If you'll whine about President Clinton, you'll whine about ANYTHING

[mtnsnake]

Bill Clinton's 2 terms in office were like an oasis of hope, prosperity, & relative peace in the middle of a vast desert of greed, lies, corruption, and murder. Yet the guy gets bashed on this forum more than Karl Rove does. Jesus H Balls.

Here, this is for everyone who has nothing better to do than to whine about the best president this country has seen for decades...

[ThomCat]

1. Except for NAFTA...

And Don't Ask, Don't Tell
And token jestures to the left while he triangulated on towards the right.

You're right. Nobody has any reason to "whine" about Clinton if their only criteria is better than the right.

But if you goal is to have a real progressive in office then there was a hell of a lot of reason to be disappointed.

[Webster Green]

4. And the 1996 Telecommunications Act...

And welfare "reforms"....

And "I didn't inhale"...(He should have)

[mtnsnake]

6. You're complaining about "I didn't inhale"? You just proved my point

You'll complain about ANYTHING.

[Webster Green]

13. I threw it on the end of the list for good measure...

That particular item was an attempt at humour rather than an actual complaint, BTW.

[ThomCat]

16. Attacking your attempt at humor was

a straw man. No response to your other points. But that one could be critizised easily enough.

People who insist that their opinion is right and all the rest of us are wrong often have to resort to straw man arguments.

[mtnsnake]

20. Oh, so now it was only "humour", but the other points weren't, right?

How convenient. 'I was serious about the points that didn't draw any response, but was only kidding about the one that did draw a response'.

Now THAT was funny! And I'm the one who's the "straw man". LOL

[ThomCat]

34. Actually, I thought that was obvious.

[Totally Committed]

27. And the Welfare Reform Act...

eom

TC

[NativeTexan]

60. The Welfare Reform Act....

....was part of a MUCH BIGGER PICTURE, which had to do with what I call "trickle-UP" economics. It was about getting people INTO jobs that PAY ENOUGH to get them OFF of WELFARE and ON the TAX ROLLS!! In the conservatives "trickle-down" economics....it never TRICKLED DOWN farther than the CORPORATE BOARD ROOMS...still doesn't, never will.

BUT, when you start at the BOTTOM, help people get BETTER jobs that will GET them off of the welfare rolls where they can actually FEED their families and have at least a FEW of the better things in life, then they start BUYING products Businesses have to MAKE more products, need MORE facilities, (granted NAFTA and other measures were the beginning of outsourcing, but it didn't go HOGWILD until the Village Idiot moved into the WH), and THAT creates MORE BETTER PAYING JOBS. It TRICKLES-UP! And the ones who need it more get it first, not the other way around!

Just a thought.

[NativeTexan]

63. As someone who has lived under TEN presidents....

....I will tell you that I PERSONALLY did BETTER under BILL CLINTON than ANY OF THE OTHERS!!

Except for his personal problems and indiscretions, he was the BEST POLITICIAN that ANY OF US will see again in our lifetimes!! His enemies tried to take him down, but he took THEM down!

His presidency was more successful than ANY that I have ever witnessed!

The BASHING to me, is so self-deprecating that I don't understand it. Would you have rather had BUSH I? Or BOB DOLE? OR OMG, ROSS PEROT? Hell, Ronald Reagan was just an ACTOR! Bill Clinton was a LEADER in the FIRST DEGREE!! Was he more moderate than some on here would want. YES. But if a pure liberal could have been elected, then we would have had, and I wish we had, a President Dukakis!! Or a President Mondale!!

The country, as a whole, is in the middle, and after allowing the takeover of the country by a right-wing extremist, they are going to be looking for MODERATION, not a complete SWING.

Just a thought.

[lyonn]

66. Good point the trickle up theory

Also Clinton added money to police forces across the country. The records will show there was a reduction of crime during Clinton years. There were other programs to help the people along with help in higher education costs. NAFTA should have been tweaked once it become evident that it wasn't working as planned and that other countries were getting sweetheart deals and we were getting screwed.

[guidod]

84. NAFTA should have never happened!!!!

TWEAKED!!!??? Are you kidding me! You're one of those anti-union people aren't you?

[lyonn]

106. Absolutely not anti union,

Unions are the only protection for workers.

Tweaked was just a silly word that popped in my head. We should have put restriction on certain transactions between countries like China with their lack of human rights, we can't compete with chinese getting paid 50 cents an hour, things like that. Watchdogs is what we need from the beginning of NAFTA.

[guidod]

117. Herre's a link that will show you

just what NAFTA did for the workers of the United States, Mexico and Canada. CAFTA is destroying a lot of the jobs that NAFTA missed. Do yourself a favor and read all you can in the link. Peace

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

[lyonn]

121. Thanks and boy was I wrong

For one thing I was thinking WTO and not NAFTA. Well, thinking could be stretching it.

[guidod]

122. LOL...I love honesty.

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

101. It was an idea that needed this to have succeeded:

The assurance of BOTH PARTIES that the intention of making sure those WELL-PAYING jobs and the INCREASED MINIMUM WAGE would be available to those coming off the Welfare Rolls for more than the years Clinton was in office. He got no such assurances. And then signed into effect NAFTA, which meant the beginning of the outsourcing of middle level-jobs. When the people with those jobs began having to compete with the lower income people for the jobs they were applying for, AND the minimum wage was not increased as promised, what you see happening now was the direct result: A disappearing/under-employed middle class, and poor people with absolutely no reliable safety nets in place to feed their families, pay for fuel, and in some cases -- no waty to pay for housing.

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and as many of his fans like to point out (and with which I agree, btw) -- he is immensely intelligent. He was blessed with a mind that saw ten miles down the road. But, with this Welfare Reform Act, "trickle up economics" would have taken bi-artisan comittment to have any chance of success, and he thought more aboput his legacy and efficacy (read: bi-partisan support) for passing other bills instead, and let the Republicans have their way on this Bill as a trade-off, thus abandoning and SCREWING the very poor who had idolized and supported him. I repeat -- S C R E W I N G T H E P O O R. Trickle up, my ass! It was a cynical, cruel, short-sighted panacea for the Right, a crew-job for the poor, and (it appears) a lot of bullshit smoke-and-mirrors to baffle the Left.


TC

[NativeTexan]

116. Pure Trickle-Up can ONLY happen with bi-partisanship, and that never....

...happened, and WON'T happen anytime in the future. But this was THE CLOSEST we have ever gotten. And let me point out one thing for sure. With all of its imperfections.....IT WORKED BETTER THAN ANYOTHER MODEL FOR THE POOR AND LOWER MIDDLECLASSES THAN ANYTHING SINCE THE NEW DEAL, (which was also very imperfect) AND THE GREAT SOCIETY, (VERY imperfect).

EVERYTHING else in my lifetime has targeted making the rich richer, and keeping the working classes, like myself, in the tank as far as they can be stuffed. Things were turning around before the Bush/SCOTUS coup of 2000. After that, Bush and his minions made the Reagan/Bush, Nixon/Agnew years look like they were run by Little Mary Sunshine!!

[Andromeda]

77. Welfare reform helped some people...

it was designed to help people get off of welfare and get back to work. What's wrong with that? People would rather be working than living off of the meager pittance that most people get. That doesn't give anybody hope---it just lets the needy barely get by.

I was a single mother on welfare at one time in my life and I was thankful to get meaningful work. It helped us until I found a job, as it was intended to, and I was glad to get off of it.

Welfare is designed to help families get by until mom or dad can find a job. It's not meant to be permanent and create dependency.

It would have been a better bill if we'd had a Democratic Congress but with Republicans in charge it was hard to get the kind of bill that Clinton wanted. He vetoed the worst ones and the one that he finally signed was not perfect but better than the country would have gotten under a Republican president.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. Welfare "Reform" was a complete and utter failure

For one, President Clinton signed a bill that among other things, required spouses in abusive relationships to re-unite with their husbands under the pretense of "marriage incentives". And Welfar Reform has statistically done NOTHING to create these jobs for people who were supposed to stop living off of Welfare. Now we just have millions of people living in poverty without a job or welfare.

[Totally Committed]

103. Thank you for this!

I totally agree with you. I think this Bill was, more than any other (especially when coupled with NAFTA) the most shameful legacy of the Clinton Presidency.

He lost me forever with this.

TC

[Jack_DeLeon]

31. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

111. Thank you. Thought I was the only one who'd ever mention that abomination

whenever the topic of "What did Clinton do that was bad?" comes up.

[Jack_DeLeon]

32. also the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

Which included the infamouse Assault Weapon ban that screwed us over and let to Bush.

[springhill]

86. NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act...........

were huge however, and we are paying dearly for them. They are no small thing.

[Warpy]

2. The prosperity didn't reach at least 80% of us

so excuse me if we're not ready to canonize the man.

[mtnsnake]

5. 80%? What are you talking about? What about the deficit, or lack of one?

Oh, that doesn't count, though, does it. The fact that the country was in the blue under Clinton just doesn't matter when it doesn't apply to your argument I suppose.

[Warpy]

9. The deficit that concerns most of us

is the part of the month left over after our month's pay.

Sorry if we don't want to canonize the man. If he'd worked harder at getting more than a parsimonious rise in the minimum wage, the economy would have been much better, revenues to Uncle Sam would have increased far more, Social Security would be far stronger, and all of us would have benefitted, rather than that top 20%.

The national deficit doesn't matter much to the people whose kids need shoes.

[lyonn]

47. Remember the government that Clinton inherited

Eight years of Reagan and 4 of Bush 1. The economy was a mess, there had been bank failures, foreclosures, interest rates sky high, U.S. debt the highest ever, until now. How quickly we forget. I thought he performed a miracle especially since he had the hounds on him from day one. The repubs had him in Court for nearly 8 years!

[blm]

51. If he hadn't closed the books on IranContra and BCCI we'd have seen BFEE

in court for at least 8 years.

[lyonn]

65. True Clinton didn't pursue the Iran Contra connections

with bush1 and the 1980 out of country negotiations to free the hostages in Iran by the repubs when Carter was running for a second term. By reviewing an article by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.com he didn't seem to indicate Clinton had devious intent by not going after bush the CIA man and president. More that he was intent on getting some legislation/issues he was interested in passing.

Again, this country was a mess after bush1. Also, go back to the 8 years of Nixon's presidency (exclude about 2 years with Ford) - then Carter for 4 years (Carter was side swiped by the repubs) - then 8 years of Reagan followed by 4 with bush1. 20 years of repub. presidency compared to only 4 years with a democrat. Clinton had a lot of ground to make up. He didn't know he was going to be stabbed in the back by the repubs when they took over congress in what 1994 (?).

[blm]

108. I want to believe that Clinton was naive in 93 and Bush1 played him on

those issues - including getting Greenspan to force Clinton to keep BCCI books closed or risk collapsing the world economy.

But, then Clinton doesn't even MENTION a word about BCCI in his book and I found that very odd.

[Andromeda]

80. Clinton was kept pretty busy ....

trying to defend himself from Republican attacks. He had to work with a Republican Congress which hamstrung him to a great degree. He wasn't able to get healthcare reform passed because of their opposition but he still managed to balance the budget and create a surplus AFTER Reagan created a huge deficit.

Cut him some slack; he did a lot of good when he was president. He could have done more if he had, had a Democratic Congress so he did the best he could under the circumstances.

Bill Clinton built up good will with other countries, now everybody hates us because of Bush.

[blm]

107. But there'd be no GOP congress in 95 if Clinton opened the books in 93

as he should have.

I agree he did what he could against a GOP congress that also gained control of the corporate media to use against him - then Gore - then Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I agree.

However, it is the always vocal, always disgruntled 2.5% of voters that are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. The same ones that really thought Dennis Kucinich, wonderful man that he is, had a snowball's chance in hell of winning a national election. The same ones that pick apart Clinton's 8 years in office, preferring to pillory him rather than BushCo's rape of the planet. The same smug, snotty, self-righteous sort that are incapable of insight into their own behavior, not realizing that they are 2.5% and thus far incapable of forming their own party, so they dump on the Democrats.

[ThomCat]

7. Anyone who supports Clinton 100%

is just worshiping an image, not really paying attention to what's going on.

Some of us have no time for hero worship. There's real life to deal with.

[mtnsnake]

8. That's eactly what my post was NOT about

Where did I say I supported him 100%?

Nice try at changing the meaning of my post, though.

[ThomCat]

11. If any complaint about Clinton is called "whining"

then you sure as hell are criticising anyone who doesn't have 100% support. Your post was flame-bait.

[mtnsnake]

14. Call it whatever you want

It's no more "flame-bait" than any of the bullshit posts about Clinton not being a fine Democrat or blah blah blah that are started about him on a daily basis to muddy his good name for sake of a self-serving agenda on the parts of those slinging the mud at him.

Nope, not flame-bait. It's called "the truth".

[SaveElmer]

18. Or how about the recent posts calling Clinton a War Criminal...

I'm sure they are fine with that one...

[Wilms]

19. Why was Clinton accused of being a war criminal?

Madeline Albright already said that 500,000 dead Iraqi children was "worth it".

And those complaints about depleted uranium...well that's just "junk science". Right? :shrug:

People are sooooo sensitive.

[SaveElmer]

21. Of course...

As you probably well know Madeline Albright apologized for those comments.

I will ask you straight out...

1. Do you consider Bill Clinton to be a war criminal?

2. Would you support him being tried by the world court for his crimes?

[Wilms]

23. I didn't know, and I'm glad Madeline Albright apologized for those comment

Did she also apologize for the bombings, and the refusal to let Iraq rebuild it's water and sanitation infrastructure?

I consider the charges arguable, at least. And if the World Court brought charges, I'd support trial.

[AtomicKitten]

10. it's called comparative analysis

Nice try, though, with the typical gross exaggeration to punctuate a point.

[Andromeda]

76. I didn't worship Clinton---I just liked him a lot...

and now that we've had five years of the worst president EVER on the planet, I now worship Clinton.

Really. (I'm just engaging in some hyperbole to stress my point.)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

112. Anyone who supports ANYONE 100% is worshipping an image.

But gimme a Clinton worshipper over a Dubya or Reagan worshipper any day.

[SaveElmer]

12. You got that right...

And they combine this with a polyanna-ish nostalgia for "allegedly" progressive leaders from our history as an example of what we should aspire to. Often it is FDR. They seem to be willing to overlook small things like pandering to southern racists and sending an entire ethnic group into concentration camps...

Note: I point this out to show that no one, not even our most exalted leaders were ever anywhere near perfect. Roosevelt had no choice but to pander to southern racists if he was going to get the new deal through...and I think even he would now admit interring Japanese Americans was a colossol mistake. FDR is one of my heroes despite these mistakes.

[mtnsnake]

17. Good analogy, Elmer.

I'd bet anything that the same people whining about Clinton's presidency would be whining in the same manner about FDR, too, just because he wasn't perfect in their eyes 110% of the time either.

[ThomCat]

35. I disagree.

Those of us who don't worship Clinton are also the people who (generaly) who don't worship FDR or any other president.

We should evaltuate the good and the bad and have an honest appraisal of our presidents.

Anyone who views FDR the way the original poster treats Clinton would call you a whiner for being critical of FDR. I firmly believe that Clinton was one of our better presidents, but believe just as strongly that he's made a lot of mistakes. Pointing out that he made mistakes and did some things we don't like doesn't make anyone a whiner.

And calling people whiners does not put anyone in a position to be wholier than thou (or A Better Democrat than thou, as the case may be).

[SaveElmer]

36. If most people trashing Clinton....

Were as reasoned and objective as you are...there would not be an issue..

What I am reacting to are the apparent attempts to paint Clinton in the worst light possible. In my opinion, they do this because Clinton's success cannot be reconciled with the notion that only a populist/progressive can turn the country around. They need to trash his legacy in order to remove this impediment.

If you don't think there is a substantial number of these people here at DU, take a look at this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2503151&mesg_id=2503151

Of the 77 DU'ers who have responded...26% believe Bill Clinton should be tried for War Crimes.

[ThomCat]

37. DU is always infested with Freepers.

I think most (but maybe not all) of the people who think Clinton is a war criminal may be freepers just trying to get a rise out of us.

I put a whole lot more stock in people's written posts, not anonymous clicks on a poll. If that poll is one of the sources of people's irritation I'd recommend that we all go out for a drink somewhere and forget that poll.
:toast:

[mtnsnake]

42. Not just freepers

but also quite a few people who would vote "yes he's a war criminal" just to make an exagerration about someone they don't like. Extremists, if you will. Otherwise, I can't imagine that almost 1/3 of the people who voted in that poll are freepers (20 out of 62 at the time of this post), yet it's sad to think that ANY Democrat would vote that way.

In a way, I hope you're right that it is freepers who voted "yes" because it's pretty disheartening if any DU'ers voted that way.

[madfloridian]

15. You need to read this about the Telecommunications Act of 96

It is his baby, it is our legacy right now. Much of the outsourcing and big business catering started with him.

http://www.watpa.org/telcom.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Clinton looks good only in contrast to Bush

He was a 1960s Republican instead of a 1990s Republican.

[mtnsnake]

24. If he was a "1960's Republican", it sure is funny how

so incredibly many of his environmental laws got totally rolled back when the next Republican got into office.

It's also amazing how his tax laws, the ones against the obscenely wealthy, got rolled back, too, by Bush, if Clinton was a "1960's Republican".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Then you don't know much about 1960s Republican

Nixon founded the EPA and extended food stamp coverage beyond an initial pilot program. During his time, college financial aid was far more generous than it is now. You could get your loans forgiven 100% if you taught school in a poverty area, 50% if you taught anywhere for five years, and you could also get your loans forgiven 20% for each year you spent in the military, the Peace Corps, or VISTA. Yes, this was during the Nixon administration.

The old-style Republicans were nothing like the post-Reagan Republicans, whom even Barry Goldwater (the 1960s idea of a rabid rightwinger) was appalled at.

[mtnsnake]

26. How can you tout college fnancial aid during Nixon's time

as being "far more generous", but say nothing about Clinton's "Hope Credit" and his "Lifetime Learning Credit", both which saved millions of people tons of money when sending their kids to college? I know from personal experience that Bill Clinton helped my kids afford going to college during his tenure because of those two bills in particular.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Clinton's tax credits were just tax credits

They were not full tuition, room and board payments that students could potentially not have to pay back.

In education (and in health care) there's a substantial difference between cash in hand that meets immediate needs and a tax credit that you don't get till the end of the tax year.

[mtnsnake]

62. Clinton saved people who were financially strapped THOUSANDS

of dollars when they went to college. For some of them it meant THE difference between going to college or not going at all. I don't care how you spin it, you're not going to take that fact away from him just so you can one-up him with Nixon of all people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Getting a tax credit a year later is helpful only if you earn enough

to pay taxes, as we have seen with Bush's HSA proposals.

The NDSL loans were upfront cash in hand, covering tuition, room, and board at a ridiculously low interest rate (2%), and students could get them forgiven at the rate of 10% per year for teaching school or joining the military or Peace Corps, and 100% if they taught in a designated poverty area. So at that time, a year at a private college cost about $3000 for tuition, room, and board, equivalent to about $15,000 today. A student coming out of college with $12,000 (=$60,000) in debt could reduce that debt to $6,000 (=$30,000) or even to zero.

They were a Godsend to students from poor families. "Gee, all I have to do is teach school in a place like my old neighborhood for five years, and I'm home free." I actually heard fellow students discussing that.

So Clinton's financial aid programs, which were not cash upfront but a delayed tax credit, seem puny by comparison.

[mtnsnake]

102. Lets just hope the next Dem will enact such fine tax relief as Clinton did

in the form of the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Credit, which saved millions of college kids' parents thousands of dollars EACH over the course of their multi-year educations. I'm not interested in arguing anymore with someone who's determined to use Richard Nixon as a means to one-up Bill Clinton. There's nothing you can say or do to change the fact that Clinton saved people thousands of dollars with his tax relief legislation concerning the cost of college. Compare him to Nixon, compare him to whatever time period you want...you can't change what happened in the 90's.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. I'm not saying Clinton's tax credits were BAD, but they were

a great example of not reaching far enough.

Why not think big and give outright grants or no-interest loans, which would REALLY help the poor, not just the people who are well-off enough to benefit from tax breaks?

[lyonn]

71. College cost in the 1970's was cheap compared to now

My husband got his law degree in the late 60's and we paid for it with no help from the govt. It was doable then. After years of repub control via, the presidency, higher education has skyrocketed along with health care. When people compare Clinton's morals to bush's I get a head rush. bush thinks quoting scripture is a show of good morals, best I can tell. Sheesh, Clinton made mistakes but on my score card he rates way up there with other presidents, better than most.

[DrGonzoLives]

105. Tax credits are useless for those who don't pay much in taxes anyway

Loan forgiveness increases access to college much more than tax credits.

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. ROFL, man Nixon doesnt look so bad these day does he...

given what we are have become conditioned to.

Whats a little B&E when everyone's private communications can be compromised by the government, and most people dont care.

[sandnsea]

82. That was the Democratic Congress

They forced those programs across Nixon's desk. Don't think for one second a Republican congress would have done the same. I cannot believe how gullible people are about Republicans. If Clinton hadn't had to deal with them, we'd have seen very different programs in the 90's, including national health care.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Nixon could have vetoed the Dem programs and didn't, because he knew

they were popular.

Clinton could have vetoed the Republican programs and didn't (unlike Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, who vetoed about 50 horrible bills per session that were passed by the Republican-dominated legislature), because...because why? They were popular? No, NAFTA definitely was not popular, except with business interests.

[sandnsea]

85. Not popular with Nixon

Or Republicans. Clinton vetoed plenty of bills, a bankruptcy bill, tax cut bill, DC vouchers, intelligence spending, partial birth abortion and on and on. He vetoed two welfare bills. Yes he passed NAFTA, and yes plenty of people in other parts of the country, and even in Oregon, supported NAFTA. Your claims are really off base, those were popular bills that Nixon was forced to accept, just like welfare reform and NAFTA were popular with many people too and Clinton was forced to accept them and make them as best as he could. Obviously he did a damned site better job at implementation than Bush is doing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. NAFTA was popular only with owners, not with workers

:-(

Letting it pass was part of his continual efforts to convince corporate funders that he wasn't one of those big, bad scary libruls.

