I am deeply disappointed in Bill and Hillary Clinton. I admired these

[radwriter0555]

people for going through what they went through for 10 years. I felt they were good, honorable people who had the interests of all people at heart. I know they care, I know they're compassionate and deeply motivated to do the right thing. I've seen it. I've heard them speak, I've seen their records.

However, thy pretty much could have saved the world from the bush regime. Had these two people, two of the most admired politicians IN THE WORLD and of our time, simply stood and pointed at the bush regime, had they not sat dumb and without critique; had they not sold out, there may not have been a war in Iraq.

I don't blame them solely, I don't. I don't. But I am so disappointed when someone with so much power in their voice, such passion for the work they've done, sits silent for reasons unfathomable.

If at any time in the past 5 years Bill Clinton had been a harsh critic of the bush regime, and his wife too, people would have listened and rallied to their side by the MILLIONS. But Bill never has given our opposition to the invasion of iraq his approval. Instead, he's chosen to side with the bad guy, instead of the will of the people.

We could use a hero right now. We have a few. There are a good number of very brave and well appreciated critics of the bush regime, thank goodness. And know what? They're not dead. They still get elected, they still hold office. Senator Clinton would have been just fine had she spoken against the bush regime.

So why did they sell us out, I have to wonder? Why haven't they had the courage to take a strong, public position against the treason of the bush regime? What do they know that we don't?

See, Bill Clinton was the voice of a generation. He gave us hope for the future. We wanted the world he envisioned. We had common ideals with this man, and suddenly, it all went away?

Can anyone guess what happened? Can anyone explain to me why he chose to side with the bush regime and what he is to gain from it?

[LynneSin]

1. Unwritten rule of ex-presidents and that is...

...to not critique the current administration. And even Clinton has done that several times these past years.

And btw, Gore didn't want Clinton campaigning for him in 2000. That was a dumbass move.

[xultar]

2. BRAVO!

[babylonsister]

4. So what cat has Hillary's tongue? I know they've

been on a holiday break, but I for one would sure like to hear what she has to say, specifically about the spying being done by this admin.

[AZBlue]

71. No one's said much about it.

I'd like to hear what she has to say about it too, but why is she always singled out? Why is there a double standard for her?

[babylonsister]

77. I was only replying to the OP's statement. I usually

try not to pick on anyone, especially on DU as I know there are many differing and valid opinions. I have mine, too.:)

[AZBlue]

85. Sorry, that wasn't meant just for you.

It got mixed in with my response to yours that I'd like to see her opinion on it, as well as others! I do feel she's usually singled out, but I certainly didn't think you specifically were singling her out. :D

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. BIG, BIG, HUGE mistake!

Gore didn't want Clinton campaigning for him in 2000. That was a dumbass move.

Clinton's poll numbers were still high going into the 2000 election. Gore should have stood by Clinton. He knew what the repukes did. He knew that 8 year debacle was nothing but a damn witch-hunt. He should have stood by the man who made HIM VP and told the repukes to FUCK OFF. Gore screwed up ROYALLY. The election would NEVER have been close enough to steal.

[Uncle Joe]

59. What many people here seem to forget

is that Al Gore did stand by Clinton when it counted. Al could have been President before 2000, if power is all he cared about. Believe it or not the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment did not help Al in the moderate to conservative states.

[wryter2000]

27. You're so right

It was totally dumbass to turn away from a master campaigner and try to act holier than the morality police. I believe that if Gore had had Clinton on his side, the election wouldn't have been close enough for *asshat to steal.

[Cleita]

37. And what possessed him to use Donna Brazile as his

campaign manager? On a Sunday talk show, she talked about Bush's speech after Katrina, the one if front of the Andrew Jackson memorial. She said that put up lights to make things look all warm and it was a comforting thing that he did.

:wtf:

[Cleita]

36. Jimmy Carter has been very critical as of late, but he should

have spoken up sooner, IMHO. So should have Clinton. This isn't about politics. It's about our nation being taken over by a secret government with Bush as head puppet.

[400Years]

47. you get the Lamest Excuse of the Century Award.

Congratulations!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

50. It's not a lame excuse, it's a long standing custom

Clinton and Carter have spoken out due to the extraordinary danger that W poses to our republic and are violating tradition to do so.

I wish they had done so earlier, especially Clinton, but speaking out at all is a break from tradition.

[stickdog]

92. So I guess Hillary really WAS President, after all?

Just wondering. Does Socks have her tongue or something?

[Kralizec]

76. Yeah, pretty lame.

To choose to uphold an old, senseless tradition over the needs of real people, and indeed the World... that's disgusting.

Shame on you Bill, shame!

[Maddy McCall]

3. I know that this may sound callous...

but fuck both of them.

He was little better than a centrist Republican president anyway.

I know dozens of womwen who were kicked out of college because of his "welfare reform," which did not count attending college as a "work activity." They had to leave college to continue receiving aid...they ended up as checkers at grocery stores--some even were forced to pick up garbage along county roads here--to continue to receive benefits.

I'll never forgive Clinton for welfare reform. Others hate him for NAFTA, and other pro-corporation legislation he signed.

My gripe with him will always be welfare reform--because I saw the potential in many women extinguished by that piece of shit legislation--legislation that was passed even though it had tremendous problems, and which will never be readressed because of the volitile nature of it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Bravo Maddy! I feel the same exact way too! His Presidency was a deep

disappointment to me, as I thought I had voted for a Liberal and wound up with Republican Light. And fast forward to the present.... Add to that Hillary's staunch support of her stance on Iraq, her wanting to strengthen censorship (ie video games) and Bill's deafening silence! Double fuck them!

[jonnyblitz]

30. He also put an ad on christian RW radio bragging that he

signed DOMA so gays couldnt get married during his 1996 campaign to prove his "family values" credentials while taking campaign money from gay groups. i think he and his wife are slimey pieces of power hungry shit. :puke:

[EFerrari]

58. Right on, Maddy!

The pittance we USED to spend on Welfare was sacrificed to political expediency -- and so were all those re-entry students -- many of them single mothers.

And just coincidently, single mothers are currently going homeless faster than any other group.

[mopaul]

5. me too

starting with his lying about smoking weed, like he was ashamed of it, then lying about it saying he never inhaled. that set off alarms.

then he disappointed me by being a whore and getting disgraced for it, knowing full well he was already known as a womanizer, he was weak, and he left himself open for a set up, which he then fell for.

then he didn't fight back, he could have, but chose not too.

i admired the clintons for a while, but then all they did was disappoint me. and hillary just seems like a total sellout politician to me, anything to get elected, and bill appearing with daddybush, the man who tried to destroy him, i just don't get it.

i wish we had better representatives than those two.

[zalinda]

15. Okay, this one gets to me

He never SMOKED weed!!!!!!!!!!! A friend at college was interviewed and said that Clinton COULDN'T inhale, maybe because he wasn't a smoker. He ate some brownies once or twice that had grass in them. Period, end of story.

If you're going to bash someone, at least get the facts right.

zalinda

[Greyhound]

23. and if you're going to defend them, try picking something relevant.

Did he smoke or not? Did he get a BJ or not? Who cares? Did he screw over the poorest citizens of his country? Yes. Did he sell out the blue collar people? Yes. Did he fight of veto any corporate welfare/giveaways while simultaneously cutting vital programs to help people that need it? No and Yes. Did he go along with the corporate right wing agenda on every single issue? Yes. Did he support the HB-1 visa program that killed the future of an entire generation of IT professionals? Yes.
Get over it. His only positive attribute that I see is the D after his name.

[Beam Me Up]

31. Worse yet in my book, mo, once he was out of office he said in interview

that marijuana should be legal.

The man was in a position to DO something about marijuana prohibition (and so many other things) and he didn't.

I've always respected Bill Clinton but I've never believed he truly represented the interests of the average American.

[onenote]

56. exactly what could Bill Clinton have done about pot prohibition?

He was President, not King. You think that if he had proposed decriminalizing pot Congress would've gone, "Yep, you got it Bill, whatever you want"? Hell, he was pressured into firing Jocelyn Elders as Surgeon General because she spoke about masturbation. You think he could've gotten away with supporting decriminalization? No way.

onenote

[High Plains]

81. What would the Republicans do--impeach him?

No, Clinton was totally gutless on the marijuana issue. He could have had a bill introduced, he could have cut funding for the drug czar and the DEA, he could have ordered his attorney general to make pot cases the lowest priority for federal prosecutors, he could have used his bully pulpit...but he was too busy triangulating with the likes of Dick Morris.

Instead, he did nothing while marijuana arrests climbed through the roof.

[onenote]

86. meanwhile, back in the real world

Not a single Democratic member of Congress in eight years was willing to introduce legislation to legalize or decriminalize marijuana. The closest thing was legislation to allow the medical use of marijuana -- legislation that attracted only a handful of co-sponsors. Who exactly should Clinton have had introduce marijuana legislation (beyond the medical use bill that was introduced)? And how was Clinton supposed to make that happen? Yes he could send up a bill, but someone in Congress was going to have to introduce it and apparently there wasn't one member of Congress, out of 435 in the House of Reps and 100 in the Senate, who was interested enough to introduce somthing themselves.

onenote

[Beam Me Up]

88. We are where we are today because of this kind of "reasoning".

Do you really not understand the relationship between the "War on Drugs" (tm) and the "War on Terrorism" (tm)?

The WoD is a scam -- just like the WoT is a scam. Its function has always been not to stop drug abuse but to fund policing agencies while criminalizing mostly young and mostly non-white youth all the while making sure that the real criminals in the CIA and the money laundering through wallstreet keep the big bucks flowing.

How many people were arrested, tried and convicted (and many of them, therefore, removed from voter rolls) due to marijuana conviction under Clinton's watch? It has nothing to do with being a "king" and everything to do with offering genuine LEADERSHIP which sometimes means taking politically unpopular stands. But however that may be, Clinton knew who his real paymasters were. :puke:

[onenote]

94. So it was in Bill Clinton's interest to eliminate black voters?

And I'll say it again -- there are 535 elected representatives in washington, and during the Clinton year's about half of them were Democrats. Yet no one introduced legislation to decriminalize drugs. So why single out Cllinton for his supposedly failed leadership. In the real world, political capital is not an infinite resource. IMHO, real leadership means husbanding that capital and using to achieve goals that are achievable (like an increase in the Minimum Wage -- something accomplished under Clinton's leadership, and not seen since).

onenote

[Beam Me Up]

96. Reply:

> So it was in Bill Clinton's interest to eliminate black voters?

I would assume not, but I didn't see him trying to stop it so far as drug laws were concerned, did you?

> And I'll say it again -- there are 535 elected representatives in
> washington, and during the Clinton year's about half of them were
> Democrats. Yet no one introduced legislation to decriminalize drugs. So
> why single out Cllinton for his supposedly failed leadership.

Why? Because he was the President. I'm not trying to spare Democrats in congress who are equally to blame. As I said below, however, if he truly thought marijuana should be decriminalized--as he said AFTER he was no longer president--he could have petitioned Health and Human Services to reschedule marijuana and remove it from Schedule One where it had been placed (along with heroine et al) "temporarily" by Nixon thirty years before him.

> In the real
> world, political capital is not an infinite resource. IMHO, real
> leadership means husbanding that capital and using to achieve goals that
> are achievable (like an increase in the Minimum Wage -- something
> accomplished under Clinton's leadership, and not seen since).

Didn't say anything about minimum wage now, did I.

What I'm saying is, thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people were arrested, tried and convicted for marijuana possession during the Clinton years--more than any other president--then they and their families had to endure the consequences of a bad law often applied prejudicially (youth, people of color and the poor). Then, after he is no longer president, Clinton has the GAUL to say it should be decriminalized. That, my friend, is indefensible.

WORSE all this is tied in with the criminality and money laundering, arms dealing and terrorism (state sponsored and otherwise) that is now tearing our republic apart and threatening to ignite a full blown global war. Illicit drugs and the global black market they spawn are a GOLD MINE for the thugs advancing their fascist agenda--and the Democrats have gone along with it for 30 god damned years. If we had begun to put an end to it ten years ago, we wouldn't be where we are today. THAT would have been LEADERSHIP--and don't think I and other anti-drug war activists like myself weren't saying this back then. We were. We foretold it: If you don't bring an end to the drug war, the draconian measures being implemented in its name will pave the way for totalitarianism right here at home. We could see that is where this was headed, inch by bloody inch. We were right then and we're still right. The global "War on Terrorism" is just as much a scam as is the WoD was--only the consequences are far far worse.

Welcome to the world your concerns about precious "political capital" created.

[onenote]

98. aren't most marijuana arrests for violations of state law?

[Beam Me Up]

99. Most state laws follow the federal scheduling statues

However, in California where I live for example, voters have made it clear that a) marijuana should be available to patients with a Dr's prescription and b) should be a low priority for local policing enforcement. Nevertheless, FEDERAL agents have harassed and arrested California residents who distribute marijuana with state and local government approval based on FEDERAL LAW and FEDERAL SCHEDULING.

[txaslftist]

60. Then you haven't a clue what the 'average American' wanted...

...then or now.

You want pot legalized. Okay, goody for you. I don't want it legalized. I want the penalties reduced, but I don't want it made legal because if it's legal, my kids may decide that when I tell them most of the folks I know who smoked it got their lives fucked up, they may say, hey, it's not against the law, and Jimmy smokes it and he's not fucked up...

Maybe you smoke pot and aren't fucked up. Maybe you smoke cigarettes and didn't get cancer. I smoked cigarettes and I did get cancer.

The point is that people can have legitimate disagreements about these kind of things.

If you think Clinton was "Republican light", then so was JFK. And you don't know the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Clinton was not a Republican in any sense. He didn't cooperate with the Republicans in passing 'their' agenda. He passed his own agenda, his 'new Democrat' agenda, and they fought him tooth and nail.

You want to give the Republicans a pass on how they hated, hunted and tried to destroy him, fine. But don't repeat their (or that idiot Nader's) ridiculous talking points and expect a pass.

[Beam Me Up]

91. Reply:

> Then you haven't a clue what the 'average American' wanted...
>
> ...then or now.

So you say.

> You want pot legalized. Okay, goody for you. I don't want it legalized. I
> want the penalties reduced, but I don't want it made legal because if it's
> legal, my kids may decide that when I tell them most of the folks I know
> who smoked it got their lives fucked up, they may say, hey, it's not
> against the law, and Jimmy smokes it and he's not fucked up...
>
> Maybe you smoke pot and aren't fucked up. Maybe you smoke cigarettes and
> didn't get cancer. I smoked cigarettes and I did get cancer.

Maybe rather than just over-reacting and guessing you should ask me what I want.

> The point is that people can have legitimate disagreements about these
> kind of things.

No shit.

> If you think Clinton was "Republican light", then so was JFK. And you
> don't know the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Clinton was
> not a Republican in any sense. He didn't cooperate with the Republicans in
> passing 'their' agenda. He passed his own agenda, his 'new Democrat'
> agenda, and they fought him tooth and nail.
>
> You want to give the Republicans a pass on how they hated, hunted and
> tried to destroy him, fine. But don't repeat their (or that idiot Nader's)
> ridiculous talking points and expect a pass.

Didn't say anything about Repulicans--or Nader--in my post.

What I said is that after he left office he made the statement in interview that he felt marijuana should be legalized. Given the number of people who were arrested, tried and convicted for MJ possession during his presidency, that comes as one hell of a slap in the face. Did he ever once express this opinion WHILE he was President? There are all kinds of things he could have done as president--for example, requested Health and Human Services to re-evaluate whether marijuana should have remained in the Schedule One classification where it had been put "temporarily" during the Nixon administration--that he didn't lift a finger to do.

I also said that although I respected Clinton (unlike my feelings for Bush, the very image of whom makes me want to start trowing inanimate objects against the wall) I did not believe he truly represented the interest of the average American. NAFTA anyone? This has nothing to do with Republican talking points and is a statement of opinion. The Repulicans are nothing but scum sucking fascists herding our somnambulant body politic into the next global war. But it is in large measure the War on Drugs, which the Democrats have upheld for years, which, inch by inch, has paved the way toward a totalitarian regime--now operating under the War on Terror monicker. It's all of a piece.

[Mark E. Smith]

6. I Disagree

Why interrupt the Republicans while they are destroying themselves? Why hand them a distraction? And by doing the sorts of things I think you are asking for here, the Clintons would be a distraction.

But while we're on the subject, what is it you would like the Clintons to do? Run around in circles waving their arms in the air?

The wheels of justice are turning. It is all about prosecutors and the courts now. These are serious matters and they need to be treated that way. There will be plenty of time for speeches later.

I am so sick of Clinton bashing.

[radwriter0555]

7. It's not about bashing, we have bush for that. It's about expressing my

disappointment in a man who is so capable of doing so much good, doing absolutely nothing.

He has the power. He's got it.. right in his hands, and ... nothing.

It makes me really sad.

[apple_ridge]

10. You live in some sort of fantasy world if you really think

that the wheels of justice are going to produce any form of actual justice for these criminals.

They may be destroying themselves, but who is going to bring them down? Certainly not the supposed "opposition".

[radwriter0555]

14. A revolution is the only thing that will take out the bush regime.

I'm sorry about that.

BUT, had bill clinton stepped up to the plate and to the task, he could have enabled it.

[chaumont58]

24. You are so right!!!!

Clinton was a good president. He wasn't God, he couldn't move mountains. He should not be blamed for a repuke congress that he had to live with for 6 of his 8 years. Politics is the art of the possible.

[TheDebbieDee]

8. I remember shortly after 9/11, when the * admin

first floated the "regime change in Iraq" baloon, Hillary stated publically that we could use a little "regime change here".

The RW media crucified her for it and her Democratic brethren did nothing to defend her. (I don't remember if she said this before or after the Anthrax attacks.)

[radwriter0555]

16. Senator Boxer gets crucified too.. What's criticism? Stand up and take it

as you're elected to do.

PLENTY of good people stand up and take the crap this regime and their heinous supporters throw at them. Take it like you mean it, or you're just like the rest, really.... (to the Senator)

[blm]

18. That was Kerry who said it early 2003 and was lambasted by the press.

.

[karynnj]

75. I follow the news pretty closely and absolutely

do not remember this. In the wake of 911. there was no one who said anything like that - I remember Hillary at the NYC memorial and at the show the Paul McCartney headlined. Her remarks, like all the others were very supportive of a unified response. The first major news of an Iraq invasion, came in summer of 2002 (remember the comment that you don't "introduce a new product in the summer") Many Democrats spoke out - I remember the obvious ones- Kennedy, Kerry and Boxer (I think). I don't remember Hillary.

The Democrats pushed Bush to go to the UN and Congress.

When Bush attacked, KERRY called for regime change here - and he got a huge amount of flack - Krugman even mentions both Kerry's comment and the RW reaction in his book (of his NYT columns). The comment does not sound like Hillary (though it is one side of Kerry)

[oasis]

93. Bush Knew: "Times" magazine had the 9/11 accusation written on its cover

back in May 2001. Hillary held a copy up on the senate floor and asked the same question of her colleagues "Bush knew what?"

She got plenty of flak from the right, but no support from the Dem senate.

[KoKo]

9. I hope someday we will have an answer.

It seemed that Clintons could have fought back harder against the Right Wing throughout his Presidency. He gave the Repugs NAFTA and Welfare Reform and he gave away the Media to them in '96. For that we did get "Family Leave," "and Cobra" which helped many of us who were downsized keep and transfer our insurance. He was very good internationally although he's criticized by many on the Left for Kosovo bombing.

Whatever their problem was I'd like to know myself. It worries me that Hillary has aligned herself with Lieberman and the NeoCons in her support for Iraq Invasion and other policies. And, Clinton appearing with Poppy was also very depressing for those of us who hung in there through all the bashing Clinton took.

It's a puzzle. But, they aren't the only Democrats who could have done more and I wonder about those who left us here hanging through three stolen elections and subjected to a Media that does nothing but through crap in our Democratic faces trying to make us ashamed of our party.

I think the Dem grassroots is better just moving on from them and finding new candidates who are responsible to us and not to "Think Tanks" and compromise with the DLC.

[ROakes1019]

13. ambition

What I see in the Clintons, Hillary especially now that she thinks she might get the presidency, is naked ambition. Of course, Bill wants her elected; he can continue to run the country through her. I really dislike them both.

[radwriter0555]

17. Senator Clinton has made no talk of running for president. The republicans

are the only ones insisting that she run.

So, you're completely wrong.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

39. IMO, its naive to say that she is not running for president.

Personally, I think its naive to say that she's not running for president.

If she wasnt, she could have taken 5 minutes and said she's not.

With the entire world expecting her to run, for her NOT to say shes not means she is in fact running by defacto.

As to your suggestion that its a Republican talking point...Well I think you are right about that and the the Republicans are driving some of this. But really, if Hillary isnt running, she should have said so quite awhile back.

IMHO, I think that Hillary is trying to have her cake and eat it to in terms of she running/shes not running. Good politics? Time will tell.

[zalinda]

22. And, thank you

That's why we have Bush in the first place. Those who "think" that they should move on, ala Nader. I guess you want repubs in charge over the next 100 years as you build a party. You won't get the average Joe on the street joining a new party, he's smart enough to know that his vote won't count if he does, and besides he's been a dem all his life, as was his father, and his father before him.

You seem to want your dem politicians to be "SUPER POLITICIAN" able to leap tall repubs in a single bound. Life doesn't work like that and neither does politics. Repubs have been planning this take over since the 60's, maybe longer. What would you have our dems do? Run around yelling the sky is falling, and there is NO verifiable proof. And even when they have proof, who can they yell to? The media ignores them. And if it doesn't get into the media, who knows about it?

They are doing what they can. All in all, they are doing a better job than some on this forum and left radio give them credit for. We do not know what's going on behind the scenes and I'm guessing, what we hear on popular media or even cspan, doesn't even begin to tell the full story.

zalinda

[KoKo]

26. I think you missed my point that grassroots Dem activists need to work

harder to get Dems elected who can move up through the system who will be loyal to the "people" and their needs rather than relying on "Think Tanks" who set policy. The Repugs have been gaining power because they were loyal to their base of fiscal conservatives and the religious right.

Our party needs some fresh faces and framing of issues to win. And, that needs to come from the "bottom" up through the system.

We need a strong left in the Democratic Party that can push issues rather than the push coming from the DLC or the Repugs and relying on Think Tanks that often have loyalties to theory over practicality.

[democrank]

12. I recently heard a television pundit

(name escapes me) commenting on Hillary positioning herself for a possible run in `08. He said Hillary is not worried about support from the left, she`s focused on gaining support from moderates and conservatives. Apparently she thinks she has the left in the bag. As far as I`m concerned, this pundit is correct. Our party`s base has long been ignored, perhaps because those running for office believe we`ll go along because we have no other place to go.

