What is up with Clinton going back and forth?

[woldnewton]

One minute he's ripping Bushco on Gitmo, then he's kissing their butts on Katrina's response, then he's ripping them another new one on Katrina (?), Iraq, etc.

Is he skitzo these days, or what?

[Frances]

1. Clinton has always said that he argues against people's

policies, not the people themselves.

[woldnewton]

2. Well, I hope from now on...

he consistently argues against Bush's policies.

I think the BFEE's screwed up enough that Clinton will have plenty of policies to attack w/out attacking the "people" (more like cyborgs invaded by alien body snatchers) in the administration.

[applegrove]

3. Clinton is in the role of "statesman" "former president" "husband of

potential president" "democrat" "third wayer" "president who failed to get OBL & stop Rwandan genocide" "politician" "redeemer of reputation" "humanitarian" "go-between" "spy" "adult supervision" "etc."

That is a huge bunch of things to have to talk through.

He's doing okay.

[Meldread]

4. It's called pandering.

He turns to the right and says things that they want to hear, then he turns to the left and says things that we want to hear, and in the end he sells everyone short.

Just ask any gay person. Clinton is all about the "compromise." Screw Human and Civil Rights, morality, or personal integrity. He's a political weather vain, shifting with the wind, owing no allegiance to anyone but himself.

[Frances]

11. Give me a break

The fact that Clinton wanted to allow gays in the military was an issue that Repubs used to win control of the House in 1994. I remember hearing many people talk about turning against Clinton on that issue--and then voting Repub.

Why do you think the Repubs put gay marriage on as many state ballots as possible in 2004? They knew this issue would get out the fundy vote and that these people would vote against the "anti-moral Clinton Democrats."

How any gay could vote Repub is beyond me.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

5. I forgave him for his Monica indescretions, but this... It's unforgivable

BS on keeping enemies closer!

He could fucking spill and save the world. But Nooooooooo!
LOSER

[enid602]

6. Clintons

Clinton would have looked selfish and unpatriotic if he didn't teem up with GHW Bush with re: to tsunami and Katrina efforts. They are good causes. Clinton has followed the time-honored yet (in my mind) useless tradition of ex-Presidents not criticizing their successors. Although Hilary has been seen by many of us as being too hawkish on Iraq, she has been quick to voice her displeasure with Bush's motives and tactics with re: to Iraq, and has let loose a number of zingers against Bush as of late. This morning, Clinton spoke in a straight forward and unemotional manner of his disagreement with Bushco policies. While some of us will say that the Clintons have been too reserved, they have also deprived the republicans of their ability to label the Clintons as sore losers, unpatriotic or worse.

[woldnewton]

7. I do kind of hear you...

they have also deprived the republicans of their ability to label the Clintons as sore losers, unpatriotic or worse.

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

It's just a shame that this political climate has resulted in that. I just hope after 8 years of websites founded in the wake of the Bush theft of our democracy like this one and www.smirkingchimp.com that the winds will have shifted this way. I do believe, once Americans get rid of Republicans from power, and the full effects of this 8 years is shed light upon, they will not go back for the next 20-50 years, the way Germans, Brits & Canadians don't want to go back to the CDU (as shown by tonight's election results) or the Tories from the last two countries, respectively.

[enid602]

10. loss

The only problem is that we'll be slow to recover what we've lost. That's the saddest thing about the Bushco experience; too many lost opportunities.

[woldnewton]

12. Sadly that is what it will take...

"That's the saddest thing about the Bushco experience; too many lost opportunities."


Fighting to regain those opportunities is one of the few things that will keep enough average Americans interested in the political process for the long haul.

I honestly believe that if Kerry had taken his rightful place in the WH, he would have either been pressured to become a Repub-lite and people would have just decided there's no point, as all the work they did was for someone who "wasn't different at all" (which I don't think is true; Kerry's not the same as Bush, but he's far from what I personally am looking for), or they would have just decided "OK we saved the world" and then gone back to their political disinterest.

We need an ongoing civic involvement and if a long hard struggle to regain all the things we lost under Bushco is what it takes for people to realize there's more to lose from not participating than there is from participating (since people feel like they don't have the time to take away from earning a living, etc.), then that's apparently what had to happen. It's too bad people don't realize that if they were more involved in the labor movement, environmental, & civil rights, and the political process then they wouldn't have to work so damn hard every day, because there'd be a more equitable, fair America where they wouldn't have to be wage slaves to multinational corporations just to survive.

[autorank]

8. He's a Libra? Don't know. Maybe the word's out...time for * to go.

Poppy probably decided that. Stranger things have happened, in fact this was fairly routine in the European royal famlies or the Roman Empire.

[Seansky]

9. been wondering as well.

could it be a dilemma about Hilary's future plans and they might be weighing where they need the support?

Keep wondering any time I hear his name, what's up there?

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. How exactly did he 'kissing their butts?'

:shrug: