If Clinton had been a liberal progressive, Gore would be in his 2 term

[mdmc]

Hey DU! The Big Dog had it all - brains, charisma, political capital. It was only his poll driven triangulation that brought him down.

In 1992 I lived in Colorado with 2 non voting greens, and another Dem that loved Al Gore(he was from Knoxville). One of us liked Perot, two for Jerry Brown, one ranted "that they were all criminals". Jerry Brown won the 1992 Colorado primary, and the Dems won the state for the first time since JFK. The Dems have lost Colorado in 96, 2000, and 2004.

The Big Dog needed to be loved. He needed to be recognized. But CEO's and DLC donors did not satisfy the big dog. The Big Dog wanted to be loved.

The PLAN = hold the middle ground, take polls to see what is popular, and only do what is popular. Pragmatic and popular. What is not to like?:shrug:

In 1992 we were happy to see America on a new course. All my hippy buddys were glad that Bush lost.

By 1996, all my lefty hippy buddies were talkin that Clinton = Raygun, and that both parties were deeply in the pockets of the corporations. We were all so angry that Clinton escalated the drug war (not b/c it made sane policy, but rather so he could be liked). In 1996 we had voted for Nader.

If Clinton had fought the fights that needed to be fought instead of what the polls told him to do, he would have been loved by the left. He would have been loved enough to keep Clenus on the down low. Al Gore would now be in his second term.

When your argument is "we are a little better" then the GOP, you fail. Please don't blame those that vote for what they really believe. Don't blame the greens. Don't blame the reform party or Perot. Blame the "lesser evil" triangulation of the dem party. We already have a pro-corporate gop party, why would we need another? If Bill Clinton was a liberal progressive, Nader would have been a non issue, and Gore would be in his second term.

[Cocoa]

1. or Clinton could have lost to Poppy Bush or to Dole

who knows?

[mdmc]

3. Dole - Kemp went no-where. Clinton could have swung to the left

He would have felt better about it. He would have been loved by the left. He would have been complete.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Dole went no where because Clinton already occupied the middle

So Dole's only option was to run to Clinton's right.

[mdmc]

22. I think that Clinton had that election hook line and sinker

He never thought that clenus would get him in trouble, and that Gore could triangulate a victory in 2000.

A better move would have been to stay true to the liberal progressive Dem vision. Clinton would have felt validated and loved, and Gore would have been elected, and reelected.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Clinton was so popular because he was a centrist

He ran as a centrist in 1992 and 1996. He won both races by margins wide enough so that no funny business was able to change the results.

[mdmc]

31. i disagree

I think that Clinton won because he was a southerner, that had intelligence and charisma. I bet most folks that voted for him only knew that he was an intelligent, charismatic southerner.

[mondo joe]

35. Nah. Centrist.

In fact in his first term his approval rating sank when he became perceived as left of center.

He shifted back to center and the rest is history.

[mdmc]

42. what else happened when his poll # sank?

I thought it was due to the fact that he was allowing HRC to reform medicade.

[mondo joe]

50. That would be part of the perception that he was left of center.

He went back to the center and stayed there.

[mdmc]

51. health care reform was a good idea

thanks for your posts

[mondo joe]

58. It was a good idea. Like a lot of liberal ideas. And, though I repeat

myself, that was part ofthe perception that he was left of center. :-)

[Cocoa]

59. but it failed politically

moving to the center succeeded politically.

[bowens43]

2. If the green party wasn't on the ballot in Florida

Gore would be in his second term.

Don't blame the Greens???? Sorry, but 90,000 votes for Nader sealed the deal.

[yngliberal]

6. So...

Are people not allowed to vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican?

[Bridget Burke]

52. People are allowed to vote for anybody on the ballot.

Or they can write in Rex the Wonder Horse.

But some of us like to thank the Naderoids from time to time.

[mdmc]

54. a better use of your time from time to time

{from another post up thread)
Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&conte... > Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

[Bridget Burke]

61. I don't waste much time ragging on the Naderoids....

You notice that I didn't cut & paste a whole essay on the subject.