[sandnsea]

88. That just isn't true

Alot of people fully believe that more trade means selling more US products overseas, means more jobs. And it worked for a while, with the tech industry helped along with various govt programs. If we'd kept going, doing the same thing with the alternative energy industry, working people would continue to support NAFTA because we'd still have jobs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. But people outside the tech and alternative energy industries were

still hurting, and their incomes never recovered from the manufacturing jobs that they had lost.

Besides, NAFTA set the pace for the increased outsourcing that's going on now among the...high tech industries.

[sandnsea]

92. Not entirely

Don't you remember the plants that were closing during 2003 & 2004, the last washer plant, the last vacuum cleaner plant, bla bla, on and on. No, there was still manufacturing in the 90's, and the promise of retraining to tech jobs. Remember, we had a 4% unemployment rate and increasing wages. Granted, it wasn't perfect, but it was better than this pile of shit. Part of it was trade agreements.

I wish Clinton had made NAFTA and similar trade agreements more iron clad, so that Bush couldn't turn on the job spigot and abandon this country. I wish he'd included labor rights and environmentl agreements that couldn't be broken. But NAFTA was being pushed at him just as hard as the EPA was being pushed at Nixon, and by the people to create jobs.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. ..and to Reagan and to Nixon and to Poppy. Hell, even to LBJ. -nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. while i do not think EVERYTHING cliinton did was great

he was a great president...he had his limitations which were exacerbated by having a republican congress...it is only with the election of bush that we can fully appreciate how much clinton tried to not completely give in to the republican party

clinton's vetoes saved us for 4 years

but the nafta agreement and the welfare to workfare bills were crap!

[MrBenchley]

29. Amen to that...

By the way, I thought this is instructive....compare the way a non-Democrat and a Democrat are being treated on this forum for the SAME fucking action....

The non-Democrat is "pragmatic", "a heck of a guy, and one of the best"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2502793

The Democrat is a "lameass", "gutless wonder", "useless, spineless, posturing, fingerintheair asswipe", part of the "Elite Ruling Class who are there to protect the status quo of fascism", a "Pro-War Monger", "stupid, irresponsible", "worse than Tojo!...practically Adolf Eichmann to Bush's Milosevic", "another politician not willing to enforce the laws of the United States when it comes to the executive branch", "wimp", etc. etc. etc...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2489288

[mtnsnake]

40. No kidding, and isn't it ironic,

not to mention hypocritical, too. Ever notice how selective the criticism is? It all depends on who's saying or doing what, as to whether or not they get bashed for it. Hey, MrB, maybe Bernie had a bad day, that's what it was. Yeah. :evilgrin:

[coalition_unwilling]

30. So you blindly support someone who presides over the

execution (Ricky Rae Rector) of someone with an IQ estimated between 69-72? Whatever.

[DerekG]

41. You have to execute de facto children, otherwise you look "soft on crime"

According to Marshall Frady, Rector even tried to assist his executioners in finding a viable vein, thinking they were giving him aid.

Do you think Clinton "felt his pain?"

[coalition_unwilling]

110. If posters aren't willing to call a scumbag a scumbag, regardless

of party affiliation, then they have failed Kant's notion of reciprocity of ethical ideals.

That is, if we use a certain ethical standard to indict the Crime Family, we must be willing to universalize that standard to others, i.e., Clinton, and to ourselves.

[Sapere aude]

38. I didn't like welfare reform. I guess I'm a Clinton basher!

Clinton was not liberal enough for me. He was a much better president than most of late other than Roosevelt. But I don't act like a freeper and support everything a president does because he/she is a Dem and not a repub.

We need to be critical of our leaders and not be in lock step with them.

[mtnsnake]

48. Nope, that's not what I'm talking about

I'm talking about Clinton's name getting absolutely smeared and dragged through the gutter, and it's not by right wing neocons either.

You're not doing that by criticizing "welfare reform".

[Minnesota Libra]

39. Clinton makes Bush look like a choir boy - some people need......

....an edumakatiun and a hobby and in just that order.:wtf:

[depakid]

43. the best president this country has seen for decades...

Considering what there is to choose from, that's not saying much.....

The main reason he gets "bashed" is because of his policies- the guy was basically a Rockefeller Republican, and did a lot of damage to the Democratic Party.

[mtnsnake]

44. Why is he ANY kind of Republican? Just because Michael Moore says so?

God, ever since MM put that on the cover of his book, everyone buys it lock, stock and barrel.

[depakid]

49. Try looking at his policies

Having lived through them- and analyzed them while they were being considered, I don't need Micheal Moore to tell me that Clinton was basically a moderate Republican circa 1975.

Actuially, in some ways- he's even FARTHER to the right than that. The Telecommunications bill, for example. You know, the one that turned over just about every radio station across the country to the Republicans?

