Bill Clinton 2008. WOW was he good on meet the press!

[johncoby2]

DAMN!!!!! that guy is good!

He is just so damn more intelligent that dubya. He was awesome!

Can he run in 2008? (ha-ha)

[Justyce]

1. I wish... he's one of the only ones

who could really make this ugly situation turn around fast... God knows he's done it before!

[journalist3072]

2. Yes he really was.

Also, on CNN last night, he was on some Global Summit with President Clinton, hosted by Christine A. He was great.

I kept thinking "this is what it felt like to have an intelligent President. One who could actually put a sentence together."

I'm so bummed though b/c I woke up a little later than normal this morning, and missed him on ABC This Week with George S.

[Benhurst]

3. Yeah, he often does pretty well

during his breaks from sucking up to the Bush Crime Family.

[acmavm]

9. Yeah, it's surprising he had time to be on the program. Did he have an

hour of free time from defending Jr.?

Maybe Babs is making Poppy stay home and won't let him out to play this morning.

[BootinUp]

4. He is still the best politician in our

party.

If anyone wants to debate me on that statement, come and get it.

[Armstead]

10. He is a GREAT politician personally but....

..he bought into a strategy and message that has almost destroyed the Democratic Party and set it against liberalism, progressives and the fundamental needs of Americans.

In the process, he and his fellow "centrists" have gutted the Democratic Party and made it totally ineffectual as a politial alternative to the GOP and Corporate Conservatism.If DLC Corporate Conservatism were so politically brilliant, we would not be having a President Bush and Republican Conbress.

I wish Clinton would have a Road to Damascus moment and realize that America is in a much bigger crisis than the fact that George Bush and Republican are in control. We are under the thumb of an oligarchy that he decided to join rather than fight.

I wish he'd use his considerable skills, brains and heart to advanbce real liberalism, instead of helping to mire the Democratic Party in Corporate Conservatism and non-descript political weakness.

If he did that, I'd agree with your statement that he is a great politician. Until then, he remains a major disappointment.

[papau]

12. How is "real liberalism" different than what Clinton tried for - if you

mean deficits to fund one's causes, we have that now with Bush.

If you mean using our military to advance a political goal, we have that now with Bush.

If you mean saying nice things and not getting them accomplished, we have that now with Bush (albeit Clinton actually tried to get the max the Congress might give him for the non-rich and corporate, in contrast to Bush)

[Armstead]

21. Clinton failed to address the core problems of Wealth and Power

Clinton and the Establsihment centrist Democrats failed us in the 1990's.

They were silent or supportive of a fundamental reconstruction of the economy that accelerated in the 1990's. They left us to the mercies of the oligarchs during the period when massive corporations were continuiong to become more massive through mergers and acquisitions, and when economic values came to rely on harsh Social Darwinism without any conterbalancing liberal controls.

Clinton and the Democrats walked away from issues like healthcare reform, anti-trust and regulation, erosioin of the midle and working class, anti-poverty efforts and a host of otehr basic issues.

They've had five years to wake up, and to help the country wake up. But they haven't.

[BootinUp]

19. respectfully, I think this is wrong

I believe that great leaders are chosen in large part by the times in which they live. In other words, personal beliefs don't change as much as the political environment one finds himself in.

Clinton's beliefs are more centrist than the prevaling view here at DU, and so was the environment in the early 90's (the environment is even more conservative now). A good measure of the environment is support for current tax policy, support for unions, support for other basic social trends that can be measured.

Politicans do not change the environment, they take advantage of it.

The only way to measure a politicians success or failure is by elections and legislation that HE intended to get passed. By both measures Clinton was a success.

How did Clinton succeed and other moderate dems did not? Because there is more to being a successful moderate than we usually talk about here.

Signal to noise ratio, he knows how to get his signal heard by more Americans. While the left and the right were making noise, he sounded more intelligent, trustworthy and caring than the politicans who appear to most Americans to be in it for themselves and their pals.

