Busting the Clinton Ghost

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Busting the Clinton Ghost

by Bob Burnett

The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it's legacy is the philosophy that principles don't matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who's a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill's charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.

In 2006, Clintonistas remain a powerful element in the Party. The Democratic Leadership Council, the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and the role of Rahm Emanuel as chair of the DCCC, shows the extent of their influence. At a recent event, DLC leaders were asked about the Democratic message in 2006; they replied that the "events and the economy will determine the outcome," therefore Dems needed no "message" at present. Of course, the Clintonista "no message" mantra produced their vacuous position on Iraq: make it President Bush's problem; don't demand withdrawal because it makes Dems look weak; instead insist upon "benchmarks for success."

Here's the point: recent polls indicate that three-quarter of Democrats are people who have definite moral values. They may have voted for Bill Clinton in the past but they don't embrace situational ethics. They certainly don't believe that the Democratic Party will be successful by abandoning its historic principles. They feel that FDR's party actually has a set of values that should dictate what its program is. Prominent among these are honesty, responsibility, equality, opportunity, and community.

Ironically, these are values that candidate Bill Clinton talked about, and then jettisoned once he became President. Now Democrats have to put the Clinton era behind it and move on. It's time to reassert core Democratic values and purge Clinton's ghost.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0308-21.htm

[Wilms]

1. Nominated

:popcorn:

[Totally Committed]

2. Ditto...

Nominated. I agree totally.

TC

[leftstreet]

3. Excellent!

[AtomicKitten]

4. The premise is bullshit.

Gore rejected all things Clinton.

And, on edit, if Clinton ran again he would resoundingly trounce any opponent.

[SnowGoose]

27. Well said.

I think Al really came out as a 'principles' candidate during his convention speech.

"the people versus the powerful"

"I may not be the most charismatic, but I'll work my ass off for you every day"

In fact, it seems to me that I remember Gore being criticized for his "populist message" that people seemed to think came along at the wrong time.

[newsguyatl]

5. nominated

:kick:

[bvar22]

6. K&R

:dem:


In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a REAL Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. over 64% believe the Iraq War was a mistake, and favor withdrawal within 1 year.

[Capn Sunshine]

7. This reasoning is actually helpful to Hillary

The article is rife with the usual tripe one finds in the hit pieces designed to exacerbate the rift in the party, which assists the Common Dream's true agenda; to crash the Democratic party so that the mythical Third party can set up and truly represent the progressive people against the vile Neocon threat. Just the refernce to the Third way contains the classic canard about neoliberalism, when all along all we desired was a socially responsible application of economic power bases. Hardly a smoothing of the way for rapacious capitalist deregulation.

But more to the point, Hillary's ability to bend with the prevailing winds will cause her to say enough to keep the progressives happy while appealing to the left wing republicans. The neocons don't fear her because she's a corporate centrist, they think she's liberalism incarnate.

You and I might well suspect otherwise, but Hillary is no more married to those guys than she is to US; and she will very deftly demonstrate this in the coming months.

[leftstreet]

8. "mythical third party"

Evidently you missed this thread.

:shrug:

A Progressive candidate won as VT Mayor, after instant runoff voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x416142

[Capn Sunshine]

9. a small town in VT is a brazillion miles from national office

yay, a progressive won in Burlington.
How does this translate to a national platform and congressional lawmaking?

ANS: it doesn't. Because we don't have a parliamentary system of government.

[leftstreet]

22. The Dems HAVE no platform.

That's the whole point.

If they care about the party as much as their constituents do, they'll get a progressive platform.

[IndianaGreen]

58. The Beltway Democrats' platform is "we are not them!"

Their votes OTOH, tells us that "they are like them!"

[radio4progressives]

10. Excellent Post IG! Excellent..

And by the way, the "no message" mantra apparently is at the heart of a fierce battle currently underway between Pelosi/Reid and Schumer, and was talked about on radio talk show on AAR this morning (San Francisco KQKE) DLC was not mentioned specifically, Schumer's name was mentioned.

And another point, as soon as I saw the DLC data mining project articles, i realized right then, that part of the reasoning why the Dems won't fight the Domestic Spying issue - and why they're so keen to pass the Patriot Act and not make a fuss over it - it's connected i'm quite sure of it in my gut.

One final point, MSNBC vis a vis Chris Matthews/Hardball - is directly about defining who the DP Presidential nominees will be in advance and i think we need to go on a major campaign, perhaps even sue MSNBC and cable for election eningeering and manipulation.

I don't believe such a lawsuit has been before to my awareness, and i think it's going to something on the level of lawsuits in order to re-establish a citizen's right not to be promulgated and manipulated whether we are talking about issues or candidates.

[AX10]

11. Nominated!

[BootinUp]

12. Denial.

Its the new trend in democratic party politics. Just ignore all poll data and they will come. What a crock of shit.

Bill Clinton showed how to win in todays economic and social environment. Maybe we should follow the blueprint so we can stop the hemorraging. Duh.

He never lost but its all his fault. laugh.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Clinton and DLC lost Congress in 1994!

A minor historical detail, no doubt!

[BootinUp]

23. So how about some real in depth analysis

Of What was the behind the 94 massacre? I found this article to be a good source of info. I don't agree with everything the author says. But he does pinpoint some of Clintons/Democrats problems in the term and why there was a conservative backlash that crushed us in 94. I am not claiming Clinton had nothing to do with the 94 mid term losses. But it was not because he wasn't progressive enough.


I was pretty attune to what was happening during that time 92 to 94. This article seems to be a fair recounting of it. So feel free to continue your Clinton bashing now.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4986

A DEFINING POLITICAL MOMENT?

The conservative surge had a powerful impact on those races in which Democrats faced their toughest tests in 1994. (See "State Conservative Shifts," ) Near double-digit state conservative surges help account for the strong Republican statewide performances in California, Illinois, and Missouri; for the difficult Senate races in New Jersey and Pennsylvania; and for the Republican gains in the Midwest where the conservative surge was greatest (more than 10 points). The energized conservative bloc likely accounts for surprisingly strong Republican showings in Texas (with 43 percent conservative voters), Missouri (42 percent), Illinois (40 percent), and Michigan (40 percent).

The focus of most commentary on the current upheaval is naturally on the 1994 election itself as a defining political event. But the entire conservative advance had already played out by January 1994, the first-year anniversary of the Clinton presidency. After that, little else happened except an intensification of loyalties just prior to the election. The advance came during two defining and distinctive phases of the nascent presidency, during the early Clinton slide and during the late-year Clinton resurgence.

Phase One: The Early Clinton Slide. After an initial burst of enthusiasm for the president and his economic program, support fell off sharply in the spring and summer of 1993. The stimulus bill had been defeated, the investment program pared down, Medicare cuts and Social Security taxes were on the table, and the Democrats were under pressure to cut spending more and raise taxes less in balancing the budget. The prominence of the gays-in-the-military controversy deflected attention from the Democrats' pocketbook issues onto a politically difficult cultural issue.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4986
more at the link

[IndyOp]

13. Yes! Next: Clinton's support of the military-industrial complex!

Bomb Iraq weekly under the guise of needing to protect a 'no-fly' zone.
Leave those 700+ military bases fully operational!
Gotta fund that military or you'll look weak!
Keep those UN-US sanctions in place -- 500,000+ Iraqis dead.

And, do *not* go down the "Saddam built palaces" road -- one $100 million palace would provide $4 worth of food for each of the 25 million people. Would $4 worth of food keep you from malnutrition, starvation, or falling to disease from dirty water?

We have to change the SYSTEM - not just the president!

[BootinUp]

14. He slashed military after the Berlin wall came down

Just more bs.

[IndianaGreen]

18. He renamed but kept open the School of Assassins at Fort Benning

and he hurt the American worker with NAFTA.

Shall we mention DOMA, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and Plan Colombia?

What a guy!

[BootinUp]

24. Oh yeah, Globalization is all Bills fault

If it wasn't for Bill, unions AND the American auto industry would strong and kicking.

So what is your problem with DOMA? Do you think the average American agrees with you?

Don't ask don't tell was a rather brave effort on his part don't you think? That was a factor yes.

Plan Columbia? not familiar with that reference.

And on Fort Benning, I don't share your views as to the evilness of the school.

[IndianaGreen]

59. NAFTA was Bill's fault, as was DOMA!

As was his order to bomb the TV station in Belgrade and the aspirin factory in Khartoum.

The fact that Bush is like Hitler does not exonerate Big Dog from his own misdeeds.

[David Zephyr]

15. 10 National Tickets with a Dole, Clinton or a Bush is Enough Already!

For a nation that prides itself as a democratic republic without a ruling class or royal family, take a close look at the last consecutive eight national elections where then names Bush, Dole and Clinton were on the national party tickets ten times. Three names on ten national party tickets over eight consecutive elections in a non-broken string over 28 years!

And there's still 2008 if Hillary is on the ticket and if Jeb Bush winds up as VP to McCain to guarantee Florida for the Republicans.

Aren't there a few other names in the United States other than Dole, Bush or Clinton?


1976 Republicans nominate a Dole
1980 Republicans nominate a Bush
1984 Republicans nominate a Bush
1988 Republicans nominate a Bush
1992 Republicans nominate a Bush
1992 Democrats nominate a Clinton
1996 Democrats nominate a Clinton
1996 Republicans nominate a Dole
2000 Republicans nominate a Bush
2004 Republicans nominate a Bush
2008 Democrats nominate a Clinton?
2008 Republicans nominate a Bush from Florida or a Dole from NC?

[BootinUp]

16. What does that have to do with

the article's premise though?

[David Zephyr]

17. Nothing. It was a great article and I agree with it.

My post had nothing to do with the premise of the article. I love the article and agree with it. Bill Clinton hurt the Democratic Party. I have posted here at the DU about this including a thread I started called "The Butterfly Effect of a Blowjob".

And am responding to you, in part, to kick IG's thread and article back up to the top. Thanks for helping me in this regard.

[BootinUp]

26. No problem

Folks will also see my total disagreement with it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. 1968 Republicans elect a Dick.

1972 Republicans elect a Dick.
1976 Republicans nominate a Dick.
1980 Republicans elect a Dick.
1984 Republicans elect a Dick.
1988 Republicans elect a Dick.
1992 Republicans nominate a Dick.
1996 Republicans nominate a Dick.
2000 Republicans elect a Dick.
2004 Republicans elect a Dick.



(IG kick)

[WyLoochka]

44. NEW BLOOD

We need new blood to run for office!

As of January 2006, the population of the US has been estimated by the Census Bureau to be approximately 298,000,000.

I don't know how many meet the qualifying age for Prez of 35, but it is millions. Of these millions, many are brilliant leader types who have never held political office but might be persuaded to go for it.

Surely some new blood can be found among these people. This bull shit penchant people have of supporting relatives of politicians for elected office is one of the major factors that is killing us. The pol family joins the "club" and becomes more loyal to the other club members regardless of party, in order to stay in the inner circles of power, and forgets about and begins to disdain the real interests of the American people.


WE NEED NEW BLOOD IN DC - in the House, Senate and White House. My litmus test across the board is - has this person who is running had a relative in office? If so - that disqualifies them right off the bat.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

52. Think about Mark Warner compared to Bill Clinton

Maybe Virginia's exGov Mark Warner (not related to Sen Warner)will be the 'new blood' we should look strong to after he successfully tackled his heavy red state that was in deep trouble while earning high ratings after ONE TERM! In some articles Mark Warner has been compared to a Bill Clinton. Leave out Clinton's controversial personal mistakes and I'd say those are positive Jeffersonian characteristics. Don't forget, we need somebody who will step into a very GOP 'red' Congress and country backed by many 'red' corporations. This will take somebody who knows and understands the 'NeoCon' enemy and take them apart from within. Who else is there to choose from?


http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/051128/28whisplead.htm

A Modern-Day Thomas Jefferson?

Paul Bedard

11/28/05


Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is white-hot on the Democratic presidential circuit. A popular moderate in a southern state, he helped push successor Tim Kaine to victory in this month's elections and last week started his 2008 dance in New Hampshire. " Mark Warner, " says Virginia Rep. Tom Davis --a Republican--"is presidential material."
But it's not just his politics that have some Virginians humming "Hail to the Chief." Many see him as a contemporary Thomas Jefferson, a businessman and reluctant politician who dabbles in farming and winemaking at his Rappahannock Bend farm. "He's kind of a Renaissance man," says Virginia writer Walker Elliott Rowe, author of Wandering Through Virginia's Vineyards .

[hiley]

20. Listening to the speech again..

Quite agree with Bob Burnett
edit to say nominated & thanks for posting this.

[wyldwolf]

25. Resurrecting the Clinton Ghost

I just have to comment on some of this hilarity:

As we inch closer to the mid-term elections, rank-and-file Democrats have the ominous feeling that their Party does not have its act together.

Really, Bob Burnett? When did you do the research to arrive at that conclusion? In fact, when have you ever been, or even walked among, rank and file Democrats? I mean, I respect you for what you've done with your life, but being a Berkley activist and a Quaker does tend to leave one a bit out of the loop when it comes to everyday run-of-the-mill rank and file Democrats.

But all that aside, you are aware that in February, for the first time on Rasmussen a notoriously right-wing poll, the Democrats in Congress beat Bush on national security, right? You do know that in the latest FOX News poll, another rightwing outfit, the Democrats have a 14 point lead on the GOP for Congress this Fall, right? Most other polls on the topic give the same results.

So where is your evidence that "rank-and-file Democrats have the ominous feeling that their Party does not have its act together?"

Do you say the Democrats have done nothing to garner the lead in the polls? That the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot? Well, Mr. Burnett, I'm sure even you know that elections are typically about the party in power, NOT the opposition. That's the way it works.

But I still will differ with anyone on that point. The Democrats stopped Bush's Social Security reform cold. The Democrats have taken the lead on condemning the Dubai ports deal. And the Democrats have, again, taken the lead in National party affiliation.

They've retained the Governor's mansion in VA and NJ, and have beaten back "intelligent design" legislation on the local level which had national coverage.

So, Mr. Burnett, your opening line - which sets up your entire piece - is at the least a fabrication.

It's one of the ironies of American political life that the farther ex-Presidents recede into the past, the better they seem to look... Therefore, it's understandable that after 5 years of a truly dreadful Bush Administration, many Democrats wax nostalgic for Bill Clinton. Yes, they acknowledge, Bubba had "issues," but he was infinitely preferable to Dubya.

True enough. But Clinton's issues have left a lasting mark on the Democratic Party. They're responsible for many of the problems that currently plague the Dems. If FDR's Party is going again to be the dominant voice in American politics, it will have to deal with these issues.

Mr. Burnett, do you see the irony of this statement? You build a case that Clinton isn't "all that," and that many Democrats merely "wax nostalgic" for him, then you do the same thing by invoking the ghost of FDR - a prime example of "waxing nostalgic" for a former President, and one who looks a bit better as time goes on.

But Bob, the Democratic party isn't just the party of FDR. It's the party of Truman, and Kennedy, and Johnson, and Carter, and (yes) Clinton. They've all left their mark on the Party. And they're all responsible for some problem's plaguing the party. For example, people from the wing of the left you seem to represent are responsible for the Democrat's image as being weak on national defense.

Regardless, it doesn't surprise me that a Berkley "activist" is attempting to tear down an immensely popular ex-president and Democrat who had approval ratings near 70% when he left office and who would win again if he were allowed to run again. And it doesn't surprise me that you're using rightwing rhetoric to do so. After all, the only way those like you will ever ascend to power on the left is by convincing people that the current leaders are no good. And since the right was so successful in demonizing Clinton, why not take their ball and run with it? All this talk from you about "ethics" and "values" has me reminiscing about Henry Hyde and Ken Starr.

Just a reminder about Clinton's "values:"

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

So much more on the environment, families, the economy, education, crime, etc.

Oh, and Bob? The first Democrat to be elected twice since FDR.

After 6 years of Bush, the Democrats should do exactly what you say they shouldn't do. Invoke the ghost of Clinton. Remind people of the way it used to be. We should "wax nostalgic for Bill Clinton."

[SaveElmer]

29. Going, going......GONE!!!!

Knocked that out of the Park!!!

[SaveElmer]

32. This post isn't getting enough attention...you oughtta start a new thread

With it!!!

[wyldwolf]

55. done

:)

[Inland]

34. There you go.

I DO wax nostalgic for Clinton, but more importantly, I wax nostalgic for peace and prosperity. They actually happened, and they are important.

This guy is dropping democratic successes down the old memory hole so that he can manuever for nominations. But who is going to elect a democrat when democrats themselves argue that the last two democrats were failures?

[Greyhound]

60. What is, is.

[ChiciB1]

28. I'm With You Here! KICK & Voted

Just posted at another thread about Clark how the Clintons don't seem to be working for the "base!"

Now Ickes & Soros are after Dean. How does THIS help????

I'm steamed! NO HILLARY!

