Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think Bill Clinton is irrelevant

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 01:27 AM
Original message
I think Bill Clinton is irrelevant
I am listening to TDS and he is lame

not quite as evilly lame as his wife, but lame nonetheless
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Don't you wish. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. no, I don't.
In fact, I emphatically wish he *were* relevant.

But he's worked tirelessly to make himself just another rich white guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. you can't judge a man by 1(one) show
Give him a break
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. meh. He's been neutered by Hillary and his association with the bush cabal.
Ah the irony. In terms of political positions, his wife is increasingly indistinguishable from 60's and 70's era republicans, with a strong dash of supply-side economic voodoo mixed in. He's become just glib window dressing for the stake that will be driven into the heart of the Democratic Party in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. neutered by Hillary?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Like any powerful woman, she's a 'ball breaking bitch'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. WTF are you talking about?
His role is to support her campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. "WTF" I'm talking about is your telling choice of words n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. strawman
he's a stooge for her campaign

this has nothing to do with gender, despite your uncontrollable, overwhelming desire for that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. "strawman" has got to be the most overused bit of fluff at DU
I don't get your point at all. You say Hillary "neutered" Bill Clinton. What does that mean? Why use a euphemism for cutting off his balls? Why does Bill Clinton campaigning for his wife - like every other candidate's spouse does - equate having his balls cut off?

You are so off base it's not worth having a conversation with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. then don't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Good Catch
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wishing won't make it so.
People still love BC. I just read a story about people in Pasadena lining up for as long as 16 hours to get into a bookstore where he was autographing his new book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. People love American Idol too.
I wish he was politically vital and was using his political skill to save what's left of this country.

But he's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. The guy does do good stuff in the world the media have portrayed him badly over the years...
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 07:27 AM by cooolandrew
... He's done great work since leaving office to help the environment and help combat diseases like AIDS. Whatever is said about his wife he did garner a lot of respect for America, the world had no intrest in the BJ story mostly as they saw him practice sincere diplomacy with the world and lead us to forgive him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. But it is Clinton's fault for "fill in the blank"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Not all of Clinton. Just one part of him leads us all into villainy.
Damn you, Clintonpenis! You made Ted Stevens take bribes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
42. It's Clinton's fault for the people who suffered and died because of his welfare deform.
But, his cheerleaders don't like to hear that, and get mad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hm.
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 02:26 PM by WilliamPitt
The Mission
Friday 10 October 2003
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101003A.shtml

(snip)

All this started in 1932 with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This election ushered in the phenomenon known as the New Deal - the rise of Social Security, the eventual rise of Medicare, the development of dozens of other social programs, and the enshrinement of the basic idea that the Federal government in America can be a force for good within the populace. Even in 1932, such an idea was anathema to unrestricted free-market profiteers and powerful business interests, for the rise of a powerful Federal government also heralded the rise of regulation.

Within the ebb and drift of American politics, those who stood agains tthe concepts espoused by FDR and his adherents drifted inexorably into what is now the modern Republican Party. This drift was aided by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which motivated the last vestiges of the old, racist, Confederate Democratic Party to bolt to the right. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan further widened the rift, and the progressive activism in the 1960's and 1970's solidified the battle lines. Once the shift was completed, the stage was set for the kind of political to-the-knife trench warfare that has been happening to this day.

Many issues were bandied about in the no-man's land between the lines, but at the end of the day, the issue to be tested was that basic premise brought by FDR: What will the place of the Federal government be in the lives of the American people? Can that government be a help?

Those who argued against this idea had ample rationales for their resistance, some of them uncomfortable to hear in the light of day. The activism of the Federal government brought about racial desegregation and the rise of minority rights, something a segment of the right finds unacceptable to this day. The activism of the federal government made it difficult for unrestricted free-market loyalists to secure the privatization of available mass markets like health care, insurance and Social Security. The activism of the Federal government kept mega-businesses from the ability to grow to whatever size they pleased, even though such growth was death to the basic capitalist concept of competition. The activism of the Federal government forced these businesses to spend a portion of their profits on pollution controls. The list of complaints went on and on. In a corner of their hearts, many who stood against FDR's plans did so because the rise of an activist Federal government smelled a little too much like Soviet-style communism for comfort.

And so the trenches were dug, the bayonet?s were fixed, and the war dragged on and on. The right howled that such an activist government would require the American people to be taxed to death. The right howled that public schooling did not work, and they de-funded public education on the state and local levels to prove their point. The right invented bugaboos like the "welfare queen," with her Cadillac and ten children, who avoided working and lived of the sweat from the honest man's brow. Often, the American people listened to their arguments. The rise of Ronald Reagan is evidence that their message had strength, if not merit.

The problem, as ever, became clear before too long. Unrestricted free-marketeering, deficit spending, tax cuts for the richest people in the country which would purportedly cause the trickling down of monies to the rest, unrestricted polluting, unrestricted defense spending, and the deregulation of absolutely everything, is poison to any economy that is subjected to it. George Herbert Walker Bush was left holding this particular bag in 1992, and he was not enough of a salesman to convince the American people that it was still working. This is when all hell really began to break loose.

Many people believe the statement that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had." There are a great many facts to back this assertion, but it begs the question: If Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had, why did the Republicans work every night and every day for eight years, why do they continue to work to this day, to destroy him and the economic legacy he left behind?

The answer is complex. Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act, and for a variety of other reasons. In many ways, however, this does not tell the entire story. The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle.

But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back. Only after the impeachment mayhem broke loose did the tattered threads of progressive activism come back together again, but by then the damage had been done. Certainly, there were many progressives in America who fought the good fight every step of the way, but there were not enough of them. Progressives in 2003 who label Clinton as 'Republican' should take a long look in the mirror, and remember what they were not doing from 1993 to 1998, before casting final judgment. I am, sadly, one who has trouble facing that mirror.

An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

This was why he had to be destroyed.


The rest is coda. The impeachment, funded by right-wing activists and business interests, stormed along by a mainstream media whose Reagan-era deregulated status led to a complete breakdown in journalistic ethics, and all buttressed by years of unsubstantiated scandals pushed along by congressional zealots with subpoena power, left the American population exhausted enough to vote against their own best interests in 2000. Too many didn't vote at all. The "Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!" drumbeat that lasted over 2,000 days drove the voters into thinking a change was required. Though Gore won the election, the margin of victory was small enough to be exposed to theft by a partisan Supreme Court which, by rights, should not have come within a country mile of touching that case. A corrupted news media, again, pushed the whole farce along.

Now, we have a nation run by profiteers who preach the gospel of privatization in all things. When Bush, on October 4, 2001, argued that more massive tax cuts for rich people were needed to "counteract the shockwave of the evildoer," while a pall of poison smoke still hung over New York City, the truth was there for all to see. Now, pollution controls have ceased to exist, and the private realm of defense contractors are seeing more money than they ever dreamed they could. The simple truth that the Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, a truth realized in 1998, has been flushed down the toilet by a pack of right-wing activists who are links in a chain of warfare that stretches back to 1932.

Mission accomplished indeed.

The fallout from this has been extreme. Trickle-down economics have returned to America, with the inevitable economic downturn and unemployment riding sidecar. The Federal Treasury, once full to bursting, has been looted completely. This, in the end, was the mission. That money could not be allowed to stay in the Treasury, because the American people would have expected it to be used to fund the programs they depend on. The Bush administration moved every penny of that money into the wealthiest portions of the private sector, using September 11 and terrorism and fear and war as an excuse to storm the trenches their forefathers had been shooting into for over 70 years. It was a smash-and-grab robbery writ large.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. he was clearly to the right
not a champion of the middle class, definitely not a champion of workers--he is a rabid "Free marketeer"

not a champion of the environment

a champion of corporations, a champion of the wealthy

his main attribute was competence, unlike any other repuke presidents we've ever had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. If that's the yardstick, Bush is the most competent president in American history.
Or do you think all this has been accidental, the product of incompetence?

This hasn't been one big "Oops."

So, given that, your characterization of the Clinton administration is not only flawed, it is uninformed.

"His main attribute was competence" indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. At allowing the powers behind his throne to achieve their ends
without federal interference, king george IS the most competent figurehead in repuke presidential history (at least post-FDR).

In terms of governance, bush just doesn't even show up. It's not part of his agenda. We can keep missing the point by calling that "incompetence" I suppose.

Clinton was a competent leader of government. He had an agenda and did pretty well at implementing it.

I'm so flawed and uninformed, I should just shut up and go away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. excellent posts throughout this thread, LOD, especially to that crock of a post #9.
Clinton was 'destroyed' by the right and the media not because of his policies, but because, like ANY democrat, he represents "the enemy," and only total destruction works for fascists, which is what they are....the other party, along with its media handmaidens

clinton's VERY modest progressive legacy has been so far overshadowed by his cooperation with the global corporate agenda (made even more obvious and disgusting by his subsequent marriage to the Bush family), as to make any claims for his being any sort of progressive sound like results of some sort of delusional politico/economic Stockholm Syndrome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. And the repukes didn't like
Clinton even though he was "the best republican president" because they're fucking fascists..that's an easy one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. champions and chimpions.
not a chimpion of the middle class, definitely not a chimpion of workers--he is a rabid "Free marketeer"
not a chimpion of the environment
a chimpion of corporations, a chimpion of the wealthy

fuck nader!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. I think Steve Earle captured it very well
It's Christmastime in Washington
The Democrats rehearsed
Gettin' into gear for four more years
Of things not gettin' worse
The Republicans drank whiskey neat
And thanked their lucky stars
They said, 'He cannot seek another term
There'll be no more FDRs'
I sat home in Tennessee
Staring at the screen
With an uneasy feeling in my chest
And I'm wonderin' what it means

Clinton was in no way a progressive president. He oversaw the institutionalization of free market ideology that has gutted the American worker and carried the neoliberal economic agenda farther and faster than either reagan or bush I were able to do, the curtailing of welfare, the first steps down the slippery slope of domestic surveillance, the unprecedented centralization of wealth . . .

He kept some things from getting worse. Other things not so much. He was far, far better than the bush cabal, who hated him for delaying their plans for pax Americana and for not being one of them.

The bush cabal are the biggest thieves and worst criminals in earth's history IMHO, but that has nothing to do with Clinton's record or the current irrelevance he has carved out for himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
56. Thanks for making me read your stuff.
It was worth going to the original.

And then banging my head against the desk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. Aye, a two tearm United States President with a strong record of success...
Not relevant, clearly.

/sarcasm off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Soon as Hillary got in the race I lost interest in him
He just became another stooge in her campaign machine as far asI could see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. I thnk you are correct. I guess that is somewhat unavoidable.
but you'd think he'd have something meaningful to say about the overwhelming problems facing what's left of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrongBad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. What were you expecting on TDS?
That's quite a hefty standard to apply to someone appearing on a comedic television show.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. Jon Stewart is on that show every night
and he has somehow remained relevant

With the raging shitstorm that is raging in what's left of this country, I would have thought Clinton would have had something to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. The Big Dog can NEVER be irrelevant and his wife is the opposite of evil.
I truly truly hope she stays in the Senate and fights the good fight for another 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. REGARDLESS of what happens with his wife's ambitions, he will never be irrelevant.
He's probably the best politician to come along in the last 100 years. Great tactician and smarter than holy hell. His advice will always be sought out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. skilled politician
with no office to run for

(except first gentleman)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #24
47. He was an excellent, skilled campaigner.
His skill at directing governance was not nearly as cunning or savvy. The post #9 makes it sound like progressives didn't have his back and go out and defend him. But very early in his presidency, he caved or misstepped on several key issues. One of his first major initiatives was gays in the military. He introduced himself to the country with this. That's like going on a first date and talking about your therapy sessions. Win them over first. Not that the issue isn't important, but tactical suicide to bring up such a divisive issue first. Build up good sentiment, then do it. He also completely caved on backing his staff like Jocelyn Elders, or his choice for the civil rights division Lani Guinier. These were excellent, competent people for the position, and Clinton bailed. This was in the first two years.

If you don't stand up to bullies hoping they will just go away, the opposite happens-they become emboldened. They sense your weakness and will relentlessly pounce. And that's just what happened for the next six years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
59. agree there!
I'm not a HRC fan, but I'd elect Bill to a 3rd term in a heartbeat if we could!

I can only assume he would excert some influence behind the scenes should HRC get the nod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
25. Ihateallthingsclinton.com is a different web site
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. what makes you think I hate him?
that's a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. I wish you were right. 8 years were enough.
And, 4 more years would be two many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
27. Love him
I could care less what one person thinks - love the guy - would love to have him back again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
30. He's not irrelevant but he chose to abandon the opportunity
to take on a leadership position for the progressive majority...and that's lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
31. i agree. he just sounds so yesterday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. So last century..bb.
Before buSHIT took over.

