Any DU'ers here who remember why Bill Clinton was Elected?

[KoKo]

If you are here and you voted for him with "MUCH HOPE" do you feel that he did a good job? Would you prefer him in the White House once again to sweep out the stench of the Bushies?

How do you feel another term of Clinton could clean up what Bushies have done? What do you think "Clinton II" would do for America. I say this because a vote for Hillary is a vote for Clinton II and we know that.

Full Disclosure: If Clinton could have served another term given what he went through from the RW of the Repug Party, I would have voted for him again...even allowing him to be like FDR to serve THREE TERMS.

BUT! What is Hillary saying She and Bill will offer us if they get elected ONCE AGAIN?

Is there a list that Hillary supporters could post here to let me understand if they learned from their mistakes..what they learned and a VISION FOR AMERICA after BUSH REGIME?

[Digit]

1. Hillary is running, not Bill n/t

[asthmaticeog]

2. FDR won FOUR times. nt

[Bucky]

29. But he only served three terms.

He died 3 months into his 4th term, but his first term was shortened by two months when Inauguration Day was moved back from March to January, starting in 1937. FDR's unprecedented duration in office was only four years and 1 month longer than a full two term administration.

[Mojambo]

3. Obviously I'd take him over what we've had since

But that doesn't mean I think the policies he pursued were particularly good for this country.

So a potential return to Clintonism isn't a selling point that will work well on me.

[Milo_Bloom]

4. Clinton I laid the groundwork for Bush

A lot of what bush has done is just the logical, right wing wacko, conclusion of what started under Clinton.

Clinton's relaxing of the media regulations allowed giant corporate entities like Fox to gain so much control over news.

Clinton's appeasement of the right wing on Iraq, is what laid the ground work for bush to keep claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Free trade agreements signed and executed under the Clinton administration have caused and encouraged a large amount of the outsourcing.

Clinton did a lot of good things, but his appeasement of the right, laid the groundwork for what bush is doing today. (doesn't make bush right, but the path to hell was started with Clinton's actions.)

[davidwparker]

10. my thoughts exactly

[KoKo]

15. Here's the Pro's and Con's of Clinton...as I see them...might have missed something..

to allow us to keep our health insurance when NAFTA and SEC DeRegs too place that allowed some "breathing room" for long term employees to have some coverage for awhile if they had Medical Problems.

His expanding of "Family and Maternal Child Leave" was a help in allowing companies to retain employees who wanted to take time off for family births or medical emergencies. Unfortunately with "Outsourced America" very few are "Secure Enough" in their jobs to even try to take advantage of this...but for those who can it was a very good thing.

His attempts at a Middle East Peace Plan probably were close to Carters but it ended with Rabin's Assassination and even though he tried up to the end of his Presidency to get Peace in ME...it just didn't work out.

CONS OF CLINTON ADMINISTRATION:

Wall Street Deregulation helpfully passed by Dodd and Lieberman.

Personal Behavior with Monica reflected badly on ALL DEMS and seemed to Prove the 7 year Starr/RW Witch Hunt against him...correctly. Many went to jail and served time...caught up in behavior that would pale or be totally "innocent" compared to the BUSHIES CRIME MAFIA!

Lack of policy on Carbon Emmissions and Fuel Effienciecy. Clinton wasn't a LEADER on the ENVIRONMENT although he tried to fight back agains the RW Repugs taking away more land and deregulating more laws that Carter had put in place to put us on a better footing for Energy Use.

Failire to Put in Place DEM JUDGES...allowing Right WING FUNDIES to STOP HIM...when as a Two Term President who was Popular he could have RAMMED THROUGH HIS APPOINTMENTS LIKE BUSH DID! So...we had holes in our Judicial System that the BUSHIES FILLED IMMEDIATELY! by FIAT!

Allowing Wall St. and BIG BUSINESS to BEGIN the OFFSHORING OF AMERICAN JOBS ..through standing back while Big Business happily Merged, Aquired and Offshored during his administration and left Millions of Americans dependent on the "Dot Com Boom" which covered over what REALLY WAS HAPPENING in the American Economy.

----

The ABOVE are my HINDSIGHT BEEFS with the CLINTONS.

I want to know what they are going to UNDO or REDO or CHANGE ....if they assume Power Once Again.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Regarding the judges, Clinton had to deal with a Republican Senate

Bush got 4.5 years of a GOP controlled Senate and that allowed him to ram through his right wing judges. The Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees in committee and then being the hypocrites that they are complained about how we denied like 5 of Bush's judges up or down votes.

[KoKo]

28. But, Bush had Dem Senate for two years...Daschle....???

And he just declared everything by FIAT! Clinton had EIGHT YEARS...with the Senate still in his pocket...it was the House he lost.

At least that's how I remember it. And...WHY did such a POPULAR PRESIDENT...even through Monica not throw his "weight around" just a little more? He always seemed to compromise like he wasn't really elected with a Mandate whereas Bushie was a Selected "P-Resident" and manged to come in like he was the Emperor Entitled? :shrug:

I just scratch my head wondering about this. EIGHT YEARS OF CLINTON...EIGHT YEARS OF REAGAN...EIGHT YEARS OF BUSH II...and WHO MANAGED TO GET THEIR AGENDA ACROSS?