[Inland]

30. Oh, for fuck's sake.

There's not a "Clinton Ghost". There was eight years of peace and prosperity and a president who held off a country full of nutbags to give it to us. That's not a ghost. That's a fucking GOOD LIFE and a country that I WASN'T ASHAMED OF. Yeah, our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over!

And get a load of this dolt's platform: "honesty, responsibility, equality, opportunity, and community." Yeah, thanks for the nitty gritty details, dude! Clinton delivers peace and prosperity, and you can't even deliver a catchy slogan.

Just how much success will people disavow because they are maneuvering for nominations in 2008?

[SaveElmer]

31. Clinton's success...

Throws a monkey wrench into many of their arguments against non-populist Democrats. They need to trash his legacy in order to remove this impediment.

[Inland]

33. Well, RIGHT!

I mean, the republicans tell us that Clinton's success was due to Reagan. The autodestruct democratss just pretend it never happened. Sure, people will want to vote for ANY democrat when nobody is willing to say anything good about the last two democratic presidents. It's a great position for the Greens, not because they aren't democrats to begin with, but because they don't plan on winning.

[Greyhound]

35. Spoken like a true beneficiary of Clinton's RW corporate agenda.

:eyes:

[Inland]

36. A beneficiary of eight years of peace and prosperity, you mean.

At least, a beneficiary that isn't an ingrate and willing to toss both the truth and success in the next general out the window in order for some pissy manuevering for nominations.

You're a beneficiary too, whether you admit it or not.

[Greyhound]

37. I benefited, and I freely admit it. I am an educated white person that

worked in IT. I did very well. Unfortunately all of the working class that actually made something in this country are the people that paid the price for our benefit.
Make no mistake, Clinton's economy was based entirely on selling out The People to the corporations.

[Inland]

38. What crap.

Employment up, income up. If that's a "price" paid, I'll pay it again in a second.

It's incredible. Mere success has to be ignored, because it doesn't fit with next year's campaign. Change the facts to fit the campaign, just like the republicans. And who is going to vote for democrats when nobody is allowed to remember that once upon a time, things were better than now?

Peace and prosperity are a pretty good platform, and even better to have accomplished. By hey, let's exorcise THAT ghost.

[SaveElmer]

39. Tactics on both extremes are about the same...

Denigrate and obfuscate any success that may disprove their rigid idealogical bent. Trash talk, and dishonest criticism when confronted with facts...

Two sides of the same coin as far as I am concerned.

[Inland]

40. It's the same tactic

I just don't understand what a democrat or a progressive thinks can be accomplished in the long run.

Republicans tell us Clinton's successes were the result of Reagan, and they get help from democrats who say, "what successes?"

For example, those few GDP growth and employment growth figures that the Bush admin highlights are set forth with such fanfare and self congratulation that somebody could easily say, "er, that would have been a below average month in the Clinton adminstration, not a reason for a party". But that's worshipping a ghost, I guess, not just being in favor of prosperity.

[SaveElmer]

41. I'm not sure...

I gues sthey view the Clinton Legacy and success as heir first obstacle...not sure they have looked beyond that yet...but I get the feeling winning isn't really that important to them.

[Greyhound]

46. No extreme here, just trying to keep the record straight. Clinton did some

good, of that there is ne doubt, but the idealism and revisions I read are offensive. To state, or imply that it was all great under Clinton, while trying to deny the tremendous pain his corporate agenda inflicted on millions is just wrong.
Clinton was a vast improvement over Bush and does appear god-like next to the shrub, but to cast him in the warm glow of the "good old days" that never where unless you were one of us (basically white and middle class) is to continue down this path of destruction. Another Clinton type in 2008 will be disaster to our nation, and will likely seal our fate if it's not already too late.

[BootinUp]

48. (anti)corporate agenda

I get awful sick of hearing about the DLC corporate agenda. Who is going to be the champion of the anti-corporate agenda? Where is this hero? Is he going to propose communism? Will that win in the USA? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK with this bullshit.

I assume you favor massive tariffs, up the yin yang to protect American jobs. Who is going to pay those tarriffs? ITS A REGRESSIVE TAX.

[Greyhound]

49. Riiiight... we should let those great guys that run the corporations take

care of us. They'd never do anything to hurt people, mess up the environment, steal, lie, murder...
What I do support is sanity, something that is in short supply these days.
Tariff are only effective for very short term relief to give the system a chance to re-establish equilibrium, and to compensate for unfair practices.
Don't forget, unless you get the big office with the window, or sit on the board, you're one of us too, and, as such, completely expendable.

[BootinUp]

50. I have no illusions

and no windows in my lab office.

I would like to see the left stop spouting nonsense so we can actually win a fucking national election again.

for example:

I have no problem pushing hard for taxes as long as they are progressive in nature.

I have no problem with tariffs that protect key industries where we are leading research or where our national security is at stake.

I have no problem with trade agreements, or I should say improving trade agreements for our country's benefit.

But claiming Bill C was all for corporations is just fucking nonsense. You might as well support Ralph Nader then.

[Greyhound]

51. Can you name one single piece of pro-corporate legislation or one

single corporate welfare program that he opposed, or *gasp* vetoed? I can't find any, from GATT, NAFTA, "welfare reform" (the most obscene democratic betrayal in my lifetime), WTO, IMF...
And what difference do you believe it will make if another corporatist gets in?

[BootinUp]

54. Whats a corporatist?

Thats what I mean by being out of touch. Nobody gets in the White House that uses language like that. Americans want jobs, they want companies to hire them. Stop using that kind of rhetoric its a loser.

My recollection is that Clinton did a good job of being involved in the design of legislation before it was passed by congress. He was a communicator a negotiator a very good politican. Why should I look up his record, I lived and worked and supported a family while he was president. I was proud that he was our president. There was darn few things I remember disagreeing with him on policy wise. Well I think he should have waited on the gays in the military thing. But I admired his effort to correct a problem even if it caused other problems.

[Greyhound]

56. Here you are, I went to the contemporary definition since we're not

in fascist Italy.
Corporatism; "The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public"
A corporatist would be a person that advocates or supports this form of enforced servitude.

GATT, NAFTA, t-com act 1996, welfare "reform", need I go on? (There's much more) I'm happy that you were too busy to pay attention to those less fortunate than yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that he took from the poor to give more to the rich. As I've stated before, he was head and shoulders above bush, and nearly god-like next to the shrub, but lets not get all misty-eyed and forget that he was a moderate republican with a 'D' after his name.

BTW, judging by your screen name, we support the same candidate for '08.

[timbnyc44]

61. Clinton Quiet About Past Wal-Mart Ties

Here's a timely article relative to this discussion, just out from the AP. It covers Clinton's six years on the board of WalMart! What's funny to me, and distressing, is that Clinton claims not to remember what she did when she was on the board. Her opponent in the Dem primary for NY Senate says that 'strains credulity' - which seems kind of polite to me.

With retail giant Wal-Mart under fire to improve its labor and health care policies, one Democrat with deep ties to the company — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — has started feeling her share of the political heat.

***

But Hillary Clinton, who as first lady proposed a wide-ranging but ultimately unsuccessful plan to reshape the nation's health care system, has had little to say about Wal-Mart's health care record.

"That was a long time ago," she said recently when asked if she had done anything about the company's health care policies while she served on its board.

That comment was met with disbelief from Jonathan Tasini, a longtime labor organizer mounting a longshot challenge to Clinton in New York's Democratic Senate primary.

"Voters would find it a strained argument to believe that the senator who prides herself on intelligence and knowledge of detail can't recall any details in this case. It just strains credulity," Tasini said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_el_se/hillary_clinton_wal_mart;_ylt=Ah9JTZZIgUMhSREzCL9TaGas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

[Greyhound]

42. Perhaps you should revisit "The Big One", maybe you'll then remember

what is was like for them.
On Edit: I notice you're from Chicago, How's the Ford plant been doing? Montgomery Ward? General Motors? United? How many examples of the working class being screwed under Clinton do you want?
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. (should I reference this too?)

[Inland]

43. WWII? Is that Clinton's fault, too? nt

[BootinUp]

45. lol.

[Greyhound]

47. Wow! Really got me with that one... ouch.

how about some substance? :eyes:

[wisteria]

53. Mostly, I agree that we need to move on and the Clinton's need to

fade away. Maybe they didn't start out to be all about themselves, but that is what they have become.

[xchrom]

57. kick

[apnu]

62. Well said Bob!

Thanks for posting this, IndianaGreen!

[Greyhound]

63. Odd how neither of his defenders ever answered the issues raised...

Well not really odd, now that I think of it. All the usual non-answers, fudged statistics, and propaganda. Oh well, at least I'm pretty sure they won't vote for a fascist, since neither lives in CT.