Once again a shift to the left that is measurable will occur. Will it happen because of actions taken by the current Government? Or because of the reality of the global economy reducing the size of the American middle class or increasing the number in poverty. Some of both to be sure. But no policies I can think of that Clinton favored turned out to be somewhat unpopular except for maybe gays in the military and Universal insurance/ National healthcare (Both because they were to the left of the political temperature dial at the time). His tax policies and social program policies were what he was elected on in the first place.

I know I didn't address some of your points directly but I've been thinking about posting something like this for awhile. I'll go back and read your post again.

[Armstead]

27. I respectfull also disagree

I do agree that a successful politican uses the conditions of the times.

However, I disagree that this means a leader can only be a passive reflection. Unfortunately, Bush and the republicans have been very successful at pushing the country in the direction they wanted. (IF it is unraveling now, it is only becauase extreme conservatism is fundamentally unworkable in the long run.)

Clinton and the Democrats could have at least kept liberalism alive and advanced its principles in the 1990's.

Back then "the left" was not making noise on most issues. The stridency of today did not exist back then, or it was brushed aside by the Democrats. For the most part, anything to the left of conservative was drowned out and ignored in the 1990's, by the Clinton brand of Democrats as well as Republicans.

Liberalism -- including moderate liberalism -- was completely ignored and shut out of the debate as being "irrelevant" in the "new economy."
And Clinton and his ilk helped to spread that fake message.

But Liberalism is not (and was not) outside of the real center of politics or of social values. It is as mainstream as conservatism and -- for many people -- also an essdential element of moderation and the real "center" of American values.

If Clinton had used his considerable skills and popularity to promote clerar and proud liberalism, he could have helped to keep it as a mainstream political force.

But the Clintonistas they didn't push back against the right wing assault and propaganda in any meaningful way. As a result, Clinton and the Democratic centrists were complicit in helping to make a real fringe agenda of right wing corporate elitism and free-market extremism into a phony so-called center.

[BootinUp]

28. I think to make your case

you need to cite at least a few specific policies that you think CLinton should have pushed harder or not worked against.

Then we can talk about whether he made a reasonable judgement or not.

Clinton was elected on his platform and he largely carried it out the way he intended.

[Armstead]

35. See my post below to Elmer regarding "free trade"

That's one specific example

[BootinUp]

29. One other comment with regard to the RW

They are not just pushing the country where they want. They have built political alliances that could not be built without major underlying issues to take advantage of. Its much more complicated than you seem to acknowledge. Where the Bushies have been ruthless is in how they reward friends and attack enemies to maintain those alliances.

[Armstead]

36. The Bushies arejust a meaner version of DLC policies

I totally agree that the GOP are ruthless.

But they are only able to gain the power to exercise that ruthlessness is because the American people have not been given a meaningful choice.

Because the Democrats only have been offering "an echo, not a choice" there has been nowhere for people to turn as a counterweight to GOP right wing bullying.

Bullies only get power because others give it to them.

[SaveElmer]

11. If the previous two posts are examples

Of the scintillating debate you will get...I don't think you will have any trouble

[Armstead]

15. You want debate? I haven't got time now but there's plenty of substance

Clinton had a golden moment in the 1990's to position the Democratic Party for a comeback, and steer the nation away from policies and values that have polarized the economy, undermined democracy and placed the elite and Corporates Monopolists in a supreme position.

The 1990's were obviously much better than the 00's. But thy were a mirage that Clinton helped to create.

The excesses of George Bush and the Republican Right would not have been possible if Clinton and the Demopublican DLC centrists had fought for our interests instead of merely putting a "kinder and gentler" face on corporatism and social apathy about real problems.

[SaveElmer]

16. When you have time...

I see nothing there but the same old talking points!!!

I'll check back later today!

When you have time!

[Armstead]

34. They're not "talking points"

I've been a liberal and paying attention to this stuff since the late 1960's.

So it is difficult to boil down 30 years of observations on a message board without getting totally carried away.

But I will give you one specific example. Clinton ignored the pleas and arguments of labor and others to avoid the tarpit of neoo-con (or neo-liberal) "free trade" policies regarding globalization. He pushed for the NAFTA Disasta, and told critics they were being silly. "Corporate globalization is inevitable, and you critics of it are just crying wolf. This will bring new jobs and lift all boats."

That was one of the major foundation stones for the mess we are seeing today. Clinton participated in one of the largest con jobs in modern history.

The idea that the US middle and working classes should be expected compete on a ruthlessly pragmatic "level playing field" with workers in impoverished nations is absolutely ridiculous on its face. The only beneficiaries of such passive fatalism are the moneyed elite. The rest of us watch our wages go down and jobs and facilities disappear from the US....It also doesn't help those in the poor nations when outside interests are allowed to take over their economies and make them into corporate colonies.

By doing that, Clinton was thumbing his nose at the Democratic base and all Americanm workers AND MANY BUSINESSES, and instead aligning the Democratic leadership with the same business elites who want to own everything and determine all policies and values.

The embrace of an economy oriented solely to the interests of the oligarchs at the expense of everyone else by Clinton and the DLC "centrists" is why GW and his gang were able todo such damage to the Amrican economy so easily.

That is just one example of a larger pattern of telling the grass roots of America that the "elites know what's best for you so shut up and take it."

[papau]

38. Nafta was pushed because it saved Mexico - we gave up a few jobs to save

country that did not really like us - but a country where if life was made harder by the economic disaster that killing Nafta would have cause, could have taken the US down with it.

I agree that no treaty without union rights, jobs rights, environmental, human rights clauses should be approved in the future -

but Nafta was a special circumstance needed to stabilize Mexico, IMHO.

:-)

[Armstead]

45. NAFTAi s merely one part of a much bigger pattern

If NAFTA had been merely a good faith effoirt to aid a troubled neighbor, it would be one thing.

But it is just one piece of a larger neo-liberal agenda designed to strip government and the public sector throughout the world.

"Free trade" as it has been pushed is a giant neo-CON job that is neither free nor really about reasonable guidelines for international trade.

[papau]

48. I agree as to trade agreements up to Nafta -but I believe Nafta was a

special case.

However I think Clinton could have worked the crisis in Mexico longer and did not have to blink first when the GOP threaten to let Mexico sink rather than have union rights, human rights, etc in the treaty. I do fault him for perhaps, putting too low a priority on changing how we did treaties. We (those watching the international economy) thought we had 9 to 15 months before Mexican currency would dive and with it the economy.

But at the time it really sounded like we could not get the treaty through to save Mexico unless we got a lot of GOP votes. The unions fought so hard that I thought their success in stripping Dem and Michigan votes away from NAFTA may have backfired causing Clinton to over compromise just to get it passed.

[Armstead]

50. The problem is we get rolled too often

Even if Clinton saw NAFTAas a "one off" to bail out Mexico, that is not how the other side sees it.

It is part of a large and ongoing movement to use trade policy as a Trojan Horse to takle away nations' sovergnty and ability to control the activities of the corporate sector.NAFTA has begot CAFTA, etc.

It's a case of legitimate goals being misused.

This network of treaties slipped under the transom and creation of international economic governing bodies are moving decision power further away from the people and their governments and placing it in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bodies whose orientation is to protect economic elite interests from pesky regulations and national policies.

We have to stop buying into that nonsense, and get back to a recognition that governments should set economic policy -- not be held hostage to "free markets."

That does not mean we should abandon the legitimate purpose of trade agreements or undermione global trade. However, there's a right way and a wrong way, and abandoning the political and social in favor of uncontrollable economic forces is the wrong way.

[papau]

51. I agree :-(

:-)

[BootinUp]

42. Ok lets talk about that

Personally, I find the free trade issues one of the most complex issues to deal with. Conventional wisdom is that trade barriers and tariffs have a negative effect on economies over longer periods of time. They are used as political tools against other countries to force a change in their trade policy. Or they are to protect certain key industries in our country.

The premise is that allowing free trade in the North American region would benefit some industries and hurt others but the region as a whole would benefit vs other regions due to the increased competition driving the market and all members would share in the benefits.

Keep in mind other world regions also make trade pacts to strengthen their markets.

Part of this is political in the sense of having stable governments in our region. Like I said its pretty complex.

While the dislocations to manufacturing in our country are very painful (for me personally as a matter of fact) I don't see a flaw in the general premise. The problem is that we are not doing enough to invest in new manufacturing technlogies and protecting that investment for a minimum mount of time.

Other countries now rival us in developing manufacturing technology. Why? Because we rely too much on private capital and that capital is increasingly being spent elsewhere.

I just don't think you can protect the old manufacturing technology. Money will be invested in other countries anyways, and protectionist policies will cause other unprotected industries to suffer due to protectionist trade retaliation.

Thats the theory anyways. On a side note, analysis of NAFTA 10 years on have shown it to be have a near zero net effect overall which is genrally attributed to poor enforcement of environmental provisions in Mexico.

Was Bill wrong? The jury is still out if you listen to the experts.

The great manufacturing edge our country had earlier in the 20th century is gone. What will we replace it with?

[Armstead]

46. It is complex -- but there is a simple truth too

You're right. There are no easy or painles answers to these issues and dilemmas. But because life is not simple, the "one size fits all" approach of globalization is not good for either us or the developing nations we trade with.

The answer is NOT to give up our ability to regulate and initiate economic policies and replace them with the mercies of uncontrolled free market forces. Such an approach is no different than the domestic version of right-wing conservatism.

There is a reason protectionism has the word "protect" in it. Throughout the history of our nation, and others, policies have been used to proect domestic industries and economies.

If every country were truly on a "level playing field" it might make sense to throw out domestic companies ad workers to the wolves of unprotected free markets. But they are not. Forcing nations to abdicate their sovergnty and ability to institute policies that reflect the will of their populations and their own national intersts in merely right wing conservativism on a global scale.

It isn't working. Despite years of promises about the glories of neo-liberal "free trade" global poverty is on the increase, and US jobs and incomes are also going down. This is not a coincidence.

The canard of "free trade" is not just gutting old-line manufacuiring in the US. We are now seeing such policies also gut the "new" technological and services industries that were supposed to replace them with.

Telling a working class American that he has to match the wages of a desperate sweatshop worker is neither the way to help other countries or protect our own.

[BootinUp]

22. social apathy

You really think Clinton ignored social problems? He was one of the most hard working men ever to live at 1600 Pennsylvania. This interview today was about the hard work he is doing to address poverty in the world. I find that to be a very uninformed opinion you gave.

[Armstead]

30. Style and substance

There's a lot to admire about Clinton, but he put the Democratic on the wrong side of too many issues by eitehr ignoring them or pushing for policies that have proven to be disasterous.

You don't fight poverty -- globally or nationally -- by advocating the neo-liberal, "free market" brand of dog-eat-dog corporate globaization that Clinton championed while in office.

You don't make healthcare universally available and affordable by protecting the bottom line of corporate insurers and mega-healthcare corporations.

You don't promote true economic opportiunity and diversity and REAL free market capitalism by standing by silently while corporations merge and coagulate into governments unto themselves and an oligarchy of the elite.

I could go on, but the point is that substance matters. Clinton is a smart guy with a good heart. But the policies he advocated as president either ignored or were directly opposed to the interests of the majority and the protection of enlightened capitalism and economic justice.

[papau]

40. Nafta was needed for Mexico, and HMO universal was what the insurance

companies told Bill they would not be opposed (this is the second time the insurance companies lied to kill universal health - the first was in 73 with Nixon.

In both cases, while I was "not in the room", I was next door listening so as to comment if I had any comments, but I was in tax and not health and had no comments.

I was amazed that Bill Clinton believed the Casualty insurance folks - only Hillary had it right - that Bill should go for single payer universal - and we used to laugh about how we had Bill believing she was wrong).

Under Clinton, the one defense against corporation merger/coagulation into governments pulling jobs off seas to lowest wage countries, namely IRS Section 482, was enforced. We had meetings around the world where we discussed how evil Bill was and what we were trying to get through the GOP controlled Congress to stop him.

Now IRS Code Section 482 is not enforced and/or has "rules" that the corporations wanted with the result that international companies now pay at an effective rate that is single digit rather than the 35% (now even this nominaL 35% is reduced!)

[mopinko]

5. remember when we had a president?

we could really use a president. :cry:

[JNelson6563]

6. Got any substance?

What did he say? I deliberately didn't watch cause he's such a BFEE suck-up lately. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, your post reveals nothing of the dialogue.

Details?

[jillan]

7. He's also on George Stephanopolus. n/t

[SharonRB]

8. I saw him on LK Friday night and on his summit last night

I miss him so much. Intelligent, caring, intellectual, well-spoken, not to mention sexy -- he's the personification of what a president should be. Oh, if he could only run again. I'd love to see Hillary win just so we could have him in the White House again.

Unfortunately, I do my grocery shopping while MTP is on, so I missed it. Maybe I'll tape the rerun tonight while I'm watching the Emmys.

[Greyhound]

13. If the shrub is the standard we measure by now, then any of

my dogs are qualified. B-)

[unrepuke]

14. Huh? When? I'm watching MTP now (Sun a.m.) and no Bill...

:shrug:

[drduffy]

17. as far as I can tell he remains

a corporatist. And is probably in synch with the PNAC hegemonic goals.

[gulliver]

18. Excellent. One unfortunate line and one unfortunate fact, though.

He went into a long comment about how the tax cuts were wrong for people "like him" and in his tax bracket. But he concluded with something like "I don't think we should be cutting these programs (or something) for 'Bill Clinton's tax cut'... Made it sound like it was _his_ tax cut, not his tax cut.

The unfortunate fact is that Hillary has still failed to rule out a run.

[oasis]

20. Clinton is admired worldwide and at home by this loyal Democrat.

He has the personal dynamism that inspires folks to get things done.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. No, thanks. How about a member of the CBC instead?

[Dr Fate]

39. Problem with that is no one would watch.

And you can take this the wrong way if you want, but your average white, moderate voter looks at John Conyers or Jesse Jackson Jr. and says "yeah, but those people always complain and say this kind of stuff."

WE need "big gun" DEMs like Clinton because more people actualy listen to what they say instead of writing it off.

[question everything]

24. So much more intelligent than dubya?

Come on. This like fishing in a barrel.

[BootinUp]

26. lol. n/t

[medeak]

25. miss having a smart guy talk policy n/t

[Adelante]

32. Oh, yeah

So refreshing.

[oasis]

31. Clinton haters please catch the replay on MSNBC. Here's a chance for you

to learn something.

Listen to a dynamic leader lay out his world view and then come back and tell us how he doesn't measure up to your tough standards.

[drummo]

33. Clinton and his wife

were behind Bush when he was pushing for his little Iraq project, they continued to be "diplomatic" when it was clear the Iraq project was a disaster, moreover Clinton said that you cannot accuse Bush of abandoning his principles because he has done as president exactly what he said as a candidate. No kidding I heard that with my own ears.

This is the reason why I think the country would have been so much better with a President Gore
rather than with a President Clinton in charge. Gore recognized from the very beginning that Bush was leading the country toward disaster in Iraq and he had the guts to say so when 60% supported the war. Compared that to what Clinton has drivelled about Iraq over the last 2+ years.

[Armstead]

37. It's not a matter of "hating" Clinton

One can admire Clinton as a person, and still recognize how he helped to lead the Democrats down the wrong road over the years.

Newt Gingrich is also a very articulate and intelligent advocate for ideas. But that doesn't mean one has to agree with him.

[oasis]

41. Let's call them "Clinton detractors." As for Newt Gingrich, he doesn't

possess any of the qualities that I admire in a person. He and Bill are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to caring for the little guy.

[Armstead]

47. I come not to praise Newt

Bill Clinton is waybetter that Newt on many levels.

But Newt is a smart guy,m and he does have many ionnovative ideas. He also was a political sharpie who helped to push the country to the right.
I am simply saying that brains and political skills are not the be-all and end-all if they are used to push policies that are destructive to the majority of the population and the system of democracy and competative capitalism. Even of it's done with good intentions.