Actually, I think I'd rather expend my "time from time to time" fighting the Republicans than badmouthing any other party. Especially the Democrats.

[mdmc]

63. I am sorry that I didn't get the whole essay. That was not intentional

I think that you use your time quite wisely, brig... peace and low stress...

[mdmc]

64. here it is in its entirety

Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&conte... > Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

[mdmc]

9. More Dems voted for Bush then they did Nader

If Clinton had been a liberal / progressive, Nader would have had a much smaller influence.

I know it is hard to believe, but it is possible that 100,000 (90,000) voters in Florida wanted to vote against the drug war and the death penalty. I know that it is hard to understand, but many feel that both parties are too deeply in the pockets of corporations. I know many people that feel that the dem party is just the public relations face of the GOP (both party's stand for the same thing - the GOP is brash, the Dems a little better).

How many voters in florida didn't bother to vote at all? How many adults didn't even bother to register to vote?

If Clinton was a liberal progressive, then (in theory) those 90,000 greens would have turned to Gore.

Are the greens to blame in 2004? Will green blame continue in to 2008? Will green blame be the best way to deal with liberal and progressives in 2008?

[htuttle]

12. There were more registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush...

...than people who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000. Many times more, in fact.

If you're going to blame someone, blame Florida 'Democrats' as much as Nader voters.

[Murdock]

4. At this point..

It's neither here nor there, we cannot cry over spilt milk, whats done is done. Right now we as a nation are a hemorrhaging critical patient We need to at least stop the bleeding before we consider many of the issues. Bush-co has left this nation in such a mess that we need "a little better" rather than the repeated artery slashing we have going on.

Nothing Clinton did compares to what we have going on now.. And in Clinton's defense I would say that when he tried to push his health care plan through and it backfired and 1994 happened his hands were effectively tied. He couldn't get much of anything done with the Republican congress.

[mdmc]

16. that is all true Murdock

And I am sure that Pres. McCain or Pres. Clinton or Pres. Clark or Pres. Gore will be a great deal better then w.

We won't hold w. accountable re: censure. Even a losing party line vote would be a strong showing of spine.

I would also like to see a dem petition that would make armed conflict the choice of last resort to resolve international conflicts. Everyone claims this is the case, but no one holds w. to this standard.

[Gman]

5. Bullshit! This whole damn mess we're in is Nader's fault

fair and square. Had Nader's ego not seduced so many fools, we would not be at war, tax cuts for the rich, bringing wages down to 3rd world levels.

[mdmc]

20. two legs goood...

Should people be forced to vote? Voters were "seduced" by the beautiful Green platform. When these "seduced" voters looked at the Dem platform, they collectively said, "Been there, done that." They wanted more. They wanted a true vision for the future.

All the votes Nader got in 2000 were a small drop compared to Dems that voted for Bush. If Dems voted for Gore instead of Bush, we would have a Gore presidency.

If Bill Clinton had been a liberal progressive, we would be in Gore's second term.

[MadHound]

41. I should just write this down, and copy and paste

Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919> Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

[mdmc]

44. thanks you for this great post

peace and low stress~ I am bookmarking for later. It is much better then my "Two legs good! Four legs baaaad" retort. :)

[MadHound]

46. Like I said

I should just copy it onto my computer, and paste it whenever somebody comes by with one of these posts. I don't know how many times I've put it up here in the past five years.

[mdmc]

56. notes on the 2000 selection

As posted by DU'er madhound
Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&conte... > Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

[BootinUp]

7. Clinton? If anything

If any blame other than Nader is to be assigned then it was Gore himself that should have worked the Nader issue to a better resolution. Clinton did very well considering the underlying shifts in the electorate that had been occurring for some time before he ever ran for President.

Nader was responsible.

[mdmc]

24. underlying shifts? Do you mean that the USA is getting more Con?

If the USA is getting more conservative, then there really is a need for a third party to come along. Maybe it will be a Conservative party. Then the Dems will go, "We must vote republican, or the Conservatives will take over." We will finally be all in the same party.

[BootinUp]

37. certainly the conserv coalition grew up in the 80's.

As for how to counter it, either a new issue comes along to split that coalition, or the Dem party could split off a fraction of it by appealing to moderates. As for third parties, I see them as short lived and depending on a alientated figure from one of the parties to form up behind. And after the example of Nader I suspect politicans see it as ultimately an avenue for failure in our political system.

[mdmc]

45. there was talk of Kerry McCain in 2004

an unity party might not be that far off...

[BootinUp]

48. Never very likely

I think Kerry was trying to change his image just by making it public. McCain is too extreme.

[mdmc]

55. I could see a neo-con hr4437 party going up against the dlc-gop

in the next three elections... the msm is on their side.

[BootinUp]

57. My own theory

is that to split the conserv coalition we need to take a federalism approach on some of the more divisive social issues that have been used to give our party the anti religion spin. I'm talking about the candidate for President. So in other words he says let the States decide on one or two of those issues. I would only advocate that if it was already happening which it basically is. Then we could at least stop the bleeding on Supreme Court nominations.

[mdmc]

62. very pragmatic

:kick: for you r ideas

[quaoar]

8. If Clinton had been removed from office

Gore would be in his second term. There would have been a backlash about removing Clinton. Gore would have become president and would have been the incumbent running in 2000.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. But he wasn't

Gore had to run on his own merits.

[mdmc]

26. I often wonder how a resignation might have played out.

Clinton left his presidency in the hands of three women - Monica, Chelsea, and Hillary. If one of these three ladies had turned on Clinton, he would have HAD to resign.

[mondo joe]

11. What if Eleanlor Roosevelt had Superman's Powers?

I ask because as long as you're speculating and believing your conclusions to be factual you might as well have some fun with it.

[QC]

19. What if Robert E. Lee had nuclear weapons?

Hey, this IS fun!

[Bridget Burke]

60. What if George W Bush had been a liberal progressive?

Would we all be Republicans?

[mdmc]

65. yes!

victory would be ours! :)

[mdmc]

28. A liberal progressive platform can be created for 2008

I think that Eleanor Roosevelt did have super powers.

[jim3775]

14. There are many people to blame for gore not winning

The media, the supreme court, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and Ralph Nader. Those are the people responsible, Bill Clinton isn't one of them.

[LSdemocrat]

15. Well fighting for universal health care, gun control, and tax fairness...

got him a GOP congress in 1994. What the hell makes you think he would have been reelected in 1996 if he had kept on the same path?

[mdmc]

30. yeah, we should never fight for those things

I think that he would have been reeelceted in a landslide against Dole.

[Stevepol]

17. Say folks, don't forget the electronic voting machines!

When you talk about winning elections, don't forget real numbers don't matter anymore; all that matters is how the numbers are massaged, i.e., Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia. Bill Clinton couldn't have won in 04. No Dem could have won in 04. Kerry won a near landslide and Bush claimed a mandate with his 3% cyber victory.

Appreciate and mostly agree with the ideas, but at least give a nod to the truth amid the speculation.

[mdmc]

33. only the greens

and liberal progressive dems agree with you. The rest of the dem party think that HAVA is good.

[keith the dem]

18. The "liberal" media had it in for Gore

That and the same campaign strategy that causes Kerry to lose.

Check out the archives at "the Daily Howler", the reporting on Gore was absolutely terrible. They would spend hours talking about the things that the RW said that Gore had said(but he didn't) or they talked about Gore's wardrobe. The media and the RW will do anything to get your eyes off the real issues. Watch the news today and you hear about a scuffle with a Georgia Congresswoman, they ignore how our treasury is being looted and our country destroyed.

[Alamom]

25. and we're in an illegal WAR and the people of NOLA are still

crying, "HELP US ! "

A tidbit about the War and a wheelchair bound woman wanting to go home to NOLA on the news today.....


Hours of news about everything else.