I don't think Bill Clinton is "irrelevant" to a lot of things but he's irrelevant to me right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
34. He's not irrelevant
He gave the comics of the world enough penis jokes to last them a lifetime....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. As Opposed To Bush*
As opposed to Bush* who gave the comics of the world enough idiot jokes to last them a lifetime....


I would rather be famous for getting blowjobs than for being an idiot but that's just me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lateo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
43. I agree.
He has become far too close to the Bush family. It is a shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. that's inexplicable
I sense a major "I've got mine, so why sweat it" attitude too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mustang Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
44. Like all of his humanitarian work
The Clinton Global Initiative, his work with HIV/AIDS, poverty, world hunger, obesity in schools, raising money after the tsunami. The list is quite long. Wish I could be that irrelevant. Whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
46. He's a charismatic and cunning tool who was groomed for a long time...
because the most ambitious are often the most corruptible.
I am AMAZED at those who consider TeamClinton to be progressive saviors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. They Must Have Got To Him In The Womb
Because he wanted to be president from the moment he could think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. No...Georgetown
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
49. I'm not so sure he is free to speak
There's the supposed unwritten rule of a former president not criticizing a sitting one. Also, any provocative statements on his part may give even more ammo to the pubs against his wife. Lastly, this is an unprecedented case-the spouse of a former president running for the same office. What's the protocol? It's being made up as they go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
50. I'm sure he'd think you' re irrelevant--if he knew you existed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. yeah?
well my dad could beat up your dad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
51. Agreed. I feel the same about Gore.
The way Gore abandoned disenfranchised african-american voters was appalling. Doesn't anyone here remember the opening scenes of
Fahrenheit 911 when Gore gavelled down the african-american representatives when they tried to find a senator to help them get their constituents votes recognized?

Could he have done anything? I don't know, but he seemed too willing to hand the election to Bush.

Who could have predicted that the Bush administration would run this country into the ground? Myself for one. I would have gladly manned the barricades for Gore, had he only said the word.

Why does anyone here think he will guard their interests if given the chance? I would love to know, but I expect only flames.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. Gore's hype of the environment made him rich too... he tells people they need to cut back...
So when he himself doesn't cut back, that kinda hampers his own credibility.

http://www.badapple.biz - I've not been to that site in a while, but there's a timeline of Gore's involvement as a board member. To make a long story short, it's interesting when he hypes up environmental issues and when he doesn't...

Maybe there is no environmental problem? (and 'carbon credits' is equatable to 'credit cards' as far as I'm concerned...)

And he'd say the economy is just fine too, no doubt.

But Mr. Gore did seem to be less willing to quit compared to Kerry, who gave up about 12 hours into the next day...

I know, I hear you on that issue, and I've noticed more since. I lost faith in Al Gore. And I too expect to be flame broiled like a chicken...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. it's hard to call "Inconvenient Truth" and its effect on the global warming issue
irrelevant.

Clinton has done no such thing.

Politically, in the context of framing the debate for 2008, I think Clinton has nothing of value to say. If he speaks out forcefully, he'll be accused of upstaging Hillary. So he has to sit back and be supportive of whatever her campaign comes up with (which so far is a stream of repuke-lite crap).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommy_Carcetti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. Well, then, you've certainly convinced me...
Edited on Mon Sep-24-07 01:11 PM by PeterU
Thank you for that thought-out and deeply substantive argument as to why our 42nd President is "lame", and his wife is "evilly (sic) lame". :sarcasm:

While he was far from perfect--and what elected official is perfect, may I ask you--he was one of the most intelligent men to hold the Oval Office, had one of the most inspiring life stories one could imagine, and has one of the most dynamic and . Although there were certain policy flaws one can point out during his eight year tenure, on the whole this country was far better off upon the completion of his term than when he begun it. Our economy was prosperous, and our standing in the world was respected.

And while I am somewhat lukewarm about his wife as a presidential candidate, I still feel she is more than capable to hold the office of President, and stands as far superior to anyone in the Republican slate who they would offer as a nominee. And her presidency would allow for a return of her husband to the public light, which would go lightyears in repairing our broken image to the rest of the world, given the popularity he has overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
58. That's nice. Incorrect, but nice. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC