The real reason for the left's loathing for the Clintons...they are successful...

[SaveElmer]

The fact that a centrist DLC member, and not some raving far left loony was the most successful President in a generation just sticks in the craw of our "progressive" friends. And the fact that this President's wife is a highly successful Senator and the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination drives them to apoplexy...

It is just something they cannot abide, so they make common cause with the far right in a pathetic effort to trash them. Nothing is out of bounds when it comes to the Clintons, no conspiracy theory is too outlandish, no insult to outrageous, no media source too right wing, and no charge too scurrilous for this merry little band.

Because a successful centrist is inconsistent with the left wing meme that only a true "populist progressive" can move the country forward, it is vital that they convince the rest of us that what we saw and experienced in the 90's didn't really happen!

It ain't gonna work, the American people have made their judgment on the Clinton legacy, and upwards of 65% of them like what they saw...

[paulk]

1. that's not all of it

Kerry got a 24/7 trashing from the same crowd, as did Gore. There's a certain subset of the left that just....

feels it validates itself by being contrarians . Still rebelling against mom & dad, maybe.

[papau]

33. LOL - that may well be true! n/t

n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. ...

:popcorn:

[leftofthedial]

3. I don't hate the Clintons

I thought Bill was a successful President--certainly the most successful of the post-WWII era. Not perfect. He failed miserably on environmental and many key class war issues.

If Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her. But it is her record and her own words, not her "success," that prevents me from supporting her during the primaries.

[Javaman]

189. Well said. nt

[Jim Sagle]

4. So he won in 92 in a 3-way split between 2 Pubs.

Then he beat a used-up, sour old crank in 96.

Along the way he lost the House and the Senate, gave away the media with his Telecommunications Act, and did a slo-mo Katrina on the Democratic base with his Nafta trade policy.

Now he's defending Bush Sr. and his wife is busy trashing other Dems instead of the Pugs.

Yeah, he's a big success for the Pugs.

He's a Republican. Fuck'm.

[SaveElmer]

6. Thanks...it's always nice to have evidence to back up ones assertion...

And you provided a stellar example!!!

[wyldwolf]

7. Wow! You ran the table on every leftwing myth about the Clintons

So he won in 92 in a 3-way split between 2 Pubs.

Exit polling and electoral analysis prove Clinton would have won anyway without Perot in the race.

Along the way he lost the House and the Senate,

There is no evidence to suggest that. But there is evidence to suggest the house and senate were lost by the far left. C'mom. Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

did a slo-mo Katrina on the Democratic base with his Nafta trade policy.

Stats? No? Base? Define.

[ProudDad]

165. Wrong as usual, wolf

The CONSERVATIVE, CROOKED Dems lost the House in '94. There was the same tiny progressive minority in Congress that there is now.

Sorry, no cigar for that old canard.

[wyldwolf]

244. wrong as usual, pappy

The liberal crooked dems lost in '94.

As usual, there is no statistical evidence to support your claim.

[enough already]

184. "Along the way he lost the House and the Senate,"

"There is no evidence to suggest that."

Other than the fact that we lost the House and Senate on his watch...

[wyldwolf]

292. but that isn't evidence

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

By your reasoning, In 1938, it was FDR's fault when Republicans gained 81 House seats and again In the mid-term election of 1942, when Democrats lost 44 seats in the House of Representatives.

George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis suffered huge defeats in their 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 presidential runs. Must have been the Democratic party's fault because they controlled the house and the senate each time.

[Radical Activist]

214. Clinton ran as a progressive in '92.

And couldn't even get a majority of the vote against Dole. That doesn't say much for the appeal of wishy-wasy centrism.

[wyldwolf]

245. no, he did not.

He ran on a platform of welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tough crime initiatives. He states in his book he ran as a DLC Democrat.

There was also a third party candidate in 92 and 96 (who did much better than that loser you support, Nader.)

[Radical Activist]

249. No. I remember.

Remember what was said at the time? Carville said there were three themes to that campaign:
It's the economy stupid
Change v. More of the Same
Don't forget healthcare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

Clinton won by being an economic populist who promised universal healthcare. He also opposed signing NAFTA unless there were changes made for labor and the environment...during the campaign at least. You're promoting revisionist history. He may have governed as a moderate but he ran as a populist progressive in '92.

[wyldwolf]

255. Finding a passage in Wikipedia isn't the same as "remembering."

Here are Clinton's own words about the DLC and his '92 campaign:

In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation... I said the DLC stood for a modern, mainstream agenda: the expansion of opportunity, not bureaucracy; choice in public schools and child care; responsibility and empowerment for poor people; and reinventing government, away from the top-down bureaucracy of the industrial era, to a leaner, more flexible, more innovative model appropriate for the modern global economy... I was trying to develop a national message for the Democrats, and the effort fueled speculation that I might enter the presidential race in 1992... During the 1992 campaign, I told a full house at Macomb County Community College that I would give them a new Democratic Party, with economic and social policies based on opportunity for and responsibility from all citizens...

MY LIFE
by Bill Clinton

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

Are you going to accuse Clinton of "promoting revisionist history?"

Here are other references to his '92 "New Democrat" campaign:

Clinton’s campaign focused on domestic issues, particularly the economy. He ran as a “New Democrat,” a term coined by the Democratic Leadership Council to describe a new type of moderate Democrat.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/Bill_Clinton.html

Transcript of 1992 Clinton/Gore TV Ad:

ANNOUNCER: They are a new generation of Democrats—Bill Clinton and Al Gore—and they don't think the way the old Democratic Party did. They've called for an end to welfare as we know it, so welfare can be a second chance, not a way of life. They've sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty and they've rejected the old tax and spend politics. Clinton's balanced 12 budgets and they've proposed a new plan investing in people, detailing $140 billion in spending cuts they'd make right now. Clinton/Gore. For people, for a change.

Also check the one where he lays out his welfare reform plans.

http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?ad_id=963

[Radical Activist]

262. Welfare Reform is a liberal issue as well.

It depends on the mode of reform.
Yes, it is revisionist history to claim that welfare reform was the main focus of his campaign when, one, he didn't actually reform welfare until 1995, and second, you have James Carville in the wikipedia quote (which I provided in case you forgot our doubted me, not because I didn't remember), which was posted in the campaign office. That phrase was posted in the campaign office so that campaign staff would remember what the campaign was about. If you want to know what Clinton ran on in '92, there is no more accurate answer than those three statements.

Sorry, but the fact that Clinton supported welfare reform (is that the only issue you can come up with?) doesn't mean he wasn't running a populist progressive campaign on economic issues, including universal health care, which is what really happened.

[wyldwolf]

272. Clinton was quite clear in the type he was after

...and it was criticized by the left in 1992.

Yes, it is revisionist history to claim that welfare reform was the main focus of his campaign when, one, he didn't actually reform welfare until 1995, and second, you have James Carville in the wikipedia quote (which I provided in case you forgot our doubted me, not because I didn't remember), which was posted in the campaign office. That phrase was posted in the campaign office so that campaign staff would remember what the campaign was about. If you want to know what Clinton ran on in '92, there is no more accurate answer than those three statements.

Here's the problem with the above statement:

1. I didn't say welfare reform was the main focus of the campaign. Here is a quote of my exact words: "He ran on a platform of welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tough crime initiatives." I also drew attention to a TV commercial where he said he'd end welfare as we know it. The plan he campaigned on was pretty close to what we got and had been advocated by the DLC since the mid 80s:

From Sept. of 1992:

Attempting to show that he is a "different kind of Democrat," Bill Clinton on Wednesday outlined his plan to overhaul the nation's welfare system and stop the steady rise in taxes that pay for it. The core of his program would provide welfare recipients with education, training, child care and transportation for two years, then send them to work in the private sector or community service...

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB3477664F8E4AE&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

These are the EXACT welfare reform measure the left hated then, when it happened, and even now.

Here, from Feb. 1992:

Democratic presidential candidates this year have veered from traditional party positions on many social issues.

In some areas they are unable to pass muster on what in the past have been Democratic litmus tests. For instance, they are all for abortion rights, but not necessarily without any restrictions, which has been the politically correct position among party insiders. Most support the death penalty in some cases, something party nominees have been against in recent years. Clinton has proposed a welfare reform plan that breaks with party doctrine...

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=RM&p_theme=rm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB4D9D98DB31813&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

It really is quite ludicrous to claim he didn't campaign on welfare reform and that the left was accepting of it in 1992.

2. Of course he also ran on the economy - but his economic plans (cutting the deficit, budget, tax cuts) were ANOTHER thing the left had been against since, oh, forever, because that would entail cutting entitlement programs.

Here, again, is an example of a liberal condemning Clintons's budget plans from Feb. 1992:

The middle-class tax cuts proposed by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton are "economic nonsense" created by misguided pollsters, former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas said yesterday, but he said his own economic plan would create jobs. "The middle-class tax cut was the answer to the question: How do you appeal to middle-class voters. Not the answer to the question: How do you stimulate the economy?"

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DP&p_theme=dp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB1DA8DC052E930&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

3. Welfare reform was actually passed August 22, 1996, NOT 1995.

Sorry, but the fact that Clinton supported welfare reform (is that the only issue you can come up with?)

Again, weren't you paying attention? My quote: "He ran on a platform of welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tough crime initiatives."

If you believe Clinton ran as a populist, then you believe the DLC populist and the rest of the party in 1992 was not.

Or you think Clinton and everyone else is lying when he/they say he ran as a DLC Democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

357. Clinton ran exactly as he intended to govern

The thing is that he emphasized the more liberal parts of his agenda in the first two years of his presidency. Health care, gays in the military, and a tax increase were the three biggest parts of his agenda for his first two years. All three turned out to be a miserable failures and the GOP won Congress in 1994.

This lead Clinton to start emphasizing the more centrist parts of his agenda like Welfare Reform and balancing the budget. Welfare Reform didn't turn out exactly as Clinton wanted it, but he wasn't expecting to have to do it with a GOP Congress when he ran for President in 1992.

I think the biggest shame of Clinton's Presidency was that he made several big political mistakes in the first two years of his presidency that lead to the failure of his more liberal policies.

[k_jerome]

124. as are you....common ground. nt.

[Jim Sagle]

152. That's a lie. Take it back.

[mtnsnake]

332. You nailed it. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

148. Clinton would have beaten Bush in a two way race

Exit polls showed that if Perot hadn't been in the race his voters would've been approximately 1/3 Clinton, 1/3 Bush, 1/3 stayed home. Every analysis on the electoral college not done by right wing hacks shows that Clinton would've won it, although it probably would've been closer.

When Perot dropped out during the Democratic National Convention, Clinton lead Bush in double digits.

I'm critical of many Clinton policies but he was a master politician and he won the '92 election no matter how you look at it.

[mtnsnake]

327. The shit you make up about the Clintons stinks clear across the universe. nt

[wyldwolf]

5. Well, sure, and they resort to the same talking points the right uses...

...talking points they, themselves, probably defunked at one time or another. Look at post 4 in this thread as an example.

What I'm finding fascinating as I read several sources this morning is the roots of the Clinton-Geffen fued. Seems Clinton didn't pardon the right criminal for Geffen, so Geffen has this vendetta.

[papau]

38. Interesting - I missed that - who was needing a pardon that did not get it - Mark Rich did

deserve a pardon as he was screwed for daring to do what every big oil company in the US did.............. interpret the tax law in a way most favorable to himself, and to "set up subs to get around can't deal with that country or that country but its ok to deal with that country's companies" rules.

The oil companies got fines - but Reagan went after him for jail time because he was not big oil (albeit rich - he also was not a big GOP donor). Every tax expert in the country supported the pardon because we could not do the business of giving advise based on more likely than not this is how this provision should work in practice - if every time one was wrong one went to jail unless you were advising a big oil company that was also a major donor to the GOP.

[wyldwolf]

43. Geffen wanted convicted killer Leonard Peltier pardoned.

Some sources say Clinton may have told Geffen he would pardon Leonard Peltier, but when word leaked and 500 or so FBI agents and their families protested outside the White House, Clinton didn't grant the pardon.

Peltier was convicted of killing two FBI agents, one execution style.

[papau]

61. Thanks - that completely changes the tone of the Geffen quote the media sold us n/t

More from Dowd:

They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
***
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548043

[ProudDad]

168. Another red herring

from the poison pen of the wolfster...

[wyldwolf]

191. the truth is a red herring to those who can't stand it... right pappa?

[manic expression]

287. And yet again

you employ childish comments instead of using reason.

[wyldwolf]

295. Mr. Spectre, I employ the tactics my opponents do.

[manic expression]

298. No you don't

that is clear from reading this thread.

[wyldwolf]

Yes I do

that is clear from reading this thread.

[manic expression]

302. Another example

you prove yourself wrong pretty well.

[wyldwolf]

305. Exactly. I've proven myself correct once again.

[manic expression]

306. Not really

but nice try.

[wyldwolf]

308. totally. And thank you!

[manic expression]

310. Don't mention it n/t

[wyldwolf]

312. sure thing!

[manic expression]

313. Yup n/t

[wyldwolf]

316. yup!

[manic expression]

322. see post below n/t

[wyldwolf]

325. I have

[manic expression]

328. Good n/t

[wyldwolf]

331. it is good.

[manic expression]

336. Yup n/t

[wyldwolf]

339. yup

[manic expression]

343. Again

are we done here?

[wyldwolf]

346. maybe...

[manic expression]

348. Go ahead and have the last word

(if you want to) they're for fools who haven't said enough already.

[wyldwolf]

351. ok. Nite nite!

[wyldwolf]

[saltpoint]

8. Respectfully disagree, SaveElmer. Mario Cuomo was widely expected to

enter the 1992 primaries. His plane was fueling on the tarmac in Albany and he was on schedule to fly up to New Hampshire that night, just ahead of the filing deadline, to announce for the presidency. A call came from (or to?) Bill Clinton, and some time later, Cuomo signaled for the plane's pilot to kill the engine and cancel the flight.

From there Clinton had a much less daunting task at securing the nomination, Paul Tsongas' regional support in New England notwithstanding.

In office, I think further-left voters admired some of Clinton's presidency, even as they winced at it over issues like don't-ask-don't-tell, public welfare, and so forth. He wasn't my first, second, third, or fourth choice for the nomination, but I fiercely defended him against the impeachment proceedings.

Do you remember by any chance when David Brinkley was being interviewed on an ABC program anchored by Peter Jennings? Brinkley was asked his thoughts on the Clinton presidency and told Jennings, imagining himself off-camera and off-mike, "He's a goddamned bore." Maybe for Brinkley, and maybe for the activist left that's true. But Bill put the whomp on hapless Bob Dole like nobody's business. Who knows what the Republicans were thinking by nominating Dole.

The Big Dawg can bring a room of voters to its feet if they're Democrats and repel another room of Republicans. The Clinton campaign operatives are very good at what they do, but they have never been universally acclaimed. Senator Clinton is downstream from all of that disaffection, as well as the beneficiary of her husband's successes and profile.

I don't begrudge anybody his or her successes, even if I value the accomplishments of others more for different reasons.

Senator Clinton may be our nominee, or 6 months from now we may see her withdraw from the race. She does not have her husband's speaking ability, which is his ticket to being "the most popular man in the world right now," in Hillary's accurate phrase. Vilsack, now out of the race, was drawing around 11-12% in his home state. Edwards is leading with 24%. Clinton is registering impressively, but not as strongly as Dick Gephardt was at this time in 2004. It's very volatile.

Most of the Left wishes for the success of women candidates, minority candidates, and administrations favorable to the rights and dignities of all the public. I think the resentment directed at Senator Clinton has to do with her and her husband's political operatives, and not her gender, her qualifications, her gleaming credentials, or her considerable accomplishments.

[SaveElmer]

17. Hey Crusoe...

My comments are more directed at the many folks here and on sites such as Kos that peddle these falsehoods about the Clintons. A cursory look around will show you how many there truly are.

There are many, many threads here and elsewhere dedicated to convincing us that Bill Clinton was not a successful President...and that simply is not true...

I have no problem with political disagreements on issues, or with people preferring other candidates, but to try and trash the accomplishments of a successful President with outlandish conspiracy theories etc are the same tactics used by the right wing who had no one they could point to as successful.

For many a successful centrist calls into question the notion that only a Kucinnch or Feingold type Progressive can move the country forward...Bill Clinton's Presidency put the lie to that notion...

[saltpoint]

25. The junior senator from New York has my vote and full support if she is

our nominee. I more than half expect she has the organization and funding to make that happen.

Regarding Kos. I no longer visit that site at all. They're a messy bunch over there, and the gobs of mud being slung have knives in them. It's often nasty, more back-biting than informative, and I'm not all that fond of burnt orange lettering.

I understand your frustration regarding the debasing of candidates. And share it. Bill Clinton's two terms speak for themselves. I find that a very good argument on Bill Clinton is his Supreme Court appointments. Would that he could have made a few more. I'm MUCH less encouraged by Dubya's, needless to say.

One hinge question in politics at the presidential level is whether a voter wishes to live in (Bob Dole)'s America or (Bill Clinton)'s America, which is tantamount to asking whether you want Republican nutcases filling judicial seats or Democratic presidents filling them. If Evan Bayh is not my very favorite Democrat, his two terms as Indiana Governor, for example, were endlessly superior to any of the psychotic Republicans who would have served instead. In New York, what Democrat would prefer George Pataki to Eliot Spitzer? Not me.

[election_2004]

39. I agree with everything you've said

Add to that how many of Senator Clinton's most vocal, virulent supporters -- both online and offline -- have adopted the repugnant Carvillean/Begalan/McAuliffite tactic of jumping into good ole boy junkyard dog mode and attacking anyone who disagrees with their approach to politics (and candidates-of-choice)...regardless of whether the critics are far left, far right, center/left, center/right, or moderate.

These attacks also include personal invectives against the motives and character of any critics. They HATE whistle-blowers and rabble-rousers from all across the ideological spectrum, because we threaten to "rock the boat" and disrupt the traditional partisan dichotomy of employing personal destruction while holding the general electorate at the mercy of "lesser-of-two-evilism."

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING, and I will not have any part in supporting this kind of tactic...regardless of whether it comes from a Republican Noise Machine or a Democratic Noise Machine.

I can easily picture Carville and Matalin rolling around in bed together, laughing giddily at all of us "common folk" who span the entire spectrum from Left to Right, and winking at each other about how we're all playing directly into their hands.

[saltpoint]

120. Hi, election_2004. On Begala, I am always resentful of being placed in

the tug-of-war between a person's vivid intelligence and his or her rudeness and dismissive attitude toward people I hold high -- in this case Howard Dean.

I have a lot of personal and political respect for Dean, and it ruffled my feathers to hear Begala take untoward potshots at him, especially after a rather impressive re-capture of both chambers of the Congress. If I'm a fool for supporting the 50-state strategy, I'll wear the badge merrily.

Some DU Democrats and independent progressives live in deeply red counties. At the base level, I think Dean wants their participation acknowledged, their vote counted, and their enthusiasm tapped. He believes it lifts all boats, and I think we should include them in any national focus and campaign.

[election_2004]

157. I have a lot of admiration for Governor Dean

He had the guts to sign the civil unions compromise in Vermont, even when it could have damaged his political career.

And Begala is a sniveling little know-it-all; I just want to punch him in the face everytime he appears on TV.

[saltpoint]

176. Dean did sign that legislation, and I love that as a physician he was

very authoritative in his support of it. Had it actually threatened anybody's heterosexual marriage or relationship, who else but a physician to assess the dangers? When the ink dried on that signature, any far-right nutbags hanging around to criticize their governor had to pretty much shut their hateful mouths, as a pro had spoken.

Good point.

[Auntie Bush]

153. Aren't you getting a little carried away...especially with that last paragraph?

That's gonna change a lot of minds!

"ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING, and I will not have any part in supporting this kind of tactic...regardless of whether it comes from a Republican Noise Machine or a Democratic Noise Machine.

I can easily picture Carville and Matalin rolling around in bed together, laughing giddily at all of us "common folk" who span the entire spectrum from Left to Right, and winking at each other about how we're all playing directly into their hands.

When Carville helped us win the 1994 election...he and Matalin were rolling around in the same bed...unless they got a new one!

Geeze...you need more subtenant reasons than that! Sounds freeperish in content. :spank:

[election_2004]

156. One flaw with your supposition

When Carville helped us win the 1994 election...he and Matalin were rolling around in the same bed...unless they got a new one!

Don't you mean 1992?

And one difference: the BFEE was at its weakest (at that point in history, anyway) during the 1992 presidential election. Matalin was probably contemplating her masters' next move while sleeping with the enemy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I don't hate them at all.

In fact, I'd swap Bill for any Republick in a heartbeat. But I will support a candidate other than Hillary in the primaries because of her triangulation, her trying to be all things to all people, her refusal to admit mistakes about anything, her sucking up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, and her focus-group-approved statements about everything. I don't hate her and would support her against a Republick, but I really think we could do better. How does that make me a lunatic-fringe leftie?

[papau]

65. nope - indeed having an opinion is what DU is all about - I also support any Dem in the general n/t

n/t

[OneBlueSky]

10. the misconception here is that the Clintons are centrists . . . they are not . . .

because what's generally considered the center today is what was extreme right-wing in years past . . . today's left used to be the center -- and today's extreme right used to be Nazi Germany . . .

the Clintons are died-in-the-wool corporatists who represent the corporate rulers and who are careful to do or say nothing that might reign in corporate excesses, illegalities -- and, most importantly, profits . . .

nothing to prevent corporations from externalizing costs . . .

nothing to prevent corporations from outsourcing jobs . . .

nothing to prevent corporations from avoiding product liability lawsuits . . .

nothing to prevent corporations from avoiding income taxes . . .

nothing to prevent corporations from charging usurious interest rates . . .

nothing to prevent corporations from devastating the environment . . .

to our corporate rulers, Hillary Clinton is just as acceptable as George Bush . . . both support the status quo -- the same status quo that has brought us the Iraq war, environmental devastation, arms proliferation, job outsourcing, the healthcare crisis, uncared for veterans, and all the rest of it . . . ANY president who is a confirmed corporatist is perfectly acceptable to those who really run things . . .

what our corporate rulers do NOT want -- and will NOT tolerate -- is a populist president . . . i.e. someone who WILL regulate corporations, curtail corporate excesses and illegalities and, in doing so, necessarily impact corporate profits . . . and they will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in their (not inconsiderable) power to prevent that from happening . . .

[wyldwolf]

29. they are centrists

because what's generally considered the center today is what was extreme right-wing in years past . . . today's left used to be the center -- and today's extreme right used to be Nazi Germany . . .

We are referring to today - not "years past."

Todays "left" have never been the center. They weren't the center in the late 60s nor were they in '48.

[papau]

63. corporations from avoiding income taxes" Clinton did the first inforcement of IRS Code Section 482 -

it stopped for a while the practice of dumping taxes into the ocean via international fake transactions, and domestic lies about cost of product and how the profit was really made outside the US and therefore can't be taxed here.

Under Bush that 33% tax rate is getting us under 10% of real profits as taxes - and near zero or zero in some cases - from our corporate citizens.

[enough already]

185. Very well stated n/t

[SoFlaJet]

11. What are you crazy?

I think we are a party in transition and would rather go forward than back to another Clinton administration.I loved Bill Clinton but have really come to dislike the same team of Carville McCauliffe and Hillary.Could have something to do with Howard Dean's treatment from that crowd.Also, I don't know what it is about Hillary that really turns me off-I just don't..all I know is I could NEVER see myself voting for her in a primary and if Chack Hagle were the republic party's choice would even consider HIM before her...consider...

[Ninja Jordan]

12. I like Bill Clinton; I like Hillary Clinton as a Senator; I don't like Hillary Clinton as president

We haveplenty of candidates. We do not need the wife of a former president.

[k_jerome]

125. we are secure enough in our candidate not to stress about her name. nt.

[mtnsnake]

13. Not only the American people

In Bill's case, the entire WORLD has made up its mind. The man is legendary across the globe and treated as a rock star wherever he goes. There's a reason for that.

[ProudDad]

169. Yeah, there's a reason

they now compare him to bush...

The Clinton depravations are well hidden now when compared with the bushies...

[nevergiveup]

14. I consider myself

a moderate and I was a huge Bill Clinton supporter and yet I am totally against Hillary winning the Democratic Primary because I don't think she has a prayer of being elected president. I have not and will not trash her but I think she is a sure loser on a national level. You have to be careful not to throw everyone who opposes Hillary into the same bag.

[SaveElmer]

19. ...

"I have not and will not trash her but I think she is a sure loser on a national level. You have to be careful not to throw everyone who opposes Hillary into the same bag."

Well then I certainly would not be including you in these comments...

As these types of threads are rampant, and as it would be impossible for me to poll all 100K DU'ers before posting...I am going to have to trust that folks who do not engage in these types of tactics know they are not included in my comments...

A cursory look at the boards around here and on other sites will reveal the type of thing I am talking about...they aren't too hard to find!

[wyldwolf]

15. The "progressive's" revisionist history of Bill Clinton

Ed Kilgore has a great post over at NewDonkey referencing the belief by Scott Winship of Democratic Strategist that the netroots have bought into a revisionist take on Clintonism that is “inaccurate and strategically misleading.” In particular, Kilgore sets down these five “truths” the netroots often refer to, even though they are false:

1) Bill Clinton got elected by accident (a combination of Bush 41’s political stupidity, and Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy), and then spent much of his first term betraying his core progressive constituency by focusing on deficit reduction, supporting free trade, and refusing to fight for single-payer universal health care;

2) After his first-term record discouraged the Democratic base and created a Republican landslide, Clinton got re-elected by “triangulating,” caving into Republicans on welfare reform in particular.

3) Clinton’s apostasy from progressive principles led to a meltdown of the Democratic Party in Congress and in the states.

4) Clinton’s political guidance snuffed Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, and his “centrist DLC” acolytes led Democrats into an appeasement strategy that killed the party in 2002 and 2004. Moreover, it became obvious that Clintonism represented not just appeasement of the political Right, but a subservience to corporate interests that Clintonites relied on for campaign contributions.

5) The revival of the Left and of the Democratic Party in 2006 involved an implicit repudiation of Clintonism.

The problem the left has with Bill Clinton is the exact same problem the right has with him - he won and was successful doing things DIFFERENTLY than THEY would have done it. The black and white thinking of the partisan left can’t or won’t see the fine details of successful governance. A president can’t simply snap his fingers and get key red meat legislation passed for the most rabid members of his/her party. The most successful AMERICAN presidents, be they Democrat or Republican, have been masters of the political compromise. Clinton falls into that category which is why he left office with a 73% approval rating among Americans yet he’s still deplored by the rabid left and right.

[SaveElmer]

22. You said it better than I did...nt

[amandabeech]

116. Some of us thought that NAFTA, Most Favored Nation for China,

and Bob Rubin's general corporate globalism would be bad for working Americans. Some of us think that today.

I see nothing from Sen. Clinton that would cause me to think that her views on jobs and trade are any different from Bill's.

Accordingly, I won't vote for her in the primaries.

I will vote for her in the general election, however.

[JeremyWestenn]

141. QFT. QFMFT.

[Codeblue]

143. It's funny

I consider myself to be part of the "far left" and most of my friends would also put me there. However, I loved the Clinton presidency, though some things have come to light recently that stained it a bit for me, but yeah, if he could run again I'd vote for him.

That being said, Hilary is not the same as her husband. There is something about her attitude I don't like at all.

[ProudDad]

170. Wrong again.

The left's beef with Clinton I (and Clinton II) is that they're capitalist tools.

Clinton II will have the same masters that Clinton I did -- more NAFTA, GAT and WTO. More jobs moved overseas. More increase in the gap between rich and poor. More shredding of the safety net. None of this as fast as the bushie years but inexorable and inevitable nonetheless.

The left believes in community. The left believes in share and share alike. The left believes in justice.

Those "Centrists" you love to defend and identify with (who would have been called FASCIST in Nixon's day -- possibly even by Nixon) are definitely what would have been called the FAR-RIGHT up to '46 and the invention of the Cold War as a "jobs program".

There IS a class war folks, and the good guys are losing.

[uppityperson]

236. Thank you.

good writing.

[wyldwolf]

246. No, I'm correct again

I hear the memes I listed repeatedly on DU.

[manic expression]

251. Is that supposed to be an argument?

because it isn't. In case you forgot, petty points with no support don't help your side.

[wyldwolf]

256. yes.

The petty points with no support are a hallmark of "progressives."

[manic expression]

258. That's funny

because the "centrists" are FAR and away more guilty of that than progressives on this thread.

[wyldwolf]

274. the truth often is

[manic expression]

275. Again

is that supposed to be an argument? Try making a point next time instead of cute little comments that have nothing to do with reality.

[wyldwolf]

276. the point was made several posts up

[manic expression]

277. And my response was also made several posts up n/t

[wyldwolf]

279. my point was made in post 15. Where is your response to it?

[manic expression]

280. That was never my argument

take a look at my signature. Do you think I really care about which capitalist candidate gets nominated?

My solitary point to you is that from what I've read, the centrists have been more petty than progressives on this thread.

[wyldwolf]

282. You entered this discussion as a result of my post 15. Would you like to refute post 15?

Do you think I really care about which capitalist candidate gets nominated? There is a spectre haunting DU...

OH MY GOD!!! :rofl:

[manic expression]

284. No I didn't

I never responded to post 15, my objection was to another point of yours, which was very much unrelated to post 15.

OH MY GOD!!!

Care to elaborate, or perhaps express something specific? It's unfortunate if another ideology is so alien to you.

[wyldwolf]

293. Mr. Spectre, anyone can look back and see you enter the discussion...

... as result of my post 15.

[manic expression]

300. Anyone can see that you're wrong

[wyldwolf]

301. anyone can see that you're wrong. Post 15 onward...

[manic expression]

303. So what?

I didn't respond to a single point in post 15.

[wyldwolf]

307. which is why your entry into this discussion is pretty irrelevant.

[manic expression]

311. Maybe

but so are a ton of posts.

[wyldwolf]

314. definitely

[manic expression]

315. Yeah n/t

[wyldwolf]

317. yeah!

[manic expression]

319. Are we done here? n/t

[wyldwolf]

320. maybe...

[manic expression]

321. Cool

peace.

[wyldwolf]

326. It is cool.

[manic expression]

329. Yup

peace.