Recently The Nation used its front cover to announce they will not support any `08 candidate who favors the continuation of the war in Iraq.
The Nation, like many members of our party`s base, recognize that the center of political ideology has been moved way to the right. Moved by corporate media stenographers, moved by hawkish Democrats, moved by fascists, moved by the "religious "right", moved by politicians terrified of being called "soft on terrorism", moved by inside the beltway talking heads, moved by rightwing hate radio and allowed to move by American citizens too busy to think for themselves or too busy to vote. Remember....we`re with Bush or we`re with the terrorists. This slide to the right explains a lot to me, including Hillary`s positions.

I still respect President Clinton because I believe he`s simply moved from playing pure politics to strengthing his legacy. He`s a gifted diplomat and will probably be remembered that way. I also think his childhood contributed to his need for acceptance which figures in to his don`t rock the boat positioning.

I`ve been a voting Democrat for more than four decades but hardly recognize my party today. We used to take on anyone and anything....and be proud to do it. We fought against unjust wars. We fought for the unions. We fought for social and economic justice. Not a few people here and a few people there, but massive collective action. Today we cheer over any scrap thrown our way and many times sacrifice our own beliefs so we`ll fit in. We support candidates who don`t support us and gladly send them our contributions. Change doesn`t just happen, like the sun coming up. It requires real commitment, not lip service. This may sound harsh, but I`ll bet there are older DUers here who know exactly what I`m writing about.

[tnlefty]

20. And adherence to the traits that you've written gets one labeled a

"lunatic", or "far left fringist", etc. even here on DU. I have that copy of The Nation, and I think I'll take my "Commie" self and admire that cover and reread the contents again. :hi:

[mattclearing]

19. It's clear to me that something is going on behind the scenes, and that

we don't have enough information to correctly assess the Clintons' performance.

Between Clinton's presidency, Hillary's work in the Senate, and Bill's work with the Bushes, it seems like there is some sort of backchannel discussion going on between the two families. President Bush used to actively hate Clinton, and now he seems to have warmed up to him.

Clinton seems to be trying to work his way into a position of trust with the Bushes. Some see a sort of duplicitous backstabbing in that. I have fought back the urge to assume the worst for the time being.

My inclination is to trust Clinton's judgment, and I have to assume that he is playing Bush for political favors/information.

I would warn against assuming the worst...Clinton's decisions that everyone bashes him for seem like the price of doing business to me...NAFTA, Telecom, and Welfare Reform were bottom line for proving that Democrats could deliver for corporations. The system being what it is in this country, if you are seen as averse to working with corporations even slightly, you will disappear in an election year (look at the coverage of John Kerry...he was simply less corporate-friendly than the competition, and outside of the debates, his campaign was completely ignored by the television media).

Some view Clinton as a failure for this, but I still think he beat the alternative, who would have gladly signed those and given us lots of other heinous legislation and foreign policy to lament.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Both are power hungry DLC panderers.

Bill did much to wear my "oh, well, he's not as bad as the Republcans" nose out. Kerry finished the job and it'll be a cold day in hell before I'd ever vote for Hillary.

[linazelle]

28. LOL. They should have stood up to be villified by the propogandists

even more? What makes you think that people would have listened to them? What makes you think that more Rovian tactics would not have been brought out to Swiftboat/Arkansas Project them further? This is a joke, isn't it? Or simply flamebait. Those are the only two choices.

[AZBlue]

72. THANK YOU! A sane voice...

My thoughts exactly. I am pretty sure some on DU write posts just to stir the pot...this has GOT to be one of those.

[CoffeeCat]

29. I am thoroughly convinced...

...that the neocons have blackmailed or threatened most Dems and Reps. This is what keeps them quiet and complacent.

I know that sounds bizarre, but it is the only explanation for the complacency we see.

The Republicans are destroying the Constitution, acting like dictators and there are so many
scandals and so much corruption--it's hard to see straight.

Through all of this--most Dems have barely anything to say. And when they do say something--they
scurry down their rabbit holes and we don't hear from them for months.

SOMETHING is going on.

I wish to God these politicians would realize that our democracy is more important that keeping an affair from your wife. For Pete's sake---if you're being blackmailed or threatened--get proof and expose these goombahs. Any affair or bribe you took, would pale in comparison to the concerted mafia tactics of the neocons. Come clean!! Take the power away from these third-rate yahoo thugs. Everyone understands that politicians make mistakes and engage in shady behavior. Come clean. Save America. You take their power away when you stop letting fear control you---and the rest of us out in the cheap seats!!

[mopaul]

34. me too, they've all had their lives threatened, don't put it past them

expect the absolute worst from this crowd

[Strawman]

32. I think the Clintons are good people

They just have a different philosophy. They're compromisers and incrementalists. I don't attribute that entirely to ambition, I think it's more of a "pragmatic" approach of making the best deal possible under the circumstances. But I don't agree with it. I don't think you can sustain a movement that way and I think you need a movement behind you to really create change. Maybe there are times when it makes sense to use that approach, but right now I think we need to be building a movement like the conservatives did. It seemed like the Clintons never really built up enough political capital to do very much. They were (and are) always on defense.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

55. The right wing media had it in for Clinton from day 1

MSM wasn't far behind them. Every misstep and minor problem was blown up into a "scandal" by limbastard, et al and the MSM would repeat the charges, bogus or not.

It's the exact opposite of what W faces - W can do anything short of eat fried infant humans and still get good treatment from the press.

[Strawman]

57. You really think...

he couldn't get away with eating fried infants? I'm starting to wonder.

I agree with what you're saying, but the Clintons strategy for dealing with that has been to appease and attempt to compromise with these people, who they will never please. That's where I disagree with them.

[Yollam]

33. Bill Clinton was a warmongering conservative.

He continued the murderous sanctions that killed a half million Iraqi children while regularly bombing the crap out of both Iraq and Kosovo. He he cut taxes on the middle class, but also left taxes on the ultra-rich at historic low rates. He slashed welfare and other benefits, cut regulations on businesses and signed the anti-American NAFTA into law.

The fact that he was a hundred times more honest and a thousand times more competent than Bush doesn't change the fact that he was in effect, a moderate republican president, whose only progressive achievement was the passage of UNPAID "family leave" and changing the military's de facto "don't ask don't tell" policy to an explicit "don't ask don't tell" policy.

He was indeed the voice of a generation. The voice that told the greedy, self-absorbed baby boomers what they wanted to hear. Gave them progressive-sounding smoothtalk while enacting the agenda of the republicans as though Bush I had been re-elected.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Clinton basher or hater, but I do so tire of people trying to characterize his reign as some sort of progressive New Camelot, when it was nothing of the sort.

If he had kept his pants zipped and made a serious commitment to single payer health care rather than the corporate giveaway that Hillary concocted, I'd be singing his praises along with you, but I see the 8 years he spent in office as little more than a missed opportunity and a real waste of talent and amazing charisma.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

54. His presidency was much better than what preceded or followed it

You govern as best you can in the circumstances you face.

The right wing noise machine was on Clinton from the day he took office.

He did the best he could under the circumstances.

Clinton bashers really disgust me. Why don't you go over to free republic or something?

[Yollam]

61. Why don't you put your baseless insinuations where the sun don't...

...oh, never mind.

And the poor judgment he showed with Lewinsky when he KNEW what the right wing noise machine would do with it was not "doing the best he could do".


As for Free Republic, their positions on most issues are much closer to Clinton's than they are to mine, so maybe you ought to be the one to check them out.

"You're to the left of Clinton and unwilling to gloss over his right-wing policies, therefore you must be a freeper"

Nice logic.


ON EDIT: Some of the other posts remind me that I should have also given Clinton some credit for expanding the EITC for working families. It at least helped to ameliorate some of the pain caused by his slashing of the welfare safety net.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

69. So you're not a freeper, just a useless Utopian - Cheers

I listened to 8 years of hating on this guy. I don't care for it here.

All the ultra-left useless utopians here want to beat on him for not being radical enough. Not one of them could win an election. Clinton won re-election easily and would have beaten bush in 2000 if he could have run.

[mike_c]

74. bingo....

THIS is what I'll remember Bill Clinton for the most-- he EMBRACED Poppy Bush's genocide against Iraq, and manipulated the intel and UNSCOM in order to maintain the economic sanctions WITH NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER. Over 500,000 thousand Iraqi children died because of Bill Clinton's need to look like he carried a big stick-- a price that Madeline Albright has famously said we were "willing to pay," even though we weren't actually paying a damn thing, except perhaps our humanity. People here like to rail about the war against Iraq as though Dubya is solely responsible for it. He's not-- it's Clinton's war just as much as Dubya's. I think this goes a long way toward explaining Hillary's warmongering in the Senate today.

[Yollam]

79. Of course final blame has to rest with Poppy.

It was HIS ambassador who gave Iraq implicit permission to invade Kuwait in the first place, only to later express with dismay "I never thought they'd take over the whole country!".

And it was Poppy who hypocritically cooked up an overblown, jingoistic cakewalk of a war, after sizing up the billions the Kuwaitis had in American banks and his own faltering poll numbers.

Clinton was a saint next to Poppy and Dumbya, no doubt.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

35. Wow. More CLinton Bashing on this thread

Than you get at Freeperville.

I know they werent perfect, but gosh folks...they ARE on our side. Right?

[Chicken George]

40. I don't/won't go to freeperville..

..is it really this bad..??

[Freedom_Aflaim]

46. To be fair, its far worse there

but imo, this isnt exactly what I would expect here.

But Im a newbie and Im proably speaking out of turn.

[Yollam]

63. So to post here you have to be a Clinton apologist?

I muted a lot of my criticisms of his right-wing policies while he was in office, even as he lost the majority in congress and empowered the right wing with media deregulation.

If you think DLC/GOP policies minus Clinton's charisma are going to win elections, more power to you, but I beg to differ. Most of the seats we lost in 2002 and 2004 belonged to war-supporter DLC DINOS. The progressives held their seats, with Boxer winning re-election by a RECORD margin.

You don't like me criticizing DLC DINOS and their disgusting, failed policies? By all means, report me to the mods and get me banned, because I am not about to stop.

[mattclearing]

67. No one's going to ban you for that.

DLC supporters are in the minority here. I liked Clinton, and tend to give him the benefit of the doubt despite the obvious betrayals you've mentioned, which I discussed above. The rest of the DLC'ers, however, especially the ones who continue to support the DLC after Al From exposed himself and the DLC for what it is, deserve whatever they get.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

68. Clinton Apologist?

No no, I don't think thats fair.

We all have our flaws, in fact put me at the top of the list for flaws.

The Clintons, both Bill and Hillary have them as well. We all know what they are. Hell they've been discussed for how many years now?

I guess Im just saying: Hey, whats the point? Did Bill smoke some weed? Yea he proably did. But gosh, how many times do we need to rehash it?

And no, Im not going to hit alert on you, nor anyone else in this thread, Im not that type of person. I only hit alert when its gets personal and over the top.

Im just saying that rehashing the same old stuff about folks that ARE on our side, doesnt really do us much good. Thats all.

[Yollam]

78. I don't consider myself a Clinton basher by any stretch.

I just can't go along with folks who would make his term out to be something that it wasn't. And I certainly wouldn't rag in him for stuff he did before his election (or in college, for pete's sake).

And I always defended him against the baseless attacks from the right (killed Vince Foster, raped Juanita Broaddrick, Ran some kind of incomprehensible scam with Whitewater, etc. etc.) Those are pure fabrications and easily disproven.

I liked Clinton as a person, and I suppose he tried to do some good while relentlessly pursuing his own career. But shit, even Nixon looks mighty good next to the trainwreck that is the Bush administration. I just wish that more ELECTED democrats would come out and be proudly, unabashedly LIBERAL, and that we as progressive voters would start to hold them to a bit higher standard than just "He's charming and knows how to win."

In a way, I'm almost glad that Bush came around. By the end of the Clinton years, a lot of democrats had become extremely complacent and overconfident, completely underestimating the influence of moronic talk radio and cable news agitprop.

It's actually remarkable to note that Gore won in 2000, and Kerry nearly won in 2004 without Perot, both getting a LOT more votes than Clinton ever got. Imagine what we could do if we ever ran a real liberal with some Clintonesque charisma.

[onenote]

73. Reliance on "marketplace" over "regulation" began with Pres. Carter

whose FCC Chairman, Charlie Ferris, promoted a deregulatory, marketplace-based philosophy. Of course, it was Mark Fowler, Reagan's FCC chair, that really ran with this theory, followed by Dennis Patrick, etc. In fact, Clinton's FCC Chair, Reed Hundt, was far more regulatory than his predecessors. Yes, Clinton gave the FCC Michael Powell, but it was Bush that made Powell Chairman.

onenote

[radwriter0555]

70. I thought they were on our side, but actions speak louder than words.

Their actions don't demonstrate them as the people I believed them to be.

Do you have a reasonable explanation as to why they've gone over to the dark side?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

80. IMO its just frustration

It wouldn't be fair for me to say that anyone on the this thread has "gone to the dark side". I don't believe that to be the case. Even if I did, I'm a newbie here and I would be speaking out of turn to call someone out.

I think its just frustration. We have great people and great leaders, yet Bush and his Cabal is still running and ruining things.

We won 2 national elections, only to have them stolen. God knows how many local and state elections have been stolen.

Sometimes Frustration and anger leads one to lash out at people who perhaps don't deserve it, but are conveniently nearby.

Human nature, thats all.

[The Witch]

38. Just one person's observation,

but Clinton has worked almost exclusively on world hunger & poverty and related issues since leaving office. I think that the president's abuses of power and politics and whatnot are ... i know this is weird, but... beneath him right now. He's working on millions and millions of people who need to eat every day... it's a bigger problem.

Flame away.

[txaslftist]

41. I was dissappointed in Bill when he got the BJ from Monica...

...and when he walked into Ken Starr's trap.

Aside from that, he was a great president, probably the best one we've had since Kennedy. He presided over eight years of increasing prosperity, moved unemployment down every year of his presidency, kept us out of any major wars, was greatly influential in reducing the Irish "troubles", and cut the deficit down to nothing. If you actually look objectively at the accomplishments of his presidency, especially during the first two years, he did an amazing job, getting more of his progressive legislative agenda through congress than any president since FDR. He did these things in the face of an increasingly hostile congress, in the face of Monicagate, and in the face of a Republican witch hunt.

This "deep dissappointment" in the Clintons is the perfect going to war against the good. It reminds me of the Nader campaign of 2000. Nothing but a deliberate ploy to take support away from centrist, progressive Democrats to 'teach them a lesson' about being 'more pure liberals'.

As a result of Nader, we got Bush. Ralphs latest little campaign is to send an urgent message to all the churches of America to ring their bells for each soldier who dies in Iraq, so that the people will get the message and stop the war. What a crackpot, dingbell idea.

You are disappointed with Hillary for not standing up against the Bush administration and being the shrill harridan that the right wing alreadys says she is? Your disappointed in her (and in Bill) for not appreciating that purity is more important than actually winning and accomplishing something progressive?

Go cry in your latte.

I want to win, and not pyrrhically. I want a better world for my kids, not a reputation for being pure while handing victory to my enemies.

If you don't think the Republicans are the enemies of America, you aren't paying attention. If you think any strategy other than whatever we can do to win is acceptable, you are purist, and living in a dreamworld.

Had the communists and socialists bent just a little in their purism, and had the Jewish pro-Palestine movement not gone against the main body of Jews in pre-Nazi Germany, neither Hitler's rise to power nor the holocaust would probably have occurred. In either event, the holocaust would have been greatly diminished.

Politics is not a game played without consequences. Bill and Hillary are both excellent players, and they are very much on our (progressive, liberal) side. Like the folks who voted for Nader, you get what you ask for. I think we abandon the Clintons at our deep peril.

As an example, my mother, a lifelong Republican, started voting Democratic when she saw what Kenneth Starr was doing to Clinton. It offended her so deeply that she became a Democrat. So much of one that I just got John Stewarts DVD from her for Christmas.

So to Bill Clinton, I say thank you, sir. I am very proud do have voted for you twice. To Hillary I say, if you are on the ticket, you've got my vote.

[desi]

42. KUDOS..

..Very well said and I join you in the following.

"So to Bill Clinton, I say thank you, sir. I am very proud do have voted for you twice. To Hillary I say, if you are on the ticket, you've got my vote."

on edit: My ignore list is probably longer than my post count...and no doubt the list will continue to grow. So be it.

[txaslftist]

44. Have you read Clinton's autobiography?

If not, I very much recommend it. It will give you an idea of how much of this thread's critique of Clinton actually comes from Newt Gingrich and the Republicans.

[desi]

52. Not yet..

..but will do so soon. And I agree on the Newt-like influence. I heard the same nonsense from my radical right wing relatives the last two national election cycles. I normally ignore these threads which seem to be appearing more frequently.

[paulk]

53. great post!

posts like your's are why I keep coming to DU

[Stockholm]

97. Great post Txaslftist! n/t

[barbaraann]

43. I agree--Article on "The Clinton Legacy"

The Clinton Legacy
A return to Hooverite economic policies
By Edward S. Herman

Bill Clinton has been getting mixed reviews on his “legacy” in the mainstream media: commonly he is downgraded for regrettable personal defects that made him a poor role model and lowered the esteem of his high office; but he gets good marks for his domestic economic policies that have given us sustained prosperity, high marks for his foreign economic policies that have advanced “free trade,” and a fairly high grade for his other foreign policies. The only point on which I agree with this assessment is the first, although it is the least important and, of course, was used by the right wing to attack and weaken him by outrageous methods and for the wrong reasons.
...
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/mar01herman.htm

[desi]

45. This is what I remember..

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/summary.html

[barbaraann]

48. And all of that is now being ruthlessly and systematically dismantled.

I have come to believe that if a Democratic leader is a true threat to The Powers That Be, he or she will be obliterated.

[txaslftist]

64. Thank you, Desi. And to all who say Clinton was "Republican lite"...

..read Desi's link.

Maybe eight years of prosperity, growth and peace can be viewed as a failure by some because universal medical care wasn't accomplished.

You know, universal harmony wasn't accomplished, either.

What Clinton did accomplish was a lot.

[FDR33]

49. Lay off, it wouldn't have made a differnence.

This is what the U.S people wanted obviously, as he was re-elected. You get the government you deserve.

[BoneDaddy]

51. LOL

Wow...people are waking up to the fact that Bill and Hill do not walk on water. Bout time.

They never deserved the demon/witch status given to them by the rightwing, but they are hardly the saints that some DUers make them out to be. Bush-light and part of the corporate elite, they are pure politicians.

[flordehinojos]

62. the bushes tried to kill the clintons before they even became president

and first lady--during a 60 minutes interview in which they talked about jennifer flowers...the studio lights came crashing down on them...except that some floor person saw the lights as they were coming down and pullend bill and hill to safety right quick.

poppy also told them (before that happened) that they should not run against poppy in 92 and that if they did not run against him, then, they, the bushes, would give him a pass.

can you imagine the power the bushes have to threaten a future president in that way? they are assholes and evil people.

george bush did not listen to the pope, he did not listen to millions of people around the world saying NO BLOOD FOR OIL. NO INVASION OF IRAQ. NO WAR. he wouldn't have listened to GOD and he didn't. george bush wanted to go after terrorist killers as he so often says because he is a terrorist killer himself...

not that i am taking up for the clintons...but to even say that they could have prevented the war in iraq if they had taken a different position on it... is just mind boggling.

[txaslftist]

65. Well, hell. I'm taking up for them.

Bill Clinton was a great president.

[flordehinojos]

66. yes ... he was a great president ... i loved his presidency...

but there have been times when i've not understood some of his positions such as his post-presidency friendhsip with a man (poppy) and a family (the bushes) who really tried to kill him.

i didn't think i was knocking bill clinton down in what i said (and i thought i was pretty much saying how can anyone blame clinton for the war in iraq. it is insane)...but i meant to say i am not going to say he is a god.. he is a human being like the rest of us with faults, just like the rest of us, who just happens to have great insight on being a great president ...

[radwriter0555]

82. So why would clinton embrace the people who tried to kill him? That is THE

burning question.

People DO oppose the bush regime successfully.

And I stand by my statement. The power of Bill Clinton as a charismatic and charming and well spoke and well thought out human is astounding. You have to be around it to see it, to believe it.

He is or was, loved around the world, and he had the power to stop the bush regime in its tracks.

But he has made another choice apparently.

[Ksec]

83. Im also disappointed in the Clintons

They seem to be no more than GOP lite. I have a strong feeling Hillary is gonna be our next President and that would be an improvement, but I wouldnt expect too much from a Hillary presidency. Shes playing both sides. Im gettin to the point of wishing some third party person would come in and shake up this Washington?Corporate? alliance. Its gone so far as them selling our livlehoods to communist countries. Thats just fkin obscene and no politician is looking different than any other on these types of issues.

[txaslftist]

84. If you can't tell Clinton from a Republican, you need to bone up.

I'd suggest The Hunting of the President (I forgot the author), My Life, by Bill Clinton, and Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant as jumping off points.

Clinton is not a Republican Lite. Not by any stretch, and the folks who told you that (Nader and the GOP) had reasons for doing so.

They are the same folks telling you today that there is no difference between the political parties.

The idea is simple. Keep you disgusted with your own advocates so that you don't support them and they are powerless to meaningfully combat your enemies.

In other words, divide and conquer.

Don't fall for it. The political parties are hugely different, and Clinton was hugely different from the Republicans that set out to destroy him.

[AntiFascist]

87. The PNAC and DLC share a common heritage

When it comes to foreign policy, the Third Way may just be a watered down version of the same push for worldwide imperialism.

More details at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3865

[Malikshah]

89. Don't fall victim to battered spouse syndrome

pick up your things, write them off and use it for growth.

Many of us outgrew them a while ago.

[ermoore]

90. Welcome to reality.

It may be sad, but it's definitely true that both of them are political sharks first and Democrats/progressives second. They're only gonna do whatever they think is gonna help them become President (in Hillary's case) or secure a muy favorable legacy (in Bill's). They may really believe in some things, but only God knows what those are, because they'll support or criticize anything if they think it would be advantageous for them to do so, hence Hillary started moving to the right during the runup to the war in Iraq and low-and-behold now she's a hawk. It's bullshit, but nobody in the mainstream left is calling her on it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. If you're disappointed, you weren't paying attention.

Nothning "happened". Bill and Hillary haven't changed; what's changed is your perception.

Welfare reform, the Defence of Marriage Act, "don't ask, don't tell", Hillary's position on flag-burning, et cetera -- consummate politicians, with no principle they're unwilling to sacrifice in the name of political expediency and brute self-interest. The near-idolatry with which many here regard Bill Clinton quite honestly puzzles me.