The Clintons are polarizing. America wants to move past the '90s

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Check out this polarization! The Clintons have driven a wedge into America's heart, dividing America into the 71% who think Bill was a good President, and the 24% who don't. (And I think we know just how useful it is reaching out to that 24%... they're the same dead-enders who still support Bush)

I can't wait to turn the page...

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide.

"Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?"

9/27-30/07 Approve 66% / Disapprove 32% / Unsure 2%

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

USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 23-25, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Next we have a few questions about former president, Bill Clinton. Overall, do you think Bill Clinton was a good president or a bad president?"

3/23-25/07 - Good 71% / Bad 24% / Mixed (vol.) 4% / Unsure 1%

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

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"

Abraham Lincoln 18 % / Ronald Reagan 16% / John Kennedy 14% / Bill Clinton 13% / Franklin Roosevelt 9%

http://pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

[rodeodance]

1. so so many just repeat that nonsense Withour THINKING!

[journalist3072]

2. Exactly. It's really disgusting. eom

[Captain Hilts]

3. No, the Clintons have been polarized by the Republicans and they'll do it to any nominee. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. That idea is just bizarre... any Dem nominee will be made into the devil

The advantage of the Clinton brand-name is that everyone knows for a fact that the Clintons did NOT heard all the Christians into death-camps, or confiscate all private property, or force all women to have abortions.

Hillary is the only candidate in the race who cannot be *completely* defined by the RW because she already has an identity.

[Lucinda]

11. Yup. But try as you might

some people just will not, or don't want to see it.

It's going to be a blood bath, regardless who we nominate. Hillary has a big advantage here. Doesn't mean someone else wouldn't get through it, just that she's been there, and learned from it.

[Froward69]

16. Biden would Shred

ANY Republican. no matter who. Hillary will be shreded. They lay in wait, talking her up and hoping she is the nominee. They FEAR Joe Biden.

[Lucinda]

36. I agree that Biden would do an excellent job against the machine.

I don't think they fear Biden. I'm not sure they are smart enough to "fear" any of our candidates.
We disagree about Hillary.

[youthere]

52. I absolutely agree...

Biden is the one candidate from the Dems that has proven he can draw both sides of the aisle together.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. As an aside, I'm appalled that FDR isn't ahead of the three in front of him. -nt

[Captain Hilts]

14. It's like 'best' films votes. Anything over 20 years ago is forgotten. nt

[Basileus Basileon]

23. Yeah, I was surprised by that, too. Clinton was a good President, but

FDR was a great one--possibly the best we've ever had. If I could, I'd stick his face on Rushmore instead of TR's.

[nickgutierrez]

5. The really weird thing about that last poll... (a bit off-topic)

Was that "Saint Ronnie: ( :sarcasm: ) got almost twice the support of FDR.

Really, realy strange.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. It's The Primacy And Recency Effect

People tend to remember the first and last things they see or hear...

If I have to speak at an event I want to go first or last...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Wonder what % of Americans have never seen a Dem president other than Clinton as adults

Everyone born after 1962

[nickgutierrez]

12. I'm young enough to have Clinton be the first President I remember, period

These past seven years have been one hell of a juxtaposition.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Hhhmmmmmmmm...... ........ .........Jimmy Carter Not Withstanding

He's the one who was WIDELY criticized for his attempts to avert war with the Iran over the hostages and yet he save the lives of thousands and the American purse billions.

I think George Bush has made Jimmy Carter look like a hero.

[Patchuli]

37. Isn't that the truth!

Raygun sucked. To put him ahead of FDR and JFK?! That's nuts. It just shows you how the media can manipulate sheep-like people to believe damn near anything! (Except the truth!)

[bluestateguy]

6. I guess Lincoln shouldn't have ended slavery, and LBJ shouldn't have pushed civil rights

Too polarizing!!

But seriously, if you are going to do what is right for the nation, sometimes you have to make enemies, tell them to fuck off, and do what has to be done anyway because it is the right thing to do.

[Yael]

9. Pssst -- just a heads up

BILL ISN'T RUNNING.

This is a public service announcement. You may now return to the real world.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Pssst -- that's irrelevant to the OP, but thanks for sharing

The question is whether the American people are desperate to move past the politics of the 1990s.

Barack Obama's message on the topic (the oblique target of the OP) has been stuck in his head since 2000, when it might have made sense. It's like he doesn't realize the Bush presidency ever happened... he seems to think he's running against Al Gore in 2000.

Today, America has very fond memories of the 1990s.

[laugle]

46. Hill and Bill, the "DYNAMIC DUO" because we need 2 president's

to clean-up the Bush mess!!!!!!!

[killbotfactory]

15. We were on the right track in the 90's, but they weren't really all that great

I'd rather move on to something better, not relive those years.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Impossible to move forward without deconstructing the last 7 years

This is not the time to move forward. We need to correct the past and restore the crumbling foundations of constitutional governance before we can think about building anything new on that foundation. Otherwise, the "new" will be built on sand.

I don't mind Obama's message in the abstract, but his timing is terrible. It is exactly the wrong message for the problems we face today, which are primarily the challenges of getting back to 2000 so that we can move forward from that point.

It's unfortunate that we have to do that, but here we are...

[laugle]

48. Sadly...you are absolutely correct!! It would take more than 8yrs. to

just get back to the 90's!

The next president will be busy repairing the horrible damage Bush has done to our country, and frankly, I don't think we will ever be the same.

We have lost our innocents, and I don't believe we can ever fully trust our government again.....

[truedelphi]

34. Well I think your memory is correct but after

Six and a half years of Bush, The Clinton years seem dream-like. You have to forgive most of us our nostalgia.

HUbbie and i just found an old "People" magazine from 1994.

Ya know the crucial and pressing controversy from that era? Paula Jones!

Did Bill go at her, or didn't he?

I was a critic of Bill's back then, but if there were a time machine button I could hit,
I'd gladly warp back to those days in a second!

[jberryhill]

17. So are Foster Grant Sunglasses

...but I still like them too.

I'm a Biden supporter, but these "I hate Hillary, therefore she is 'polarizing' threads are dumb".

[BeyondGeography]

19. How soon we forget: "Clinton campaign effort could hurt Gore more than help, poll suggests"

==October 24, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With the presidential race neck-and-neck, some polls indicate that bringing President Clinton out to campaign for Vice President Al Gore might hurt the Democratic nominee.

...The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll indicates 58 percent of Americans approve of the job Clinton is doing as president. But after surviving impeachment more than a year ago, Clinton trails Gore in the number of people who view him favorably.

Overall, 17 percent of all voters say they would be more likely to vote for Gore if Clinton were to campaign for the vice president. But 40 percent said they were less likely to vote for Gore with Clinton stumping for him, and 40 percent said that would have no effect.

Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.==

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/24/clinton.factor/index.html

Inescapable conclusion: Clinton's defenders like you are forever confusing Bill's job approval ratings with his favorables/unfavorables. How else to explain the toxic effect of these poll numbers? Gore wasn't stupid for running away from Bill. And we aren't stupid for not wanting a replay of the Clinton Wars.

[sampsonblk]

21. All Clintons aside, that's terrible logic

What matters more than negatives is a person's ability to persuade people on the campaign trail. If Bill Clinton started running today with 90% negatives, I'd support him. He has a way with people that you can never discount. He's good at explaining his beliefs and values.

Gore. He sucked at it. And there's your problem. If he had Clinton on the trail, at least he would have had a grown-up who knew how to campaign.

[BeyondGeography]

24. What is it about three times as many people voting against Gore

than for him if Clinton was by his side is so impossible for you and others to grasp?

It is even remotely possible that Gore made a fundamentally proper decision here, sampsonblk's wisdom notwithstanding?

Ah, ferget it.

[sampsonblk]

26. Campaigns move numbers. That's why we do them.

Campaigns NEVER end up where polls originally say they will. It never happens. The object of the campaign is to move the numbers. If 90% of the people say they would never ever vote for Bill Clinton, I would take that bet every time. Put Clinton on the trail and he changes peoples' minds.

By your view, we should never even bother to campaign. Just look and see what the voters say, and that pretty much tells the story? Why even make the case to the public?

[BeyondGeography]

27. That's foolish

and eternal shame on Bill Clinton for even putting Al Gore in the position of wondering whether his campaign skills would have been an asset for him.

Eight years of George Bush later, you should be saying the same thing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. What a Crock

Al Gore should have never distanced himself from Clinton.

I would love for Gore to run, because even now, he acknowledges that was a mistake.

Gore pandered to the right too much and little good it did him, even if he got the popular vote.

The notion that Clinton is responsible for the Gore loss is repugnant.

Why not simply acknowledge there is more credible and significant evidence to impeach Bush for his lies that took us to war costing the American people billions in dollars and thousands in lives than for Clinton's lies about consensual sex and a blow job?

[BeyondGeography]

31. He's not responsible but he didn't help and he could have

absent the blow job.

Way to go, Bill.

As for the standard of impeachment, we agree, but I wonder if Bill does. After all, didn't he once say it is better to be strong and wrong than weak and right?

[sampsonblk]

32. That is a twist of what he said

He was talking about the importance of strength over wishy-washiness. And he said voters vote for candidates who are strong - even if they're wrong (as the GOP was) over candidates who are right but are wishy-washy (as the Dems are). And its absolutely true, we are right and we need to be strong about it. Voters will vote for a candidate who is strong and wrong over a candidate who is weak and right.

That should be plastered on the wall of every weak-kneed Democrat in office. Grow some balls.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Hmmmm, balls

Does that mean no more triangulation? Because Bill was the antithesis of strong and wrong his whole career.

[sampsonblk]

38. You are certainly entitled to believe that nonsense. :)

nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. And that is Exactly What He is Believing In: Nonsense !!!!

I agree with you completely.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Right........Got It

Lying about a consensual blow job is as sinful as sending us to war costing us HALF A TRILLION based on a lie.

But heh......way to go.......thanks for buying right into the moral relativism of the right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. With The Benefit Of Hindsight Americans View Bill Clinton Much Differently

At this point, however, the former president is seen in favorable terms. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office -- virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating, which stands at 33 percent. Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats, and 63 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans also gave him positive marks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

[creeksneakers2]

22. The right wing was the polarizer

The Clintons were centrists and consensus style politicians. One of the biggest complaints about them is they compromised too much.

The right wing ran endless lies about the Clintons and ran constant radio programs accusing the left of hating God, hating America, wanting the entire population to be poor so they could be controlled, etc.

The media never say exactly what is was that the Clintons did to polarize. They just point to the number of people who hate the Clintons and assume that's the Clintons' fault.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. And any Dem in the race will get the same treatment times ten

All arguments about the Clintons being polarizing presume that Republicans are rational, fair people. I saw my first "Impeach Clinton" bumper sticker months before he was even inaugurated.

I cannot imagine how Obama or Edwards or anyone else would be defined by these monsters. If they can turn a war hero into a traitor...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Exactly.........Once Again We Let the Right Define the Conversation

I'm no fan of the centrist Clintons, but it annoys me that we let the right define them as 'radicals' when the truth is they are anything but.

[dsc]

35. the last question you have shows the unlessness of those polls

Reagan, Kennedy, and Clinton all better than FDR, Oh please.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Exactly

:)

[mark414]

39. Bill's not running for office

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. Sorry, didn't know that

[Alamom]

40. k&r

[Hieronymus]

41. Fixed News had one of their fair and balanced discussions of

Hillary's planting questions. One of the anchors said it was unfair because Bush plants questions and has selected audiences all the time. The pro-Bush person said that, while that is true, Bush IS the president and not campaigning. Wow, an admission from a most shrill Bush supporter.

[laugle]

49. Yeah, really...at least she didn't plant the people!!

[cuke]

47. Polarizing means lots of people love her

but typical of DU, posters focus on the other side

[Auntie Bush]

50. I loved the 90's and wish they were back. Sure as hell beats the 00's

[Perry Logan]

51. You've got to stop repeating those silly mainstream memes.

Bill Clinton was tied with FDR as most popular President of the 20th century. It therefore makes no sense to say he was polarizing.