DISTRACTION WORKS EVERYTIME






edit:grammer

[mdmc]

34. msm will never give dems a pass again

unless with have charisma on our side. the msm eats up all the good feelings!

[abluelady]

21. Baloney.

If Clinton kept his pants on, Gore would be in his second term.

[mdmc]

36. why did clenus come out

cause the big dog was looking to be loved, to be idolized. The left would have jocked him non stop if he became a liberal progressive in 96.

[HereSince1628]

23. Bill was just trying to be honest. In the post-industrial globalized

society he envisioned he knew everyone would need investment income more than a job. He just didn't think too much about how for most folks having a middle class job was the ticket to buying power in that market and that his post-industrial globalized society wouldn't include a large American middleclass.

Clinton truly was up front about the need for Americans to get a piece of the action. He just had no clue on how quickly inflation in stock value and the loss of the middle class would depress the number who saw themselves as actually affording to get into the game at such an early time in the 21st century. He never forsaw international competition pushing down the pay and benefits and undercitting the number of what seemed to him to be secure well-paid middleclass jobs. He never forsaw companies like GM and Delta defaulting on their company managed pension plans.

But if you think about it there is no reason to dispair. There will always be a few lucky sods who make deals like turning a $10K investment in cattle into $100K. There will always be a few, blessed simultaneously with intellect, opportunity and ambition, who will rise from the ashes. And, it will only take a few to keep the myth of American opportunity alive; it is after all a meme we want to believe.

[mdmc]

38. thank you kindly for your post

peace and low stress

[peacetalksforall]

29. Your analysis makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure about the wanting to

be loved part, but in general, what you're saying is probably going to be at the heart of the way history and political scinece experts will argue it in the future. He experimented with and trusted the centrist stuff, therefore, I will always refrain from gushing. Standing up to Gingrich, holding fast on the budget and spending, and not giving in to the PNAC crowd were the highlights, at the time and in retrospect. 'Getting it' as far as diplomacy and the culture of the rest of the world was a plus. The capacity to talk to a foreign President's financial guy as easily as the President was refreshing. Not selling parks, not putting arsenic in the water, and breaking treaties were right up there. But he was a corporate guy and probably spent more time analyzing and catering to the right, then the left.

I can't fault what you've expressed here.

(I'll refrain from my Nader, the pro-corporate supporter, rant).

[mdmc]

39. thank you kindly for this post

peace and low stress

[radwriter0555]

32. You're blaming clinton for bush stealing the elections? Wow, talk about

blaming the victims.

Doesn't fly though.

[mdmc]

40. w would have never had a chance against a liberal progressive

Gore.

Clinton / Gore could have dropped triangulation in 96. It failed in 2000. We can debate why.

[mattclearing]

43. Clinton came to the White House as a liberal.

A raging liberal by today's standards. He left as a moderate, which had a lot to do with the fact that he got his Democratic colleagues' asses whipped in the 94 midterms.

Remember the Bill Clinton who spoke out for gays, went out of his way to address the AIDS crisis, got elected to the presidency as an admitted pot-smoking, draft-dodging, war protester?

Clinton did what he had to do to get things done, and yes, it moderated him quite a bit. He was always interested in using corporations to get his foot in the door...ask Al Gore what happens when you step on corporations' toes in a presidential campaign.

But the idea that somehow Clinton was this GOP lite when he got elected is ridiculous. Your hippie buddies said that Clinton=Raygun? Check the budget deficit, the diplomacy, the economy, and the crime level.

Unbelievable. The Clinton you wanted never could have gotten re-elected.

[mdmc]

49. I guess he did do pretty good for a pot smoking, draft dodging

war protester.

How about if he returned home to liberalism after 1996? And why did he bust so many pot smokers when he was in office?

To me and my friends, to those that are not political, we saw business as usual.

[warrens]

47. That ego freak Nader would have run no matter what

And a national policy built on what a few pot-smoking bicycle messengers want is a sure recipe for doom.

[mdmc]

53. i hear you

in fact, if the dems run zell miller in 2008, i will vote for him (he will be better then the gop candidate, right?).