What WAS Clinton's AGENDA? And...maybe he WAS SUCCESSFUL...:-( Maybe it's just all he wanted to do??

[Hippo_Tron]

35. No, the GOP won both the House and the Senate in 1994

And maintained it for the rest of the 6 years of Clinton's term. Most of Bush's right wing judges were put into office when the GOP controlled the Senate from 2003-2007. The Senate Judiciary Committee under the Democrats in 2001 and 2002 did prevent some of his more extreme right wingers.

As far as your broader question goes, I'm not sure. But my theory as that since 1980 whether we like it or not, we're dealing with an electorate that totally bought into Reagan's bullshit and is still buying into it. The social welfare state that FDR created is considered wasteful now because Reagan told people it was. Clinton had to live within that political climate.

[CRH]

70. under cons, don't forget Bank deregualtion,

one stop banking, insurance, stocks, and corporate consolidation reducing choice.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/banks/index.htm

[wyldwolf]

5. Yes

Is there a list that Hillary supporters could post here to let me understand if they learned from their mistakes..

Mistakes are a matter of perception. Every President makes dubious decisions that become more obvious in hindsight. Anyone who thinks there is a perfect candidate is doomed to lifetime of disappointment.

I have every reason to believe Clinton will surround herself with many of the same people her husband did and get many of the same results.

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



Announcement Speech

Old State House, Little Rock, Arkansas

October 3, 1991



Thank you all for being here today, for your friendship and support, for giving me the opportunity to serve as your Governor for 11 years, for filling my life full of blessings beyond anything I ever deserved.



I want to thank especially Hillary and Chelsea for taking this big step in our life's journey together. Hillary, for being my wife, my friend, and my partner in our efforts to build a better future for the children and families of Arkansas and America. Chelsea, in ways she is only now coming to understand, has been our constant joy and reminder of what our public efforts are really all about: a better life for all who will work for it, a better future for the next generation.



All of you, in different ways, have brought me here today, to step beyond a life and a job I love, to make a commitment to a larger cause: Preserving the American Dream ... Restoring the hopes of the forgotten middle class... Reclaiming the future for our children.



I refuse to be part of a generation that celebrates the death of Communism abroad with the loss of the American Dream at home.



I refuse to be part of a generation that fails to compete in the global economy and so condemns hard-working Americans to a life of struggle without reward or security.



That is why I stand here today...because I refuse to stand by and let our children become part of the first generation to do worse than their parents. I don't want my child or your child to be part of a country that's coming apart instead of coming together.



Over 25 years ago, I had a professor at Georgetown who taught me that America was the greatest country in history because our people believed in and acted on two simple ideas: first, that the future can be better than the present; and second, that each of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.



That fundamental truth has guided my public career, and brings me here today. It is what we've devoted ourselves to here in Arkansas. I'm proud of what we've done here in Arkansas together. Proud of the work we've done to become a laboratory of democracy and innovation. And proud that we've done it without giving up the things we cherish and honor most about our way of life. Solid, middle-class values of work, Will, family, individual responsibility, and community.



As I’ve traveled across our state, I've found that everything we believe in, everything we've fought for, is threatened by an administration that refuses to take care of our own, has turned its back on the middle class, and is afraid to change while the world is changing.



The historic events In the Soviet Union in recent months teach us an important lesson: National security begins at home. For the Soviet Empire never lost to us on the field of battle. Their system rotted from the inside out, from economic, political and spiritual failure.



To be sure, the collapse of communism requires a new national security policy. I applaud the President's recent initiative in reducing nuclear weapons. It is an important beginning. But make no mistake - the end of the Cold War is not the end of threats to America. The world is still a dangerous and uncertain place. The first and most solemn obligation of the president is to keep America strong and safe from foreign dangers, and promote democracy around the world.



But we cannot build a safe and secure world unless we can first make America strong at home. It is our ability to take care of our own at home that gives us the strength to stand up for what we believe around the world.



As governor for 11 years, working to preserve and create jobs in a global economy, I know our competition for the future is Germany and the rest of Europe, Japan and the rest of Asia. And I know that we are losing America's leadership in the world because we're losing the American dream right here at home.



Middle class people are spending more hours on the job, spending less time with their children, bringing home a smaller paycheck to pay more for health care and housing and education. Our streets are meaner, our families are broken, our health care is the costliest in the world and we get less for it.



The country is headed in the wrong direction fast, slipping behind, losing our way...and all we have out of Washington is status quo paralysis. No vision, no action. Just neglect, selfishness, and division.



For 12 years, Republicans have tried to divide us - race against race - so we get mad at each other and not at them. They want us to look at each other across a racial divide so we don't turn and look to the White House and ask, why are all of our incomes going down, why are all of us losing jobs? Why are we losing our future?



Where I come from we know about race-baiting. They've used it to divide us for years. I know this tactic well and I'm not going to let them get away with it.



For 12 years, the Republicans have talked about choice without really believing in it. George Bush says he wants school choice even if it bankrupts the public schools, and yet he's more than willing to make it a crime for the women of America to exercise their individual right to choose.



For 12 years, the Republicans have been telling us chat America's problems aren't their problem. They washed their hands of responsibility for the economy and education and health care and social policy and turned it over to fifty states and a thousand points of light. Well, here in Arkansas we've done our best to create jobs and educate our people. And each of us has tried to be one of those thousand points of light But I can tell you, where there is no national vision, no national partnership, no national leadership, a thousand points of light leaves a lot of darkness.



We must provide the answers...the solutions. And we will. We're going to turn this country around and get it moving again, and we're going to fight for the hard-working middle-class families of America for a change.



Make no mistake - this election is about change: in our party, in our national leadership, and in our country.



And we're not going to get positive change just by Bush-bashing. We have to do a better job of the old-fashioned work of confronting the real problems of real people and pointing the way to a better future. That is our challenge in 1992.



Today, as we stand on the threshold of a new era, a new millennium, I believe we need a new kind of leadership, leadership committed to change. Leadership not mired in the politics of the past, not limited by old ideologies...Proven leadership that knows how to reinvent government to help solve the real problem of real people.



That is why today I am declaring my candidacy for President of the United States. Together I believe we can provide leadership that will restore the American dream - that will fight for the forgotten middle class - that will provide more opportunity, Insist on more responsibility and create a greater sense of community for this great country.



The change we must make isn't liberal or conservative. It’s both, and it's different. The small towns and main streets of America aren't like the corridors and backrooms of Washington. People out here don't care about the idle rhetoric of "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative" and all the other words that have made our politics a substitute for action. These families are crying out desperately for someone who believes the promise of America is to help them with their struggle to get ahead, to offer them a green light instead of a pink slip.



This must be a campaign of ideas, not slogans. We don't need another President who doesn't know what he wants to do for America. I'm going to tell you in plain language what I intend to do as President. How we can meet the challenges we face - that's the test for all the Democratic candidates in this campaign. Americans know what we're against Let's show them what we're for.



We need a new covenant to rebuild America. It's just common sense. Government's responsibility is to create more opportunity. The people's responsibility is to make the most of it.



In a Clinton Administration, we are going to create opportunity for all. We've got to grow this economy, not shrink it. We need to give people Incentives to make long-term investment in America and reward people who produce goods and services, not those who speculate with other people's money. We've got to invest more money in emerging technologies to help keep high-paying jobs here at home. We've got to convert from a defense to a domestic economy.



We've got to expand world trade, tear down barriers, but demand fair trade policies if we're going to provide good jobs for our people. The American people don't want to run from the world. We must meet the competition and win.



0pportunity for all means world-class skills and world-class education. We need more than photo ops and empty rhetoric - we need standards and accountability and excellence in education. On this issue, I'm proud to say that Arkansas has led the way.



In a Clinton Administration, students and parents and teachers will get a real education President.



Opportunity for all means pre-school for every child who needs it, and an apprenticeship program for kids who don't want to go to college but do want good jobs. It means teaching everybody with a job to read, and passing a domestic GI Bill that would give every young American the chance to borrow the money necessary to go to college and ask them to pay it back either as a small percentage of their income over time, or through national service as teachers or policemen or nurses or child care workers.



In. a Clinton Administration, everyone will be able to get a college loan as long as they're willing to give something back to their country In return.



Opportunity for all means reforming the health care system to control costs, improve quality, expand preventive and long-term care, maintain consumer choice, and cover everybody. And we don't have to bankrupt the taxpayers to do it. We do have to take on the big insurance companies and health care bureaucracies and get some real cost control into the system. I pledge to the American people that in the first year of a Clinton Administration, we will present a plan to Congress and the American people to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans.



Opportunity for all means making our cities and our streets safe from crime and drugs. Across America, citizens are banding together to take their streets and neighborhoods back. In a Clinton Administration, we'll be on their side with new initiatives like community policing, drug treatment for those who need it, and boot camps for first-time offenders.



Opportunity for all means making taxes fair. I'm not out to soak the rich. I wouldn't mind being rich. But I do believe the rich should pay their fair share. For 12 years, the Republicans have raised taxes on the middle class. It's time to give the middle class tax relief.



Finally, opportunity for all means we must protect our environment and develop an energy policy that relies more on conservation and clean natural gas so all our children will inherit a world that is cleaner, safer, and more beautiful.



But hear me now. I honestly believe that if we try to do these things, we will still not solve the problems of today or move into the next century with confidence unless we do what President Kennedy did and ask every American citizen to assume personal responsibility for the future of our country.



The government owes our people more opportunity, but we all have to make the most of it through responsible citizenship.



We should insist that people move off welfare rolls and onto work rolls. We should give people on welfare the skills they need to succeed, but we should demand that everybody who can work and become a productive member of society.



We should insist on the toughest possible child support enforcement. Governments don't raise children, parents do. And when they don't, their children pay forever and so do we.



And we have got to say, as we've tried to do in Arkansas, that students have a responsibility to stay in school. If you drop out for no good reason, you should lose your driver's license. But its important to remember that the most irresponsible people of all in the 1980s were those at the top...not those who were doing worse, not the hard-working middle class, but those who sold out our savings and loans with bad deals and spent billions on wasteful takeovers and mergers - money that could have been spent to create better products and new jobs.



Do you know that in the 1980s, while middle-class income went down, charitable giving by working people went up? And while rich peoples incomes went up, charitable giving by the wealthy went down. Why? Because our leaders had an ethic of get it while you can and to heck with everybody else.



