all-costs enemies of representative democracy and the Constitution.)

Vote for your candidate of choice. You and another 10% of the electorate will have voted your conscience. But politics is not a religion - there is (or should be) no dogma. It's called a platform, because it is built one plank at a time, and sometimes the planks are changed out.

A big tent requires flexibility.

[edward]

88. "mainstream, middle of the road..."

Was Reagan in the center? This is why I never understand the claim that a Democrat has to play the center. Why don't Republicans have to play the same game?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. Bravo

Clinton was a center-left president presiding over a center-right nation. Edmund Burke* had it right when he said "that we must take man as he is not the way he want him to be." The president is part of the executive branch; he executes or carries out the law ;he doesn't make it.... Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with for six years..... They stymied him when he tried to pass some progressive legislation and shoved some reactionary legislation down his throat...


Clinton governed from the center left.... That was good enough for me....



on edit-Burke was a small c conservative. And unlike most political philosophers he was a legislator.... A prudent and temperate man he would be shocked at the "crimes" committed in the name of conservatism...

[no name no slogan]

165. Question then:

Clinton knows how to play to the middle - and that's where the voters are

If Clinton was so darn popular "in the middle", then why did he NEVER win a majority of the popular vote in '92 or '96?

Also, voter turnout in '92 and '96 just barely crossed the 50% mark.

So, using your logic then, less than 25% is a "majority"?

I would like to see how you came up with this "majority". Please show us the math.

[Richardo]

187. Point taken: make it "plurality" if you want...

...but protege and fellow centrist Gore DID get a majority.

And my assertion, poorly stated as it was, was that a majority of Americans are centrist. I do not have any stats to back that up, but a conventional poisson distribution would suggest that.

[Tinoire]

87. Clinton is no God.

I can't forget that Clinton presided over the greatest economic boom of our lifetimes yet at the same time introduced disastrous policies that hurt America's lower and middle classes. Yeah Bush stinks but that's no reason to canonize Clinton or any other Democrat who's in on this 2-party plunder & exploitation of the American people. We can not hate Bush while at the same time inconsistently praising Clinton for the same things. If so, then the Republicans are 100% correct to point out our intellectual hypocrisy.

While everyone demonizes Bush for the war on Iraq, they forget that Clinton was ready to attack Iraq also (google "Sandy Berger" "Madeleine Albright" OSU. The only reason he didn't was because he couldn't get public support and unlike Bush, Clinton cared about his image but the effect would have been the same- dead people everywhere, the US in charge of Iraq's oil and the the Middle-East destabilized.

Clinton was a MASTER at covert execution of the SAME US foreign policy we revile Bush for. South America is not new and Clinton continued it. Yugoslavia? That was new and it had to do with oil and destabilization-it was part 1 of the PNAC PAX AMERICANA plan.
------------------------------------------------------------

Allies and lies (About Yugoslavia)

<snip>

Prevarication, competing national agendas and lack of moral courage on the part of politicians and diplomats worsened an already horrific situation, while on the ground UN peacekeepers with inadequate support and confusing orders wrestled with a situation for which they were ill-trained.

Into this already complicated situation came the ultimate "wild card", the United States of America, the world's only superpower. A small group at the head of America's foreign policy elite intervened covertly in what it had previously called "Europe's problem".

<snip>

Bugging the UN (Seems Bush isn't the first to have done this...)

The scope of these activities included bugging UN Commanders and diplomats.

Former UN Commander in Bosnia General Sir Michael Rose was aware that the Americans were secretly bugging his office: "We were always very careful in what we said in that office. And if we did say something, it was with deliberate intent."

<snip>

Senior European negotiators believe that with US backing the war could have ended two years earlier, but US desire to see the Serbs punished meant that they instead encouraged the Bosnian Government to continue fighting. The price in human terms? Over 15,000 dead and nearly 600,000 refugees.

American unilateralism in Bosnia has led to a diplomatic backlash.

Europe feels it can no longer rely on the US in times of crisis. Instead, it has begun to hedge its bets, first with the Anglo-French St Malo Agreement and now with the so-called "Euro army".

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1390536.stm

--------------------------------------------------------

And let's not forget the most important bridge between the Clinton and Bush administrations- CIA, George Tenet, the only major carry-over between the two governments. He was the first CIA director in 28 years to remain in office after the White House changed occupants.

--------------------------------

Silent Surrender in America and the World
by Andre Gunder Frank
www.globalresearch.ca 24 June 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA306A.html

<snip>

THE LAW OF THE WEST
The Bush administration has also set aside centuries of International law. It wages illegal war, prohibited by numerous international treaties and by the United Nations Charter. Indeed it makes war without even declaring it, which even Hitler took the trouble to do. The US armed forces wantonly violate Geneva conventions of crimes against humanity, genocide, weapons of mass destruction such as depleted uranium, cluster bombs, massive "Daisy Cutter" bombs, destruction of civilian facilities to provide as power, water, and sanitation, and even neutral international waterways as when it deliberately blocked shipping on the Danube.

The Bush Administration have completely emasculated the United Nations instruments and procedures set up by the US and its allies after World War II to preserve the peace. Bush even had the gall to go to the UN and charge it with dereliction of duty and of its reputation by failing to give its stamp of approval for his War against Iraq - when the clear duty of the UN and especially of its Security Council is not to make war but to keep the peace. His government and his lackey press mislead the public into believing that a Security Council resolution could legalize his war. The fact is that even with an SC resolution, his father's War against Iraq in 1991 was in clear violation of Articles 2, 27, 41, 42, 43 and 53 of the UN Charter, among others. The failure of the NATO states even to consult the UN before going to War against Yugoslavia and as did President Clinton and NATO, and then present President to wage War against Afghanistan without the slightest provocation from its government, and then to make War on Iraq in clear violation of the expressed desires of the UN membership only illustrate the total abandonment of the UN as an institution and instrument for peace. On the contrary, after the US bombs a country into shambles, it then goes to the UN to ask it to pick up the pieces, or in plain English allegedly to legitimize the US military occupation of the country it had just destroyed. But not only that, violation of international law also constitutes ipso facto violation of national law, because Senate ratification of an international treaty converts it into US law as well. Moreover, domestic democracy has been sacrificed to waging international war as well, as when NATO did so against Yugoslavia without even a single member country government troubling itself to ask its parliament or Congress for authorization to do so.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA306A.html


-------------------------------------
November 23, 1999

Eastward of the Balkans lie the vast reservoirs of petroleum around the Caspian Sea, increasingly subject, since the break-up of the Soviet Union, to the exploitation of Western oil companies. These companies want security for their capital investments, specifically, for the pipeline routes westward they are planning to build to pump out the oil. Yugoslavia was a possible roadblock to those plans that had to be eliminated. Hence, the vilification of the Serbs and the Milosevic regime. (Nothing ever said, needless to say, about the blatant human rights violations or the near-total lack of democracy in Western-compliant oil states such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.) Hence, bombs had to start falling from the skies despite the fact that thousands of ordinary people might be maimed and killed -- and they were.

<snip>
This past week, in the context of the conclave of the Western leaders held in Istanbul, several articles have come out in the more-or-less official U.S. media which speak with rare candor about the imperialist economic game being played by the U.S. in this region. Both the “Boston Globe” and the “New York Times” had major articles on the proposed development of an oil pipeline from Baku, now in the independent state of Azerbaijan but formerly in the Soviet Union, to Turkey and the West. The current pipeline runs through Chechnya and into Russia proper (which may help to explain in part the current military campaign being waged by the Russians to suppress the Chechen separatists). The plan, openly trumpeted, is to keep the oil away from Russia, and the Iranians to the south.

<snip>

There was no sense expressed in either of these articles that there might be anything wrong or disadvantageous with playing this “game”, that possibly the U.S. and other Western countries, if they had systems that were more rational and less profit-driven, might want to reexamine their commitment to petroleum economies and to the lock-step defense of the interests of the oil companies. This is a relationship that has already led these countries to go to war (again using other excuses), to bomb and to kill, earlier this decade in the Gulf region. That particular conflict for oil and corporate profits is, of course, not really over. Practically every day, the U.S. and Great Britain carry out new bombing raids, and large numbers of Iraqi men, women, and children continue to suffer from the dire effects of economic sanctions imposed on them because their government, like the Yugoslav government, threatened to disrupt the rules of the “game” for the big players.

<snip>


On another geographical front, an imperialist oil war – in this case packaged and sold as a “drug war” – is under way right now in Colombia, the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (after Israel and Egypt). Some have called this the “next Vietnam”, at a stage now equivalent to the early 1960s. U.S. military advisors are already abetting the corrupt, repressive government there to fight the Marxist guerillas who control large liberated zones in the countryside, who sometimes blow up oil pipelines as a military tactic, and who seem poised at some point soon to take power in the country as a whole. Meanwhile, next door in Venezuela -- which, unlike the Middle East or the Caspian Sea area, is a major direct exporter of oil to the U.S. itself -- a charismatic populist Hugo Chavez has come to power promising a more equitable distribution of the country’s oil revenues. For those who know the history of how imperialism works, the signs are plainly visible that a U.S. media campaign is under way to vilify this new government as moving in a “dictatorial” direction and to pave the way for possible further destabilization and intervention. Watch out!

<snip>
http://www.neravt.com/left/contributors/moore3.htm

---------------------------------------------
Welfare Reform Act of 1996
-----------------

March 1997
On February 6, President Clinton announced his FY98 budget proposal, which forms the basis for Congressional debates on spending priorities for the next fiscal year. The President's budget proposal continues the trend Clinton began last year by recommending less funding for all homeless assistance programs approximately $295 million less than last year's proposal, and includes level-funding for almost all McKinney homeless programs, thereby maintaining the deep cuts made to these programs by the last Congress (see chart).

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/sn/1997/feb/retreat.html

---

Millions of poor people have been dropped from federal welfare program over the years as a result of the 1996 Clinton welfare reforms--known by the deceptively uplifting title of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The act terminated almost six decades of Washington’s cash payments to the poor to help them survive. Most of these workers have found that the jobs they obtained paid such low wages (averaging $7.15 an hour, or $14,872 a year) and include so few benefits that they continued to exist in poverty. Now, those workers who managed to remain on welfare -- mainly women with young children receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- are being dumped because of mandatory five-year limits imposed by the 1996 law.

The United States today is increasingly transforming into a society where the bulk of the nation’s wealth is possessed by small proportion of the population. Some 5% of the American people control over 60% of the country’s considerable assets, while the bottom 80% holds about 16% of the assets. The upper-middle 15% take the rest. The Census Bureau reports that in 2000 half the nation’s total income went to the top fifth of the population, while 3.6% went to the bottom fifth. In the last decade, the top fifth of U.S. families have substantially increased their share of the country’s income and assets while the bottom four-fifths has experienced a decline in its share.

There is nothing on the agenda of the two political parties which alternate in governing the United States to indicate they have any intention of deflecting this trend toward the concentration of ever greater wealth and privilege in the bank accounts of an ever smaller minority of the population.

http://www.adolfoien.vgs.no/larere/permag/hunger_and_poverty.htm
---

On August 22, 1996, President William Jefferson Clinton joined his conservative congressional cronies and ensured his place in history by signing into law the Personal Responsibility and Welfare Reform Act of 1996, the most brutal abdication of U.S. government responsibility for the poor in our nation's history. With one stroke of the pen, Clinton ripped the safety net of income support from our nation's poorest people, snatching assistance from poor single parents (mostly mothers) with children, Hmong veterans (who had been promised support in return for their war service in the Vietnam Conflict), legal immigrants, able-bodied adults without dependents and disabled children.

The Welfare Reform Act was a politically expedient act, which blames the victims, offers them few tools and ensures that while some families may survive its brutality, many will not. The added bonus of the legislation's construction is that most of us will not even know the depths of despair to which it will subject many of our next generation, simply because they had the bad luck to be born poor.
The legislation's elements included an end to entitlement to cash welfare, work requirements for able-bodied adults, a lifetime limit of five years and severe penalties on clients "refusing to comply." Administration of this vast human experiment was "devolved" to the states-hence the term devolution-ending federal standards and client protections, and giving wide latitude to state governments to set eligibility guidelines.

<snip>

The Welfare Reform Act emphasizes punitive measures to foster work in the belief that clients receiving welfare need to be forced to work. Legislators included this component on a political rather than factual basis, relying on a racist media campaign to convince supporters and detractors that public assistance was primarily a vehicle for people of color (despite the fact that the majority of households participating in AFDC were white) to live well, "whether they deserved to or not"-the unspoken but ever-present inference. The act requires work for the poorest sector of our population regardless of the fact that a significant portion of workers' jobs already fail to raise them and their families out of poverty. To pay for the program, Congress decided to further undermine the availability of affordable quality child care, a necessary support for clients' returning to work.

<snip>

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is not just a blot on the morality of the U.S. It is an attack on all workers and on all families. In one congressional session, our policy makers determined that families of individuals are not entitled to Food Stamps and thus must go hungry except for three months of every three years if they are not working; that many disabled children are no longer entitled to assistance; that it is more important to our society that a poor mother leave her children and care for another's than stay at home and care for her own - only then is she considered a "working" mother.
At a time when more of our jobs are being relegated to automation and the stock market is steadily dropping, reports of a vigorous economy ring hollow, especially when we know that they are based on the profits of large corporations that realize revenue increases when they lay-off employees (oops, did I mean downsize?) This is happening at the same time that the federal government is withdrawing even its half-hearted commitment to affordable housing, phasing out Section Eight.

<snip>

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-98/welfare.html


Sorry for jumbled post... Work calls! Peace and thanks for posting that!

[gully]

89. zzzzzzzzzzzz

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-index.html

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

Let's move on shall we?

[DerekG]

92. You can sleep all you want, gully...

But Tinoire just posted a piece of an article which states that Bill Clinton spit in the faces of The New Deal and The Great Society-- not exactly small potatoes.

[gully]

93. Nor was my post about Clintons accomplishments...

Sorry, not interested in Green Party Rhetoric. back to sleep for me zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Edited to add; some links refered to the BFEE, thus I fail to see the relevance...

[Tinoire]

102. Shhhhh, Don't wake him up

Gully won't wake up until there are no more potatoes for his dinner table. Until then why make any fuss over insignificant issues such as Welfare Reform, child poverty and homelessness that were mostly aimed at the poor?

Besides, if you're out of potatoes, you can always eat cake!


"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" replied Scrooge.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. ... It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

— Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.

[gully]

124. Gully is a she... and...

as a person who grew up on welfare and saw directly the impact of the wonderous life of a welfare kid...I'd say I'm pretty inclined to have a strong opinion on this.

I had two sisters come off the system (in the Clinton years) they got help with education and child care. And, built their self esteem in the process.

Who needs to wake the F up here? Not me. Do I think Clinton was 'perfect' NO. Do you think Nader was perfect YES.

[Terwilliger]

138. umm...who said Nader was perfect?

I challenge you there. You won't find anybody. And Ralph Nadser was right...Clinton was demonstrable evidence that the parties are more similar than apart.

[gully]

139. Uhm, who said Clinton was perfect?

Nader was wrong...and if you can't see that NOW, you should abstain from voting in the next election.

damedbigdifference.org

[Terwilliger]

142. You should abstain from voting until you understand your choices

Excuse me....who voted for the Patriot Act? Who voted for the War resolution? Who did that?? Nader?? Greens?

http://www.therealdifference.com/issues2.html

[gully]

143. I guess they'd actually have to be 'elected' first

before we can criticize their votes now wouldn't they.

[gully]

144. The site you reference is a total joke,

and has been refuted here by acutally looking at the data.

Talk about BLIND!

[Terwilliger]

146. excuse me???

refute any of it

[gully]

152. I have refuted it

on many occasions.

The site you linked proves that the Green Party is 'digressive' not 'progressive'.

Apparently if one Democrat votes for any legislation they reference, it's considered Democratic support? How sad that so many believe this rubbish!

Do yourself a favor, stop linking this ridiculous site, it shows the Green party for what it is.

[Terwilliger]

155. your imperious tone is not convincing

and frankly, you can't refute any of it

[gully]

159. It's simply ridiculous ...

One democratic vote = support.

One Green against (in principal) any action = opposition, in spite of the fact that they can't vote because they are not 'in office.' IT'S TOTALLY ABSURD!

What do you want me to do show you one Democrat who didnt 'support' some of the things the Green Party said that 'Democrats' support.

Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold are/were DEMOCRATS who did not support the Patriot Act, there's a refutation for you.

The Green Party can talk all it wants to about opposing this and that, but until they are in a position to actually cast a vote they are not holding themselves to the same standards they hold the Democrats to.

If the site wanted to be credible and effective, they'd give links to information and voting records, not make ridiculous comparisons.

[Terwilliger]

166. I appreciate your efforts

but you're not refuting anything

What do you want me to do show you one Democrat who didnt 'support' some of the things the Green Party said that 'Democrats' support.

ONE?!?!?! Are you joking?????????? Are you serious? So, if there's ONE democrat willing to be an actual liberal, I should reward their passion by supporting the party that ignores him??

[gully]

170. ONE is all it takes to equal Green opposition....

Same standard applies. Democrats are individuals (period) the link you provided remains ridiculous.

[Terwilliger]

171. so, ideas are not part of the "real world"?

Whether Greens currently have influence, the fact is, they're liberal Democrats. Real liberals. That's your problem. That's why Greens have been marginalized for so long. Greens have progressive and liberal ideas and they're willing to stick to them. If Dems want to compromise with Pukes all day...well, fine...don't expect everyones support.

[gully]

216. Politics is the 'art' of compromise.

Ideals are only effective if there's a chance they can become reality.

Thankfully though, some Greens are seeing the 'differences' between the Dems and Repubs.

http://www.repentantnadervoter.com

"Since entering office, George W. Bush has surprised even those who feared him most. He has neglected the poor and the uninsured--while piling tax breaks on those who don't need them. He has undermined the ability of the United Nations to uphold the international rule of law. He has waged an illegal war, killing and wounding thousands of civilians and soldiers. He has weakened the Bill of Rights. And more.

His presidency has been so destructive that the premise of your campaign--that the two parties are controlled by the same special interests and are therefore identical--has been proven wrong. If Al Gore were our President, we can be sure that significant disasters would have been avoided, including the tax cuts for the rich, the near destruction of the United Nations, the Iraq War, and more."

[sujan]

175. wellstone voted for the Pat. Act

[gully]

180. NO he and other DEMOCRATS voted against... n/m

[Terwilliger]

192. Feingold was the only one voting against the Patriot Act

sorry

[gully]

193. Wow interesting...

This article implied otherwise. But, after further research, I stand corrected...

http://www.freedomfiles.org/archives/paulwellstone.htm

[Terwilliger]

209. interesting?

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=The_USA_Patriot_Act_and_Libraries&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11185

October 25: Senate Passes H.R. 3162, the USA PATRIOT Act. The vote was 98-1 with Senator Russ Feingold the only member voting against passage of the bill.

[gully]

210. Therefore according to the Green Party criteria, Democrats 'opposed' the

patriot act. After all it only takes one Green to equal opposition according to their standard. *See the link you referenced earlier for more information...

Do you know how the Green Party voted on this? Oh, that's right, there not in a position to VOTE now are they. But, I'm sure if they were they'd never dissapoint you TRUE "progressives" :eyes:

[Tinoire]

203. lol

I have refuted it on many occasions

:eyes:

but can't even show proof of one...

Must the new form of pre-Primaries "debate" :shrug:

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

243. Bwahahaha! Is that a threat Gully?

Go back to sleep!

[gully]

248. Go back to sleep, is getting quite old Tinore.

Find a new slogan.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sujan]

252. heh

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

174. I challenge you to find one post of mine claiming Clinton was perfect...

Wake up Tinoire.

[Tinoire]

244. Your arguments are really so lame

circular and childish.

That was not your task. Stick to your task. You made accusations about me- when asked for proof you twist the entire thing.

Childish. Just how old are you? You can't possibly be over 17 and even that is being generous.

[gully]

247. What accusations were made about 'you'

You just called me childish and bashed me personally on many occassions. I have refrained repeatedly from doing the same to you. Who's the childish one here?

:hi:

I won't respond to your ridiculous name calling anylonger. You have made my ignore list. Cheerio!

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

101. ROFLMAO!! You've got to be (*^_ me!

Man! At least put a little effort into it and try to find a less 'partisan' site!

Here's some more absolutely rivetting stuff from the exact same site you used...

Jeez Gully WAKE UP!

This entire thread obviously went swoosh, straight over your head! Mercy, mercy for the Democratic Party if that's what you use as your source!

I am absolutely flabber-gasted. The 2-Party system was designed for people just like you! All they have to do is change the url for the same site and you buy whatever they're peddling!

Or is this just another example of Centrism at its best?

[gully]

126. At least my links pertained to the subject matter, who needs to wake up?

Oh woe is me, 'centrism' egads! A government that represents 'everyone'? All the humanities!!!!

Edited to add: your link adds to the credibility of the information I posted as it also had information about other Presidents. Thanks!

[Terwilliger]

140. so, you're not a Democrat then?

because centrism pretty much assures people that your goals aren't rooted in the left (Democratic party) but in the great unwashed middle. So, no more supporting Democrats...that would be partisan of you.

[gully]

141. The Democratic party is the party of 'inclusion'...

get it?

So your a Green then?

BTW, I supported and worked for the Wellstone, and Mondale campaigns, so don't tell me I'm not left enough for YOU, ok? It's tiresome.

[Terwilliger]

149. OK...dont listen

you dont care that the two party system will end up grinding people into the poor and destroy the middle class...but HEY! No problem! Lets just keep voting for the same set of circumstances every election and I'm sure all this will change in 50-60-70-100 years.

[gully]

151. PUHLLEEZZE!

What a crock.

By the way, 138 Dems voted in support of campaign finance reform, and about 2 Republicans. Democrats are the ticket to real change. Not 'overnight' change.

Throw away your vote again, and sleep well, it don't make no nevermind to me. Unfortunately though, it does to many others.

My advice, climb off the high horse and step into reality. That's the spirit of a true progressive.

[gully]

154. The middle class grew under the Clinton years...

More baseless rhetoric.

Do me a favor and 'educate' yourself.

Here's a dose of 'reality' for you.

Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.

Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).

Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.

Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.

7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

Ah, yes there's no difference between the two major parties. :eyes:

[Tinoire]

167. Oh barf

Nothing adds any credibility to anything you posted Gully. Your case is, as usual, as weak as your reasoning.

[gully]

173. Oh, poo!

barf/poo? BTW, at least I 'reason.'

[John_H]

94. Jeez, usher in

22.5 million new jobs
lowest minority poverty rates in history
eight years of relative peace
a huge budget surplus
huge drops in crime
huge increases in education spending w
etc
etc
etc.

And you'll still have a bunch of dead enders dissing you as they live in the middle of bush's america. Sounds to me like Bush's economy hasn't hit the student starbucks or the visiting poet's reception yet.

[minkyboodle]

95. My first vote was for Clinton in 92

And I was really dissapointed and heartbroken by his policies. I don't think he was part of some right-wing conspiracy and don't deny that he was probably the victim of several vast right-wing attacks (I wouldn't call them conspiracies, they seemed pretty out in the open to me). I guess that makes me a fringe-lefty and Yes, I did vote for Nader in 2000 (flame away), but Kucinich has really resurrected my feelings for some democrats (the whole pool seems OK to me this time except for Holy Joe). Either way Bush has scared me shitless enough to vote for the Dem this year (although a Joe nom could really shake that). I guess I just react differently when candidates during the debates this year (Kerry, Gephart) try to associate themselves with the Clinton years. Most dems nod yes and I cringe.. thats just the way I feel.
Scott

[Dr Fate]

96. "Despise" is a little overboard...

...he had some faults, but you have to admit he would be handling our present situations better than Chimpy...I would certainly vote for him if he could run again...

[jiacinto]

97. Nader is a complete hypocrite and liar

I wonder why people think Nader is so pure when the man himself owned shares in many of the corporations he criticized via his mutual funds.

Oh yeah, I forgot Nader is above reproach here.

[Forkboy]

99. LMFAO

I'm guessing you couldn't find an actual Green thread to post this on (even though,according to you,DU is practically overrun by Greens).

Sad Carlos....very very sad.Why do you embarrass yourself this way?

[buddhamama]

218. gotta add my own little giggle

you're so funny,Carlos.

is that the best you could come up with? i thought you were a polisci guy.