His communications policies could hardly have been worse had he tried (you might actually argue that he did try- by appointing Michael Powell to the FCC. Or allowing the drug companies to advertise on television).

In terms of regulatory policy, the man was dismal failure- and people who worked on issues during that time damn well know it.

[lyonn]

73. I thought bush appointed Micahael Powell? n/t

[Andromeda]

81. I believe he did.

[Bridget Burke]

45. Clinton did not have a Democratic Congress for the full 8 years....

How many of his "bad" bills were the best he could get under the circumstances? Also--didn't that "Impeachment" crap weaken him a bit?

Clinton is not above criticism. But those who spend more energy on blaming him than on attacking the Chimp have odd priorities.

[ThomCat]

46. I agree with you

that anyone who spends more time attacking Clinton than Bush has odd priorities. But do you actually see any of that here at DU. Really?

I don't think NAFTA or the Telecommunications Act were the best he could do. I think he really was too far to the right on those. He often favored corporations over people. On the plus side, it allowed him to cut the deficit, but on the minus side, it's the poor who pay for it.

Welfare "reform" probably was the best he could do at the time. Maybe.

[blm]

50. IMO, the worst move Clinton made was in 1993 when he closed the books on

any further investigations of IranContra and BCCI.

That was the perfect opportunity to reveal to Americans and the world the extent of BushInc's criminal empire.

[mtnsnake]

54. True, blm, but George HW Bush had just pardoned several Iran Contra

people before Clinton got in, which didn't help matters either.

Just the same, I'll take your word for it that it was a bad mistake.

[blm]

55. the books still could have been opened, but Clinton CHOSE to not

pursue any more investigations and said so in his book - he said Bush deserved a peaceful retirement. There was still the matters of BCCI and CIA drugrunning to tarnish BushInc, but what did Clinton choose to do?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. The purpose of "bashing" Clinton is to remind people not to set their

sights too low.

If you think Clinton is the best we can hope for, then this country is in worse trouble than we thought.

[mtnsnake]

59. Oh thanks for informing me. I didn't realize he gets called a war criminal

among other rotten things as a "reminder for people not to set their sights too low."

And here I thought people just didn't like him!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. I've never called him a war criminal

But I remember when the Democrats had aspirations for domestic policy that didn't involve giving the right wing control of the airwaves, forcing people off welfare and into minimum wage jobs that leave them worse off, and backing down whenever the Republicans said "boo."

[mtnsnake]

64. I never said you did

He didn't back down "whenever the Republicans said "boo" either. He did pretty damn well, though, in pissing them off with all the great work he did as the fine Democratic president that he has. Why the heck do you think they hate him so much? If he acted half as much as like you say he did, they'd love him for crise sakes.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Republicans hated him because HE WON

Bill Clinton could have done absolutely nothing to make the Republicans love him. He outsmarted Lee Atwater's smear team (who had been hunting him since he was Governor of Arkansas) and beat George Bush and the Republican machine. No matter what happened the GOP would NEVER get over the fact that the Reaganites were thrown out of the white house.

[mtnsnake]

100. Yup, and because he stood for the opposite of what they stood for

Wow, how unusual to have someone in the WH, following that prick GH Bush, who actually CARED about the well being of other people like Clinton did.

[InvisibleTouch]

52. Yeah, I hate the bashing too.

Things have been so dark and dire in the last 6 years that we're forgetting how good we had it in the Clinton era.

[Daylin Byak]

53. I had a few problems with him....

NAFTA and Rwanda but besides that he's all right in my book.

[election_2004]

56. The Clinton years were also pre-9/11

Times have changed. Get used to it.

A President Hillary cannot magically revert our country back to the "glory days" of 1993-2001. Way too much has changed - - globally and domestically - - since then.

[Libby2]

67. I miss Clinton (nt)

[AJH032]

68. A fact about Welfare Reform that nobody ever talks about

Look people, the Welfare Reform bill that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 (or whenever it was) was not something that Clinton was proud of. He even admitted that he had many problems with it, for example its cut in the food stamp program. HOWEVER, what none of you Clinton bashers ever care to recognize is that the Republican congress actually presented Clinton with several previous Welfare Reform proposals, which were a lot harsher, ALL of which were vetoed by President Clinton. The one that got signed into law was a compromise between the Republicans and the President. Sorry if you don't like it, but compromise is the only way democracy moves forward, especially when the President's party does not control congress. If it weren't for President Clinton (like, say, if George HW Bush were president), the Welfare Reform act would have been a LOT worse than it was.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. He still didn't HAVE TO sign it

He should have pulled a Reagan, gone on TV, and used his communicative gifts to explain what was wrong with the Welfare Reform Act.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Exactly... the Republicans are bigots who hate single mothers

He should have told it like it is.