[oasis]

55. I'm convinced things would've been different if Clinton wasn't hamstrung

by a GOP congress. When we lost all those seats in '94, compromise became the order of the day.

Bill was of the belief that, in order to be a player, one must be in the game.

[papau]

43. What idea that Clinton did not push was not also a non-starter politically

If to be in favor of liberal ideas means one must logically dump on Clinton for leading the Democrats down the wrong road over the years, what was that viable idea that missed our chance to get passed into law?

Or we are we just unhappy that Bill did not sound more "liberal" - and if so, what beyond Nafta and HMO universal (and welfare to work with protection for the welfare person - perhaps not enough protection?) -do we object to?

[Armstead]

44. Echoing the corporate view

Supported privatization and deregulation of public services, which brought us Enron.

Supported deregulation of corporations to the extent that thet are no longer accountable to anyone.

Allowed too many mega mergers in many industries to the extent that we are being crushed by corporate megaliths that are becoming bigger and more powerful than government..

Supported the Alan Greenspan viewe of the economy, and the belief that what's good for major colrporations and the wealthy investor class is good for everyone -- regardless of the consequences.

Allowed 1996 Media deregulation, which has given total control of the mass media to a handful of media barons.

[papau]

49. We agree on many things here, but Clinton could not stop some things

I do not recall Clinton "Supported privatization of public services" although I agree the Gore task force found much to deregulate - the Enron market never was regulated so he could not have deregulate it

The SEC tightened up on FASB under Clinton, although they lost that battle as the EITF fed FASB with crap advice on SPC's that the SEC eventually let through, screwing up the reporting of earnings. But the "no longer accountable corporations" is a result of what Federal Action? States control corporations - albeit poorly.

How does Clinton stop mega mergers? The SEC did allow too many - but I know of no way Clinton could have stopped an SEC action.

I disagree with your assertion that Clinton "supported the Alan Greenspan view of the economy, and the belief that what's good for major corporations and the wealthy investor class is good for everyone -- regardless of the consequences". Clinton did work hard to keep the monetary nuts and their M1, M2, M3 nightmares from screwing up the economy, but I do not recall a Clinton action, other than his rejecting Hillary's single payer National Health in favor of the "corporate supported" HMO mess on the promise by the corporations that if he agreed they would allow the GOP to support the idea, that was pro-"corporations and the wealthy investor class".

But on your last point we totally agree that freedom gained for new technology was not worth the harm of the 1996 Media deregulation.

[Armstead]

52. I'm not just blaming Clinton -- It's a larger issue

There is somethiong more fundamental at the core of the present mess.

That is the belief that we can't and shouldn't use government to achieve certain economic and social goals. We have done many things in the past that would be called "impossible" today -- among them Medicare, the establishment of regulatory bodies, Social security, the minimum wage, etc.

Everything has come as a result of struggles against the forces of conservatism and the entrenched "conventional wisdom" and the attempt to intimidate against progressive reform and progress.

But today, we have lost the will to continue to pursue those kinds of initiatives and reforms and balances against entrenched economic power.

For whatever combination of reasons, our side has given up. It's been a gradual process over 30 years. But the results of that series of capitulations are evident today in the mess we're stuck in.

That's why we need to restore the spirit of real liberalism and progressive reform, and not continue to find reasons to avoid that.

It won't be easy, but it is possible -- and necessary if we want to salvage what's left of the American Dream.

(P.S. I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this in terms of the issues. I believe we all need to look at things in real terms, in order to look fo9r answers.)

[papau]

54. Thanks - and I agree spirit of real liberalism/progressive reform needs

restoring.

Just want to get problems solved Dems lose to those GOP hot button agendas.

There needs to be some fire on our side.


:toast:

[jayctravis]

53. He can't, but he would be perfect for UN Ambassador.

If Bush appoints him before the end of his term after Bolton is chucked out, the President might get a nice little pleasant spin in the history books.