[gully]

219. What's so funny...

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

[buddhamama]

220. please! like i haven't seen that before

i'm been on this board for over two yrs, do you honestly think that is the first time i have read about Nader. i actually think its kinda interesting; Nader uses the money he makes from the corporations to fight against them. unlike a large number of DEMs who take the money and work for the corporation.

you missed the point though. oh how i am NOT surprised :eyes:

[gully]

221. Glad you've seen it. Perhaps some one new will be enlightened.

Didn't mean to offend ;)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

98. One minor correction..although I share many of your issues

with Clinton, especially the Rector one. Clinton at first did NOT want to sign off the money for star wars. All of his advisors had stated it wouldn't work and he believed that to be so as well. Then the Defense Policy Board turned up the heat, lobbied congress heavily and a veto would have been overridden anyway.

YOu can evaluate this for yourself...the info is available.

[bluestateguy]

100. Then you're a Clinton hater

A left-wing Clinton hater, but a hater nonetheless.

[Tinoire]

104. Well in that case- Roll out the guillotine

and off with his head!

Blind party loyalty is what got America into this mess because Republicans are no better and no worse than we are.

I've got good news for you bluestateguy, you can see your mama's flaws and still get to heaven!


'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
Gilbert K. Chesterton

You can replace the word country with the word 'president'.

Note to self: Write to Dept of Education and ask when they stopped teaching critical thought in schools.

[gully]

127. Ah, nevermind...

It's really not worth it.

:nopity:

[Terwilliger]

106. hmmm

and you like Bush? do you hate him? how do you feel about Bush?

[bluestateguy]

110. I'm not going to dignify that question

Go back and do a search of my posts. You ought to be able to figure that out.

[Terwilliger]

131. So, you're a "hater" too, you just don't want to admit it

way to go! :eyes:

[kodi]

103. considering the other paths of action and consequences he did ok

and i hope those who read zinn, chomsky, and gore vidal do what i do after an angry and enlightening night reading those authors, viz., take a long walk before i write anything political, 'cause it sounds like a polemic when i do, and zinn, chomsky and vidal do it so much better.

as to clinton, shall we repeat again that had he kept his penis in harness the man could have accomplished more in the 20th century as president than all fdr. clinton had a chance to be one of the top 10 presidents we ever had.

he did the things he did for political expedience, to survive. he compromised on a lot dear to many, especially that dispicable welfare reform act.

but looking out over the congress at that time, i think it unrealistic to believe that congress would have yielded more. yet clinton did force the hand of the republican congress when the government shut down in 1995 and won a battle no one thought he would. this act alone might well have been the event that turned the tide for the survival of the democratic party as a political force (the '96 congressional elections not withstanding).

for those of us who recall a democratic party which was once great, then a stumbling mockery in the late '80's - early '90's, clinton gave the democratic party some breathing room to redefine itself while under the constant attack of the right wing with its multitude of millionaires and media minions.

its ugly to have to admit it, but clinton gave ground to continue this party's survival. he gave up some vital stuff, in welfare, civil/personal rights, trade, and it is up to all of us to now carry the torch and not let those sacrifices that were made for simple survival to our ideals and our weakest be seen in vain.

the democratic party is back in the game across america and it is getting stronger...NEVER, EVER FORGET THIS.

it is up to us to use this strengthened party to regain what we lost in its weakest moments.

of all the things that clinton did, he left the democratic party stronger than he found it. but he is just another man, he is not a hero riding on a white horse or moses taking us to the promised land.

in a functioning democracy, that task is for each of us working together to realize.

[Tinoire]

105. That was very nicely said. Thank you for striking a balance.

I can't abide the blind Clinton worship because it's no better than the blind Bush worship.

That was a balanced, harmonious post. Just what this thread needed!

[gully]

129. Can you abide by Nader worship?

How bout Kucinich worship?

[Terwilliger]

134. or...Clinton worship

like so many here do

[gully]

135. uhm, that's what I was responding to...

No one worships Clinton like the Greens worshiped Nader.

How bout 'Clinton despising' as the thread title eludes to. Is that ok?

[Terwilliger]

148. Well, lessee

you claim that Democrats didn't worship Clinton and Gore, but Greens worship Nader...

I don't despise Clinton, but he was barely a Democrat, and until you recognize that, you might end up voting in more of them.

Well, gully, don't you want to support Joe Lieberman in this election? He and Bill Clinton are great friends, and both belong to the DLC. Shouldn't you vote fror Lieberman?

[gully]

150. If he gets the nom he's got my vote...

unless a liberal third party candidate has a greater chance of ousting Bush.

I won't throw away my vote in a close election to make a statement when peoples lives are at stake. YOU?

[Terwilliger]

156. D'OH! I forgot! Lives are at stake!

I hadn't thought of that!!!

[gully]

160. Apparently not.

Par for the course.

[Tinoire]

172. Too ridiculous for words

796 posts of pure gavno and how many more to come?

Haha, doesn't matter, I expect many more.

Go back to your idolatry dearie. Don't forget the candles and incense- idol worship isn't complete without it.

[gully]

178. You are the one who can go back to 'idolatry' dearie...

see the 'rules' for election 2004. Tis not me who will be leaving.

:hi:

[CWebster]

113. Clinton was his own worst enemy

Charming, but weak and self-indulgent. He possesed diplomatic skill and political ambition but he lacked true grit. He wasn't a fighter and he didn't relish staying the course for the duration if compromise eased the conflict. Ego and too great an impulse to compromise at the expense of what was right and what was important was his undoing.

[gully]

128. Excellent post!

That is what it's all about. Politics is the art of compromise. Some people just don't get that.

[Fescue4u]

109. Clinton is gone and retired

Leave to poor fellow alone.

[Merlin]

111. Spoken like a truly naive and ignorant idealist.

JFK prided himself in being an "idealist without illusions." Here we have a thread begun by an idealist full of illusions. Evidently DerekG was too young during the Clinton years to be aware of the political environment at the time, much less that during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush that preceded him.

Evidently DerekG is unfamiliar with the fact that in a democracy, consensus is required to accomplish anything. Nor does DerekG evidently have a clue about the healthcare episode in '93-'94 when Clinton proposed the most significant, dramatic new program since the days of FDR. It was a progressive program which was attacked by industry adversaries with millions of dollars worth of commercials. And the progressives of America did nothing but sit on their hands and watch it crash and burn.

DerekG does not factor in to his "analysis" the rise of rabid, right wing hate politics. He gives no credit to Clinton for economic policies which helped lift millions out of poverty, brought unprecedented prosperity, and led to the highest percentage of minority home ownership in our history.

Nor does DerekG consider the teachers added to the school systems particularly in the inner cities, nor the profound reduction of crime in poverty centers.

DerekG seems to have forgotten--or missed entirely--the context of the times in which Clinton was President.

Forgive me if I despise the naivete of DerekG.

[DerekG]

112. Give me a break, Merlin...

John F. Kennedy, the idealist without illusions, skirted the issue of civil rights until the horrors of Birmingham in 1963 convinced him that supporting the movement was a MORAL necessity, regardless of the wrath the Dixiecrats would bring upon the party. His previous centrism regarding the issue had been wrong.

And it would later prove that it was not the defense of civil rights, or the war on poverty, that would cripple the Democratic Party, but rather the rape of Vietnam.

There is not one good reason why Clinton should've disregarded the Land Mines Treaty. Because of his cowardice, there were a lot of children who were maimed and killed who didn't have to.

He was a god-damned coward.

[Lindsey]

115. Anyone who says that Clinton wasn't the victim of a right-wing

attack isn't reading. What about the Arkansas Project? What about the Heritage Foundation. Read Blinded by the Right. Read The Hunting of the President. How can ANYONE say that what's going on now with the BFEE isn't 1000 times worse than when Clinton was in office? Please feel free make the comparisons. Clinton is not a perfect man. However, I think that he and Gore did a great job (with of course a few exceptions because they're human for GOD's sake) and I'd give anything for the vibration of our world to be at the level it was in the 90's compared to how it is today. WHO AMONG YOU CAN SAY THINGS ARE BETTER NOW?!?!?!?

[Terwilliger]

145. Why didn't Gore win?

especially given the alternative...why wasn't Al Gore (and Joe Lieberman) able to persuade a majority of the electorate?

HUH???

[Sinistrous]

153. Kindly explain how your inscrutable question is germane to this thread?

n/t

[Terwilliger]

163. how is it not?

Bill Clinton was a progressive? Where did we progress? Why wasn't it enough to get get Gore in the White House? Why are we stuck with dim-bulb?? If Clinton and the DLC are so great, why are we out of the WH, and both branches of Congress? Raplh Nader? Bullshit.

I'd say there's some serious denial afoot.

[jiacinto]

116. Good post, Merlin

But see these people are not satisfied unless they get everything they want.

[Mairead]

118. "in a democracy, consensus is required to accomplish anything"

I think that word does not mean what you think it means.

All that's required in a democracy is 51%, the technical word for which is 'majority', not 'consensus'.

Clinton could have --had he wanted to-- rallied the people to get support for his programs. FDR did that, Clinton didn't. On his head be it.

[robbedvoter]

119. That's a keeper, Merlin!

That's why I call myself liberal instead of proressive - the word tends to cover those who don't pay of attention to the reality.
For 6 out of his 8 years Clinton governed with a GOP congress (and the dems weren't exactly helpful either). The same cabal that is destroying the country now was tryong then .
3 times Clinton vetoes drilling in Alaska - just to give an idea of the crap congress was doing.
What he achieved was IN SPITE of all the opposition - not just smear jobs, impeachments - but pure raw obstruction (GOP-ers were given word: "Nothing he wants passes".
His last executive orders (protecting workers' disability, privacy, environment etc) were bills GOP had refused to even vote on.
Yet, "progressive" Nader wrote about him "laying traps" for poor W with those orders.
If 3 years of W do not give you a clue of what a tremendous progressive force Clinton was for this nation, you are not paying attention.

[Creideiki]

121. Clinton was a pragmatic progressive

Given what the country was like (and Congress) after 1994, it's amazing he was able to make life any better for anyone. But he did. My life is so much better than it was under Reagan and Bush Sr. that it isn't even funny.

Do I wish he'd've gone further and been able to be more progressive? Yes. I'm willing to bet that he would, too. So he gets admiration and respect for accomplishing anything, and thanks for accomplishing what he did. Then I hope that the next Democratic president is able to build and work on still more progressive ideas.

[Terwilliger]

133. Clinton was not a progressive at all

I know people here want to believe that, but Bill Clinton was a right-wing Democrat pushing right-wing ideals agaisnt every thing else

Clinton was NOT a progressive.

[ProfessorGAC]

147. Let's Make A Deal

You believe that, and i'll believe a different way, since you're not going to convince me and i'm not going to convince you.

Just one question: Was he better than Nixon, Ford, Reagan, 41, and 43?

The Professor

[Terwilliger]

157. excuse me...thats not the question

the question was whether or not he was progressive

And, no, he's a DLC neoliberal trying to fuck the system we've been using all these years. Those other assholes were honest in their conservatism.

[Redleg]

190. And neither are you...

I couldn't resist. Seriously- what makes one a progressive- the ability to discern who is not?

[Terwilliger]

191. someone willing to get beyond party loyalties

and bring real solutions to real problems

[Gman]

130. You don't have a lot of real world experience, do you?

Check back in about 30 years and you may understand. Heaven forbid if you have to think in rational terms.

[DerekG]

177. That's funny, Gman...

But I'd rather think in humanist terms--my sympathies lie with the working class and poor, not to some well-fed bureaucrat. He was quite willing to accomodate the military-industrial complex, yet offering no vision for a progressive society at home.

Bill Clinton: Everything you hated about Lyndon Johnson and NOTHING you loved.

[no name no slogan]

179. But I do...

I've been working on Democractic campaigns since 1988, when I went to my state convention as a Dukakis delgate (BTW, Clinton gave Dukakis' nominating speach at the National Convention that year).

I also think Clinton has done more harm to the Democratic Party than most Democratic activists realize.

Clinton and his "New Democrats" took control of the party and abandoned its core constituencies in favor of big-money corporate donors and the interests of the rich. He and his DLC minions turned this once-great big tent of a party into a shell of its former self by making it over as "Republican Lite".

A Democratic Party that has no platform other than "me too, but not as much as those guys". A party not made up of common people, but of corporate boardmembers and the "liberal elite" (whatever that is). A party that seems more worried about "how we'll look" than about doing what's right. A party that's afraid to stand up the the evil being wrought by the hard right because it doesn't want to sound "shrill".

What has that led to? Countless elections between the Repubs and "Repub Lite" party, with ever-lower voter turnout rates. A two-term president who never won a majority of the popular vote. The loss of the House of Representatives after an amazing 40 years in control, not to mention the loss of the Senate.

"But Clinton did some good things! He blocked drilling in ANWAR!" SO WHAT?! Nixon signed the Clean Water Act into law! Eisenhower warned about the "military-industrial complex"! Even Barry Freakin' Goldwater said gays should be allowed to serve in the military!

But what about selling out your base in order to "play nice" with your enemy, whose only interest is destroying you any way he can? What good does that do to you, or your party?

It's this mentality that has led voters away from the Democrats. The party, to them, doesn't seem to mean anything any more. It pays lip service to the values it used to champion, in order to "look nice" to that 5% of the voting age population known as "swing voters", who also seem more interested in "what's in it for me" instead of "what's best for our country".

Voters are never going to trust a party that pretends it's something else, nor are they going to vote for it. Why vote for a pale imitation of Republicans, when we can get the real thing for the same price?

[The White Rose]

181. Spot on IMO.

...

[kodi]

188. agree some what, but with qualifications

"This once-great big tent of a party” you mention had lost 5 of 6 recent presidential elections (and Ford would have beaten Carter if Ford had not pardoned Nixon) by calling on its base for support, and had Clinton done what Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis had done, the Democratic Party would have lost in ’92 and perhaps disintegrated as a serious national presidential party altogether.

Of course Clinton and the DLC saw personal opportunities in this, of course they did, but what is also true is that whatever Democratic Party remained was also a presidential party which could do things via the executive branch that even Congress could not, and unlike the GOP, it is a force that still can be molded and used for positive social change by forces more than mere money.

When Clinton centered the rhetoric of the Democratic Party he undermined many of the things for which I was proud to be called a Democrat. But I also realized that our old rhetoric had not accomplished much in 25 years, and that we had better try to figure out how to win the White House and the powers which flow from it....The prospect of 9 Antonin Scalias on the SCOTUS may not scare you, but it is my worst nightmare.

Clinton’s move from grass roots to corporate sponsorship of the Democratic Party was intentional, but not terminal. It was a response to the GOP and its own money machines cranking out millions for Far Right activities and policies, and I am unsure that we would have a strong Democratic Party now had Clinton not reached out for corporate sponsorship then.

To me, and not withstanding much good that the Democratic Party jettisoned, I still think that the Democratic Party is the best available social organization to promote real, positive changes for this country.

But, the true strength of the Democratic Party is not derived from its money; it is derived from the people who support its agendas for fairness, and as the Democratic Party has regained strength, it is now time to wrest control from corporations and recapture our Party and mold it for the battles we must fight for a progressive America.

The “corporate sponsorship” of the Democratic Party can be overcome. The tools for this abound. But such a recapturing of the Party requires that what replaces corporate funding and the power it provides to press its issues must be supplied by its successor

It will take a concerted effort by thousands of activists to do this. Are we up to this challenge?

Howard Dean has shown that this is possible, and I think that Al Gore too was moving in this direction in 2000-2 and did not have the vigorous support of his own party because of it. These DLC types knew that Gore was a populist in many ways Clinton was not, and these ways threatened the Democratic Party leaders, and they would rather have had Gore lose than help him build a grass roots, populist movement in the Democratic Party which would challenge their power in the Party.

It is for this reason that both Democratic politicians and their moneymen shunned Gore last year.

So I am delighted that Howard Dean has appeared with his grass roots movement because he is doing exactly what the Democratic politicians were afraid Al Gore would do,and it is the best way to regain control of the Democratic Party from the "corporatists."

These Brainiacs forgot the old adage, “Better the devil one knows than the devil one doesn’t know.

[The White Rose]

176. Yep, the DLC gave us the best Republican president in decades.

The political landscape in this country has moved so far to the right that even a somewhat right-of-center pol like Clinton ends up being characterized as a progressive, while others, who twenty or thirty years ago would have been classed as dangerous, neo-fascist kooks, can claim without contradiction by the "liberal" press that they are mainstream.

We have to develop a clear, cohesive and vocal force on the Left, if only to draw the Center back to the center and give the American people a real choice. The alternative is further consolidation and acceptance of the neocon worldview, and the legitimization of the corporate-fascist state that they are trying to impose.

[HPLeft]

189. Churchill and Clinton

Churchill was continuously evolving - which is why he started as a Conservative, then became a Liberal, then returned to the Conservative party. His reaction to the Japanese is pretty typical for a time of war, during which the Japanese behavior of American and British prisoners was beyond the pale. I imagine that if I heard those same reports, under the same conditions, I'd be thinking the same thing for a moment or two. If Burton hadn't drunk himself into an early grave (what some people will do to get away from Liz Taylor), I'd be telling him to get real. He sounds like the Michael Dukakis of actors...remember the question from Bernie Shaw about how he Dukakis would react if someone had raped and murdered his wife? That was really an honest response, don't you think - not.

When push came to shove, Churchill demonstrated much greater compassion towards Germany, Japan and Italy than they would have demonstrated towards the Allies had the Axis been triumphant.

As for Clinton...well, the best thing about him was that he was electable. I think he sincerely cared about people, but he cared about himself more - and "retaining his political viability". He was the consummate political animal, but as animals go, I can imagine much worse. Neither he or Hillary are heroes in my book, or even people to be admired. But there are much worse.

As much as I personally dislike Bill Clinton, I'd much rather have him running the country than someone from the co-dependant wing of the Democratic Party, like Jessye Jackson - who never met a person he didn't want to make an excuse for or enable, or a bully he wasn't willing to coddle. If their ideas were credible, people would instinctively gravitate to them - but they exist in as much of an far-out ideological realm as do the crazies on the far right.

[hedgetrimmer]

195. derek g has got flaming balls.... big brass flaming balls

to come on this site and blast the grandaddy of deceit... to poke holes in the facade brocade of the clintonian pastures...

clinton's f*cking like a two peckered goat got us up, in the armchair... cozying next to the t.v. and eyeballing that lil'lass down the block...

work fare is what we call it... 'bout time they do sum'n for all that money they gett'n...

hasta la vista 3 million + jobs ... nafta is good, right?


meanwhile ... dough boy mcdonalds got fingerlicking tyson chicken style mayhem and murder around the globe ...

praise be, i sure as hell a whole lot happier with clinton... i was horny... and shi-ite had not hit the fan yet, or the radium depleted bomb... and nobody had quite mentioned that word of evil doers OIL.

you got courage and conviction derek g... praise be...