How can you ask people who work or who are poor to behave responsibly, when they know that the heads of our biggest companies raised their own pay in the last decade by four times the percentage their workers' pay went up? Three times as much as their profits went up. When they ran their companies into the ground and their employees were on the street, what did they do? They bailed out with golden parachutes to a cushy life. That's just wrong.



Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy didn't hesitate to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency. They changed America by standing up for what’s right. When Salomon Brothers abused the Treasury markets, the President was silent. When the

rip-off artists looted our S&L's the President Was Silent. In a Clinton Administration, when people sell their companies and their workers and their country down the river, they'll get called on the carpet. We're going to insist that they invest In this country and create jobs for our people.



In the 1980s, Washington failed us too. We spent more money on the present and the past and less on the future. We spent $500 billion to recycle assets in the S&L mess, but we couldn't afford $5 billion for unemployed workers or to give every kid in this country the chance to be in Head Start. We can do better than that, and we will.



A Clinton Administration won't spend our money on programs that don't solve problems and a government that doesn't work. I want to reinvent government to make it more efficient and more effective. I want to give citizens more choices in the services they get, and empower them to make those choices. That's what we've tried to do in Arkansas. We've balanced the budget every year and improved services. We've treated taxpayers like our customers and our bosses, because they are.



I want the American people to know that a Clinton Administration will defend our national interests abroad, put their values into our social policy at home, and spend their tax money with discipline. Well put government back on the side of the hard-working middle-class families of America who think most of the help goes to those at the top of the ladder, some goes to the bottom, and no one speaks for them.



But we need more than new laws, new promises, or new program. We need a new spirit of community, a sense that we are all in this together. If we have no sense of community the American dream will continue to wither. Our destiny is bound up with the destiny of every other American. Were all in this together, and we will rise or fail together.



A few years ago, Hillary and I visited a classroom in Los Angeles, in an area plagued by drugs and gangs. We talked to a dozen sixth graders, whose number one concern was being shot going to and from school. Their second worry was turning 12 or 13 and being forced to join a gang or be beaten. And finally, they were worried about their own parents' drug abuse.



Newly half a century ago, I was born not far from here in Hope, Arkansas. My mother had been widowed three months before I was born. I was raised for four years by my grandparents, while she went back to nursing school. They didn't have much money. I spent a lot of time with my great-grandparents. By any standard, they were poor. But we didn't blame other people. We took responsibility for ourselves and for each other because we knew we could do better. I was raised to believe In the American dream, in family values, in individual responsibility, and in the obligation of government to help people who were doing the best they could.



Its a long way in America from that loving family which is embodied today in a picture on my wall in the Governor's office of me at the age of six holding my great-grandfather's hand to an America where children on the streets of our cities don't know who their grandparents are and have to worry about their own parents' drug abuse.



I tell you, by making common cause with those children, we give new life to the American dream. And that is our generation's responsibility - to form a new covenant... more opportunity for all, more responsibility from everyone, and a greater sense of common purpose.



I believe with all my heart that together, we can make this happen. We can usher in a new era of progress, prosperity and renewal. We can – we must. This is not just a campaign for the Presidency – it is a campaign for the future, for the forgotten hard-working middle class families of America who deserve a government that fights for them. A campaign to keep America strong at home and around the world. Join with us. I ask for your prayers, your help, your hands, and your hearts. Together we can make America great again, and build a community of hope that will inspire the world.

[KoKo]

7. So much has changed since '91" and thanks for you post...but

how do you think they might have or will REVISE their "Plan for America" after what we've been through with Bush?

I just see Hillary being "Centrist" based on what we "THINK" we know about Bill/Hillary and not a synopsis of their NEW DIRECTION post Bushies.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

8. I'll put it to you this way

Of all the candidates running, only Hillary (probably) already has the team in place to start fumigating the place.

[KoKo]

12. Okay...but what is her "PLAN?"

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

31. where is anyone else's plan?

Why hold Clinton to a higher standard?

[blm]

18. Bill's team didn't fumigate - they covered up for Poppy Bush. IranContra, BCCI,

Iraqgate, and CIA drugrunning all were current issues that Bill inherited and he deliberately chose to let Poppy off the hook and even CONTINUE his dealings which made BushInc stronger and led to Bush2 and an out of control fascist agenda.

[wyldwolf]

55. ...all conspiracy theories aside, Clinton's team gave us the greatest economy in a generation

Fumigation accomplished.

[blm]

57. Good economy didn't resurrect BushInc. Covering up for Bush1's crimes of office

returned this nation to the control of BushInc - this time stronger than ever.

[wyldwolf]

59. has anyone suggested that?

[Radical Activist]

14. So many broken promises and missed opportunities there.

I'm glad you posted that. Its great evidence of the difference between what people voted for in '92 and what they got for 8 years. You prove my point we've argued about before that Clinton ran as a progressive in '92.

By losing union jobs and replacing them with lower wage service jobs, Clinton continued the decline in standard of living that he complains about in his speech. He broke a promise when he said "fair trade" and gave us NAFTA.

He talks about health care and race but those issues hadn't changed much by the end of his term. What did he do to help the poverty of black people and "take care of our own" as he speaks about here? Reform Welfare? Another broken promise. No one thinks people should be paid to do nothing. There's nothing moderate or conservative about thinking that.

He took on the big insurance companies once, like he promised, and when it failed once, he didn't try again, except in small reforms.

He promised clean energy systems in this speech but by the end of his two terms we still used less than 1% renewable energies. Another broken promise.

Clinton's long list of small programs were easy enough to dismantle as soon as he was replaced with a Republican and the economy went downhill. What did he do that was more lasting than a bunch of statistics about how the economy was better when he was President? Not much.

So much potential and so many missed opportunities. I don't want to be saying that again in 8 years after Clinton II.

The problem with the play-it-safe centrist Clinton approach is that, even if we win a few elections here and there, we'll never have the mandate to make real, long-term change. No matter what happens, we're guaranteed to lose when its time to legislate.

[KoKo]

20. I know..he was either the President of "Broken Dreams or Broken Promises"

and kept so many of us defending him that we lost sight of what the Presidency was ALL ABOUT...and didn't hold him accountable.

My Pick: "President of Broken Dreams."

[wyldwolf]

37. how about neither?

[Radical Activist]

64. Broken Dreams sounds right.

There was so much I hoped he could do and it was wasted, partly because of the impeachment garbage.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. I don't think the voters want to give us a mandate to make real long-term change

Unfortunately I think it's going to take another great depression before they decide to do that. Like it or not, we're still dealing with many of the "Reagan Democrats" who think that tax cuts for the uber wealthy are a good idea and the only reason that things are bad for the middle class is because Bush is spending too much (of course deficits under Reagan shot up as well).

It's unlikely that in the next election cycle we will get a President that is significantly farther left than Bill Clinton.

[KoKo]

26. I've wondered that also. Give a few years to Dems...more years to Repugs ...swing back and forth

buy out Media...revise History get more "Think Tanks" to promote mega research and put it out on C-Span and in NYT's Book Review and on well placed sites...get the Christian Right and Jewish Righ on your side...present the "Best Case" put it forth on all your "controlled Media Sites" and you can "Swing Elections" always favoring Repugs more than Dems...while you work to build your base.

It's "GAMING the SYSTEM" with lots of Psycobabble and studies promoted through the Think Tanks, selected Universities of Note and the MSCorporate Media which overflows into the Military Industrial Complex and then Circles back into the First Round......seems to me...anyway.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. We're basically living the Gilded Age all over again

There was a period between 1932 and 1980 in this country where the government actually did check the power of the rich and the corporations. Unfortunately we're not in that period anymore. We won't have a second New Deal until the American people let us have one and it will probably take a great crisis for that to happen.

[Radical Activist]

67. I don't know

I think we got a mandate in the last election, even if we aren't using it.

I think Obama has the chance at winning with a real mandate and he would be one of the most liberal men ever elected President.

[muntrv]

6. Because the economy was in a recession. The big dog connected better

with people while poppy bush was out of it. I'd vote for him again and again.

[davidwparker]

9. I wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton this time. I think the NAFTA/WTO screw up

permanently removes him from the White House. Then, when you consider the media consolidation that resulted from the 1996 Telcom bill, it's all too much. NO MORE CLINTONS.

Any * stench could be swept under the rug a la Iran/Contra.

[zulchzulu]

11. I was a Jerry Brown fan and Clinton was running against wackjobs

I was a big Jerry Brown fan. He had a lot of great things to say about campaign finance reform and was superb on environmental issues. Plus he jogged near where I jogged at the time (Chrissy Field/SF) and was easily accessible to talk to. :hi:

After he dropped out, it was pretty easy to choose (and do a lot of grassroots work for) Clinton in 1992. Perot, who was actually right on NAFTA, was just a little too much in other departments...and Bush Senior (who looks like a genius now compared to El Chimpo) was way off the chart...

Clinton disappointed me on a number of issues, although it was a wild ride economically...

http://www.4president.org/speeches/jerrybrown1992announcement.htm

[Radical Activist]

13. He gave us a lot of the problems we have today.

He passed the telecommunications bill that gave us a media controlled by 7 corporations. He gave us the loss of manufacturing jobs and a lower standard of living when they were replaced with lower wage service sector jobs.

He didn't give us universal health care, good campaign finance reform, a new energy system that doesn't rely on coal, stronger unions, or a lot of other things that we should have done while we had the chance.

Clinton was a good President over all but I want someone who will really use the power of his office instead of giving in to one bad compromise after the other while the country drifts further to the right. I don't want to look back at another four years of a Democratic President and ask why we didn't do more. That's what I would expect from Hillary.

[slackmaster]

16. George H.W. Bush's performance and the Perot candidacy splitting GOP vote

And we had a TERRIBLE recession in 1990-1991.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Clinton would've won without Perot splitting the vote

The electoral map would likely not have looked exactly like the one you posted above but I don't think there's a legitimate analysis out there that says he wouldn't have won 270 electoral votes in a two-way race with poppy.

[slackmaster]

27. You may be right, I've seen reasonable arguments made both ways

I'm glad Clinton did win. Perot scared the crap out of me.

[wyldwolf]

33. there has been no "reasonable" argument in favor of Perot splitting the vote.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Agreed, the only argument I've seen that Perot was a spoiler comes from Republicans

Exit polls and polls for the short time that it was a two way race suggest that there's no way that Perot was actually a spoiler.

[slackmaster]

49. Thanks for your well-documented, factually supported contribution

:eyes:

At least everyone agrees that Bill Clinton won the EC vote.

[wyldwolf]

51. would you like to see a "well-documented, factually supported contribution" for the millionth time?

[slackmaster]

60. I'd be happy to read one if you would kindly post a link

I make no guarantee that I will be convinced.

[wyldwolf]

65. well, I hope you'd be convinced since it was the DailyHowler discovered ...

...it was the rightwing that started the myth...


A recent phenomenon coming from “progressives” was ripped from the conservative’s playbook. The belief that somehow Ross Perot caused George H.W. Bush re-election in 1992, thereby propelling Bill Clinton into the presidency. The embrace of this political myth is further indication of of a disdain for President Clinton from the left which often rivals in terms of vitriol with the Right’s.

The truth lies in the actual statistical analysis of the ‘92 election. This is where it gets complicated. If number crunching makes your eyes glaze over, just skip to the end. Ready?

In 1992, Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout for the Presidential election was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So even thought Perot’s vote tally was impressive, 13 million of the voters didn’t even vote in 1988.

Bill Clinton garnered 3.1 million votes more than Michael Dukakis did in 1988, but George H.W. Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than he did in 1988. Finally, the two party vote fell by 7 million in 1992. So Ross Perot only took 7 million votes from Clinton and Bush.

If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton’s 3.1 million vote lead?

Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton’s lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush’s 46.5%?

Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot’s presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party’s nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot’s voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton’s supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush’s supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot’s voters.

In the Governor’s races, Perot’s voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot’s voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton’s lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot’s supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot’s voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot’s voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot’s voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot’s voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

So, from a popular vote perspective, Perot clearly did not influence the outcome. He took votes away from both Clinton and Bush. But elections aren’t won on the popular vote (as we were painfully reminded of in 2000.) How did Perot’s performance effect the electoral college results?

SwingStateProject has the answer.

Perot clearly did not cost Bush the 1992 election. The partisan index measures the degree to which a state favors a party relative to the way the rest of the nation favors that party. This being the case, it would follow that if more typically GOP partisans had indeed swung to Perot than had typically Democratic partisans, the 1992 partisan index would reveal and anomalous pro-DNC swing due to a temporarily eroded Republican base.

However, only a handful of states that Clinton won show such trends. Perot definitely seems to have caused Bush to lose Georgia, as the usually double-digit pro-GOP partisan index in that state cratered at +5.0 GOP in 1992. The same goes for Nevada, which relatively favored the GOP by 13.2 in 1988 and 7.5 in 1996, but only by 2.9 in 1992.

I’ll grant that without Perot, Bush probably wins both states.

Looking at the chart, however, only Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and Tennessee are other possible states that Perot swung to Clinton. Still, even if Bush had won all of these states as well as Georgia and Nevada, Clinton would have won the Electoral College 315-223. Further, there is no conclusive evidence that Perot actually cost Bush any of these other six states.

Of course, like I already noted, even if I am wrong about all of these states, that means Clinton would still have won 315-223. No other state shows evidence of Perot costing Bush victory. Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election–not even close. That is one popular myth that can be put to bed.

But let’s not rely on what George W. Bush might have called “fuzzy math” had he been sober in 1992. (I’m sorry, there’s my own contribution to truthiness. Bush claims he’s been sober since 1986.) Let’s go to several newspaper headlines from 1992 concerning exit polling:

Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

Also from the same author:

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

And finally, the Associated Press

Perot’s Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

The most hysterical revelation comes from DailyHowler.com, who discovered the myth came from the Washington Times in a piece where the writer drew the conclusion that Perot cost Bush the presidency based on the ethnic makeup of voters he saw on TV!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

[slackmaster]

69. The exit poll data is compelling

The DailyHowler "revelation" is a genetic fallacy on the surface. I'm sure the WT wasn't the only source of the theory that Perot prevented Papa Doc Bush from winning.

Personally I don't feel the issue is very important.

[Omaha Steve]

17. While running he kept saying over and over.....

FIRE BUSH!!!!!!

[mnhtnbb]

21. It's the economy, stupid!

[POAS]

24. Ross Perot..............n/t

[KoKo]

30. Perot did say something about "engine is broken" get under the hood...

reminded me of John Murtha...but Perot was weird and who knows who put him up to running or if was just a "vanity project."

He did bring issues to the table that Clinton didn't address...but I was a Clinton voter not Perot...but remember all the "C-Span Callers" at that time who thought Perot would SAVE THEM before they got into the Fundie stuff. Who knows.

I just know I voted for Clinton and looking back these terrible years of Bush...I wonder why he didn't go farther in promoting an agenda as President who was VERY popular...always. Bush hasn't had Clinton's consistent popularity. Without "9/11" Bush would have gone the way of his Poppy...down the tubes.

[wyldwolf]

32. myth

[POAS]

42. Opinion

[wyldwolf]

44. there is ZERO evidence to suggest Perot helped Clinton. I challenge you to present it.

[POAS]

45. Raw numbers are enough for me

You won't accept it but here are the numbers as a percentage of popular vote:

Clinton 43%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%
Others 0.6%

[wyldwolf]

50. then you have simplified way of looking at the numbers

If one were to draw conclusions from the numbers, it could be said that Perot helped Bush - just not enough.

Your conclusion based on the numbers assumes that only potential Bush voters voted for Perot - splitting the Republican vote. There is no evidence to support it.

[JetCityLiberal]

75. Yep

Agree.

[blm]

25. He was ABLE to win because a few Dem lawmakers pummeled Bush1 his entire term

and kept riding his ass on IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI revelations.

REAL investigations and government oversight is an important balance for this nation.

[wyldwolf]

34. did you come up with that theory all on your own?

In '92, the overwhelming concern of voters was the economy.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. If Bush's scandals were as important as blm claims they were, Dukakis would've won in '88

The sad fact is that the American people didn't give a shit about Iran-Contra and believed Reagan when he said "I can't remember". I wish the voters were more concerned with matters like that because the GOP would never win an election if they were. But unfortunately too many could care less about how corrupt an administration is as long as the economy is good and they feel safe.

[KoKo]

40. The Amazing "Dirty Trick" of putting Dukakis in that Tank with Helmet

and portraying him as "Snoopy." We are used to that stuff by now..Right? Seems Most of America thought Chimp with a sock in his pants and a Flight Suit landing under "Mission Accomplished Banner" was enough to spend billions for another Vietnam.

How soon the Think Tanks and the left over Nixonians along with Reagan Devotees wiped out what so many fought for. Now they manage to sucker younger folks into blaming BOOMERS when that generation Spans 20 Years. It can make you laugh ....until the tears roll down your face.

But, the spin on POLICY was what is behind it...and the amassing of POWER. Clinton was our CHANCE to RECLAIM some semblence of the NEW DEAL...and he squandered it. But, it's taken me the years of the Bushies to really realize what happened. It's a retrospective "view in the rear mirror" larger in focus.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Maybe you're right

But I still contend that even if Clinton had the will, there was no way he could've reclaimed the New Deal. People still believed in Reagan's idea of "small government" in 1992 and they still believe in it now IMO.

[wyldwolf]

43. you are way off base

linton was our CHANCE to RECLAIM some semblence of the NEW DEAL...and he squandered it.

Clinton never claimed or implied his goal was to RECLAIM some semblence of the NEW DEAL, so your charge he "squandered it" is moot.

[blm]

48. Untrue - Bush1's role in IranContra wasn't revealed till 91-92. Or did you forget

that Weinberger's diary only surfaced late in the investigation and it was also newly discovered that Bush, himself, had a diary the investigators wanted.


I can't believe so many have forgotten about all the indictments and pending trials in 92 and the reasons why Bush1 pardoned those indicted.

And BCCI investigation was still CURRENT in Nov. 1992, as was Iraqgate which were both providing bad headlines for Poppy Bush.

[wyldwolf]

53. Iran-Contra broke in November 1986

Reagan had a high approval rating at the end of his term. There was simply no taint carried over into the '88 or '92 elections. There is ZERO evidence to support your contention that Iran-Contra or any related events effected the '92 election.

Did James Carville say, "It's Iran-Contra, stupid?"

It was a NON-ISSUE with the electorate at large and still is.

[blm]

56. Bush1's part of the investigation was coming out more in 91-92. You clearly have no

clue to what you are talking about.

Walsh's investigation was just releasing serious details in 92 and that is why Bush1 ended up pardoning all those cronies after he lost the election.

Do you seriously want to go down this road where you have no recall of what was going on in 92?

In Clinton's own book he refers to some of the bad news headlines that were coming out about Poppy Bush during the general election.

[wyldwolf]

58. I can show you polls to support my claim. Can you show me polls to support yours?

[blm]

63. Specific polls don't change the fact that YEARS of bad headlines broke the public trust

with Bush, and that those headlines CONTINUED straight through to election day.

Clinton's book, pg.441:

...On the Friday before the election, Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, a Republican from Oklahoma, indicted President Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, and five others, with a note in the indictment suggesting that President Bush had played a greater role in and knew more about the illegal sale of arms to Iran authorized by Reagan White House than he had previously admitted. Whether it would hurt him or not, I didn't know...


This was before the 92 election, not the 88 election.

Not sure how old you are - I guess if you were young then it wouldn't have mattered to you enough to remember the timeline on all this.

Many of us who watched the whole matter closely at the time understand how long it took to come down, and how it relates to most everything happening today.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”
>>>>>>

[wyldwolf]

66. you have no proof of that claim

[mtnsnake]

78. Wow, I can't believe you're sticking up for Pappy Bush

and making like it was a fluke that he lost to Clinton. lol

Too bad Kerry didn't take a lesson or two from Bill in campaign methodology. Clinton could've given him some pointers on charisma, too, although you're either born with it or not I guess.

[rinsd]

73. Reagan was polling low during the height of Iran-Contra though he ended his term up a bit

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_reagan010806.html

[wyldwolf]

79. Gallup had him at 63% approval in Dec. 1988

[blm]

47. They broke trust with Bush1 over the scandals - presidents can ride out downturns

in the economy if they still have the TRUST of the people.

In fact, the economy took a swing upwards in 92, but Bush's numbers were STILL bad because of that lost faith.

[wyldwolf]

52. I can show you polls to support my claim. Can you show me polls to support yours?

[mtnsnake]

77. No. He won because he knew how to campaign

and also because he was just the medicine the country was looking for. Clinton has too much charisma. Losing was almost impossible for him.

[geiger]

46. The economy, stupid.

[Geek_Girl]

54. I liked Bill I don't like Hillary

The reason is, Hillary seems more conservative and hawkish than Bill Clinton. Maybe she just acts that way for political reasons but either way I don't like it.

President Bill Clinton made some mistakes and did many things I don't agree with. But he did some good as well.

[NashVegas]

61. Because the People Who Really Decide Wanted Bush to Go

So much so that a stupid story about GHWB foolishly buying socks in a department store, to show how "in touch" he was with common Americans, was held up as the perfect metaphor for the meme "Bush doesn't get it."

[DuaneBidoux]

62. Papa Bush very unpopular / Ross Perot pulled right wing populist votes.

Ross Perot pulled Republicans wanting tougher trade policies and having an anti-immigration bent. Without him Bush Senior would have won.

[Milo_Bloom]

71. All exit polls showed that Perot pulled equally from both sides.

To this day I wonder what would have happened if Perot actually WANTED the job.

I don't think he believed he had a chance of winning, which is why he went in and when he pulled ahead in 3 way national polls, he went nuts and pulled out.

People were DESPERATE for a common sense approach to politics at that time and that is what he was offering. The book he wrote at the time, is as valid today as it was then.

If we end up with 2 "establishment" candidates again, I STRONGLY suspect there will be another viable 3rd candidate emerging, as people are very unhappy with the current system. Establishment candidates would be like McCain, Clinton, Edwards, Rommey... Guiliani is probably seen as outside the system and would avoid that tag, but I doubt he makes it through the right wing wacko primaries, the only way he could is to sell himself out so much as to taint him in the general election.

[DuaneBidoux]

72. I have a distinct recollection of reading an analysis of that election that said Perot pulled more.f

from the Republican side but since I can't really remember where or when I am certainly not in a position to seriously debate it.

I do think you are right about the establishment vs. antiestablishment stuff but the question is then what hope is there for a true antiestablishment candidate to win with the kind of money game it now is?

[Milo_Bloom]

80. The money will follow the message

Just look at Howard Dean from 2004 and how much money he raised, once the message got out.

If someone comes along with the right message, ESPECIALLY after people are completely disastisfied with the way things are turning out... the money will flow to them very quickly via the Internet.

There are a couple of huge wildcards who could really throw a wrench into things.

If Al Gore runs, which I absolutely believe he will, it will be a done deal.. he gets the Dem nom and the need for a third party is averted.

HOWEVER, if Al Gore doesn't and an establishment, IWR voting candidate is selected, you will see a third party emmerge in spring/summer of 2008. I wouldn't be shocked if it was Ventura, but I more see someone like Lincoln Chafee gaining support.. a GOP outsider who is a social liberal... they could never win in the GOP primary, but could easily make in a general election.

Its funny, if Rudy was smart, he would abandon the GOP and go as an independent, he would probably get a lot more traction that way... but he is going to have to sell his soul to win the primary, and that should finish him for good with the general population.

[paulk]

68. considering that the Republicans controlled Congress

from '94 on, the Clinton record is impressive.


http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html

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

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000204_13.html



My recollection is that Clinton, when first elected, tried to move too quickly on progressive iniatives and was rejected by the American people - which led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. The same could hold true now - I agree with the point
"Hippo Tron" makes upthread - that there are still a lot of people out there who buy into the Reagan myth - and it will take a complete collapse to convince them otherwise. OTOH, Bush has still got almost two full years to make things worse, so who knows?

I expect another Clinton administration would be aware of the mistakes made in '92 and, even with a Democratically controlled Congress in 2008, would hold to a more centrist course than most here at DU would be happy with. I also think they will be able to hit the gound running when it comes to cleaning up the mess left by the Bush junta, if only because they've been in that position before. I believe that is the main thing they are offering - a solid record of achievement - especially considering the opposition -and the experience to duplicate that record.

[Ethelk2044]

74. Bill

It will not be Bill in the White house. It will be Hillary. You are forgetting he will not be the one as President. I will not vote for her in hopes of getting him. She will have to prove herself.

[KoKo]

76. Two for One....a Rehash and Re-Try for HISTORY!

Bush II tried to repair Bush I...........how much longer should we go through this? It reminds me of reading Ancient Egyptian History...of Dynasties...and there's a bit of Roman History that might be read to gain perspective.

We are headed down a road of being a "BLIP" in HISTORY...if we continue down our path of TRASHING THE US CONSTITUTION!

Do we want to be a little over "TWO HUNDRED YEAR EXPERIMENT IN HISTORY?


Didn't we ALL THINK WE COULD DO BETTER? More than 200 years?

Maybe not.....Maybe we were just a "BLIP." :-(

[Labors of Hercules]

81. It's all a moot point anyway.

:beer:

[area51]

82. Any DU'ers here who remember why Bill Clinton was Elected?

Because, as other posters have pointed out, the economy was in the shitter, just like it is now.