[coalition_unwilling]

114. That would have required courage, a quality Clinton had in short supply,

substituting for courage skill at tacking into the winds of political expedience.

You should have taken his measure from the 1992 New Hampshire primary campaign when he proved he was "tough on crime" by presiding over the execution of an inmate whose IQ was estimated variously between 69 and 72 (borderline mental retardation).

Or maybe Clinton's "Profile in Courage" could be written about the way he stood up to the military over the issue of gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

Whatever.

[ulysses]

109. erm...

compromise is the only way democracy moves forward

Or backwards, as was the case with welfare.

[Neil Lisst]

69. I agree, mtnsnake!! Bill Clinton is the gold standard.

And he's the best we can hope to get elected president.

[radio4progressives]

70. What an incredibly uninformed post.

gawwd... (big sigh) no wonder this country is in such a mess.

people do some homework, please please please.

please do some homework.

[mtnsnake]

119. Here ya go

Just for you.

[IronLionZion]

72. DUers will whine about everything

If Barbara Boxer was president and John Conyers was VP and Kennedy and Kucinich were majority leaders...DUers will still find something to whine about.

Most presidents have done positive things and made mistakes...except maybe our current chimp. His life is a mistake.

But it's ridiculous to hold out for that mythical super-politician who will do everything you want and nothing you don't want. Of course Clinton makes mistakes. Do you know anyone who doesn't? The only one to vote your way all the time is you so stalinist purges will result in an ideologically pure party of 1.

If you ever do find the mythical super-politician who is everything you could ever dream for, he's got you hook, line, and sinker.

Howard Dean and Zell Miller are shockingly similar in their views on the Democratic party.

[mtnsnake]

104. "it's ridiculous to hold out for that mythical super-politician who will

do everything you want and nothing you don't want."

Good post, Iron!

:toast:

[bpilgrim]

74. Best republican president since EISENHOWER

:evilgrin:

peace

[BigYawn]

75. I would take another Clinton in a New York minute.........eom

[mitchum]

79. Okay, DLClinton WAS the the lesser of two evils...

how's that for a ringing endorsement?

[guidod]

91. They've all been republican!

[Hippo_Tron]

96. Read Paul Wellstone's book "The Conscience of a Liberal"

Then come back and tell me that Clinton doesn't deserve some bashing for some of the things that he did. Of course, Wellstone's book was mostly written about the era before Bush came to power. After reading all of his Clinton bashing I can't even begin to imagine what he would have had to say in a book about the Bush administration's policies.

[Stockholm]

97. Especially since he is an ex-President

Post with that content always raise my Trollometer.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

99. Well, besides the obvious that you are always "President ____"

...even after you leave office, considering this assclown in the WH never got legally elected.....he IS still president in my mind.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

98. Clinton ruled it....

Period. End of story.

[OzarkDem]

118. Pearls before swine

Clinton was a great president. If not for him, Poppy would have been re-elected, then Dole after him, and so on and so on.

[newspeak]

120. okay, I'm a progressive

and voted for Clinton the first time--I have had run ins with more than one republican (even an ann coulter repuke) and have told all of them that Clinton was the best Republican president they ever had--and every last one of them agreed with me "but he lied about that BJ." When Iran-Contra, BCCI scandal was exposed, I knew that it was a very big deal for the welfare of our country--money laundering, theft, drugs on the streets, going against congress, murder---my thoughts after Clinton was elected-now we'll get to the bottom of this!!! People died so that we, the American people, would know the extent of how they were screwing us--the welfare of our country was at stake. Clinton did nothing, absolutely nothing. Then NAFTA, which was Bush's baby--apparently, they didn't need Bush to get it passed. Do you know what's in the NAFTA-GATT treaty? Do you even know how it bypasses the will of the people, our safety, in favor of foreign corporations? Then, it was the welfare reform act. Even I learned in Sociology 101, that there are three things that keep people away from a depleted job market: Welfare, School, and Prisons--As our manufacturing base was being depleted, these clueless politicians wanted welfare mothers to work at minimal jobs without the aid of government daycare. Basically, what they were telling poor mothers and children was SCREW YOU!!!! Now I know some have done very well under the Clinton Administration, but it was the beginning of the down hill roll on the working class. I am a Wellstone Democrat and I'm against our country being sold to the highest bidder. The commons is being raped and stolen from under our noses--do you think the Clintons, whom Poppy thinks Bill as one of his sons, is going to stop the pillaging or will they just slow it down a bit?