[janekat]

201. Despise our enemies NOT our imperfect allies

Why don't we concentrate our energy on despising Bush and company? THESE are our TRUE enemies. We cannot afford to take our eye off the ball UNTIL we throw that bastard out of office.

When we've taken the white house back THEN we should examine the problems on our side.

The reason Bush is in office is because we turned against our own side and became divided.

We cannot afford to divert any of our energy away from those assholes until then.

[TioDiego]

212. How have you grown as a Liberal?

[loudnclear]

215. Hind sight is a bitch, ain't it?

However, had not Clinton been so engrossed with fighting off the RW attacks and impeachment, he may have been able to correct and complete many of the things he was unable to do because of so many in Congress and courts fighting him. He made lots of political concessions in anticipation of being able to go back to correct deficiences and some policies that he didn't even agree with. That, said, I do agree with you...he left a lot to be desired and sold us out on many issues believing that there may have been a shred of honor among the political thieves. I think even he would confess to being betrayed and fooled.

[VOX]

226. Perfectly stated.

Thanks, loudnclear.

:toast:

[swinney]

222. CLINTON GREATEST PRESIDENT OF TWENTIETH CENTURY

HALLELULAH!

Economically--most positive indicators zoomed into orbit

Values--bad went down good went up

Foreign Policy--not one soldier was killed in combat.

Ran on Putting People First which He/Gore put in a book. Kept his word. In first two years they took action on 56 of 58 promises in the book. Washington Post kept list of what they considered Campaign Promises and after two years a study revealed they had taken action on 96% of 162 promises.

Character--Clinton does not like to demean anyone. It is not pandering it is just his lifetime experience of doing good for others.
During campaigns his staffers were instructed to concentrate on policy issues and never attack his opponent's character.

Integrity--I challenge anyone to tell me one LIE he said on Policy. One. Take a shot. Anyone? I consider a lIE when it is an effort to deceive.

Religious Faith--- He will never use it for political purposes.
In 1980 campaign Frank White used his church record and Clinton advisers tried to get him to counter with his but he said "I will never use my religion for political purposes".

Clinton and Gore prayed regularly in the White House but you will never hear of it. Clinton would be very upset if his staffers ever discussed it.

Morals. Aw shucks! No one is perfect.

PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE-PRESIDENT CLINTON HAVE A RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTS WHICH WILL NEVER BE EQUALLED.

clarence swinney burlington [e-mail]

[VOX]

225. Welcome to Free Republic! "Hate Clinton" threads are a staple here...

So feel free to blame anything and everything on Clinton. 9/11? Clinton. Sorry state of the Democratic Party? Clinton. Your gripe of the day? Clinton.

Hope all posters enjoy their stay at Free Republic and participate in our favorite pastime, blaming Clinton!

{turn sarcasm off now}

[swinney]

228. THANKS GULLY THANKS A BUNCH.

YOU ARE ONE OF FEW WHO PRESENT FACTS ON THIS THREAD.

YOU ARE SO REFRESHING. I FEEL LIKE i JUST MADE A HOLE N ONE.

[Terwilliger]

229. oh?

please point out the "facts"

[demgrrrll]

230. I'm curious, Derek, what do you think about Bush and how do you

compare Clinton and Bush?

[Terwilliger]

242. "centrism"

They both play(ed) at centrism. Clinton played to the middle and created an intense right-wing assault on everybody linked to him. Now we have Bush, that nobody in the media questions, and Democrats seem unwilling to challenge.

I'd say we' got squat.

OnEdit: I am not Derek

[DerekG]

249. Demgrrrll, I think Bush....

is a sociopathic bastard who may lead the world into the war that Reagan almost ignited, had it not been for Gorbachev. Bush is monstrous figure who quotes Scripture while spitting in the face of the Prince of Peace each and every day.

But he is merely an exaggerated, fanatical husk of Clinton's silky persona.

[gully]

234. Thank YOU!

:kick:

*Blush*

[friendofbenn]

231. clinton endorses lieberman!

and bush

[shrike]

232. Gee, just the other day he (allegedly) endorsed Clark

And everyone on this board had a big row about it.

[friendofbenn]

233. its interesting

to compare peoples attitudes to lieberman vis a vis clinton. they are both dlc candidates

[Resistance Is Futile]

235. Lest we forget

Clinton's legacy:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Indefinite copyright extension acts
Carnavore
Indiscriminate, reckless and profligate use of cruise missiles against the third world.
Inept handling of Somalia
Idiotic Balkans policy during the Croatian and Bosnian wars.
Rejection of the landmine treaty
Initiation of the balistic missile defense porkbarrel project
Paid pardons
NAFTA
Failed to disarm the VRWC before it was able to sieze power
Failed to reform health care
Mandatory encryption key escrow (didn't pass Congress)
The Clipper Chip (didn't pass Congress)

Of course, Clinton was better than Shrub but that's rather like saying that Mussolini was better than Pol Pot.

[demgrrrll]

236. So there was absolutely nothing positive about Clinton's Presidency

abosolutely nothing at all? Damn..Mussolini vs. Pol Pot
wouldn't have thought of that one...... Failed to disarm the VRWC before they were able to seize power. How would you have done that if you were Clinton at that point and time?

[Resistance Is Futile]

237. Positives

I suppose there was the economy, but even that must be tempered by his failure to ensure effective regulation of the stock markets, which in turn lead directly to the dot.com bubble and an assortment of contemporary corporate fraud incidents.

As for disarming the VRWC, naming names would have been a much better start than merely having Hillary Clinton look like a kook for pointing at the conspiracy without providing any supporting information. Further along, the VRWC should have been the subject the a dirty tricks campaign to expose their numbers and their objectives.

[linazelle]

238. This thread is suspect....all the anti-posts are primarily from fairly

new posters. I think many on this thread are here in disguise.

SMH

Anything to "win.":eyes:

[lazarus]

253. well

it's turned into a flame war, so I'm locking it.