[wyldwolf]

333. yup

[manic expression]

337. yup n/t

[wyldwolf]

340. yup

[manic expression]

344. Are we done? n/t

[wyldwolf]

349. maybe...

[manic expression]

353. See above post n/t

[wyldwolf]

354. already have.

[Hippo_Tron]

358. You absolutely have a point that what passes for centrist now would be right in Nixon's day

At least in terms of economic issues. I still have yet to make a full assessment of Clinton based on this idea. One one hand he was dealt the cards of the post-Reagan era. On the other hand, the entire DLC platform seems to be predicated on accepting that the spectrum has moved to the right instead of trying to move it back to the left which is what many of us would like to see happen. I think the spectrum will move back, but it will take some time, just like it took the GOP time to get a fascist like Reagan in power.

If I could go back in time I would probably go back to 1979 and tell President Carter to carpet bomb Tehran. Carter absolutely did what was right at the time, but preventing Reagan's rise to power would've saved so many more lives than would've been lost in a strike on Iran.

[Radical Activist]

264. There's nothing revisionist about the FACTS

that Clinton promised not to sign NAFTA without making changes to protect labor and the environment, and that he promised universal health care. And the fact is that he didn't deliver either one of those.

Clinton became a moderate after Democrats lost the 1994 election. Claiming he never had progressive campaign themes is revisionist history promoted by moderates desperate to argue that standing for nothing is a viable stance in elections.

[wyldwolf]

278. I've already covered this extensively, with quotes and sources, in another thread

[manic expression]

286. Nice evidence

whenever you're confronted with an argument, just say that you refuted it on another thread.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

290. I think so, too, Mr. Spectre.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. Clinton was successful; Bush is successful; Reagan....

was successful. What's your point?


>>>It is just something they cannot abide, so they make common cause with the far right in a pathetic effort to trash them. Nothing is out of bounds when it comes to the Clintons, no conspiracy theory is too outlandish, no insult to outrageous, no media source too right wing, and no charge too scurrilous for this merry little band.>>>>>

Well, I'm thinking you overstate the case just a bit. Murdoch ( Hillary supporter now, BTW; did you know that?) went in for all of the above... big time. Not me. Ever.

In fact, I would have endorsed part of your pro-Clinton argument in '92 and '96 but ,for me... as for a lot of people... the war ( supported by both Bill and Hil) has provided ample cause to reassess that thinking.

[SaveElmer]

20. The fact that you include Reagan and Bush as successful...

Shows me you haven't been paying attention...

And in fact Murdoch is NOT supporting Hillary for President, and in fact more money from Fox News and Murdoch himslef has gone to people like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer than Hillary...

[wyldwolf]

32. Murdoch gave money to the (gasp!) Dean campaign, too.

[Smarmie Doofus]

35. K-i-s-s-i-n-g

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

[fooj]

106. I can't find anywhere that Boxer received a campaign contribution from Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch Contribution List in 2006

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/rupert-murdoch.asp?cycle=06

I dug further and did find Kennedy received small contributions back in 1994 and 1999.

Hillary actually does top the Murdoch donation list for Dems. That's what the chart shows.

[NobleCynic]

140. Successful can be defined many different ways

Were they good for the country? No. Was that their goal? Ah ha. Now we get to the real question.

I think Reagan and Bush were extremely successful. I don't think they were good for the country. They had different goals in mind, and they were extremely effective in achieving them.

[k_jerome]

126. Murdoch gave money to John Kerry and Max Cleland as well...

smear them too?

[karynnj]

172. Maybe you should list the huge sums he gave them

From the last time this was posted, he personally donated to many people - a few thousand at most - this is not comparable to the millions raised for Hillary.

[depakid]

21. Actually, it has to do with their policies

and the fact that they enable and legitimize the far right.

Also, in terms of regulatory policy, Clinton was a disaster.

[Lone_Wolf]

158. Agreed. Some of us feel that the Clinton's sold out to corporate interests

Many of their policies have undermined the working class.

[katsy]

23. far. left. loony.

I would guess that "no insult is too outrageous" when defending a Clinton. IMO, your remarks are out of line and no DUer I have come across on these boards deserves to be characterized as you have so stated.

If it's hatred of the Clinton's success that motivate people to hate them as you have stated... why do these same people NOT hate Obama for his success? Or Edwards? Or Gore? Why doesn't anyone hate Soros for his success? Because MAYBE, just maybe, you are wrong and people are focused on a candidate's stand on the issues?

I'll vote for Senator Clinton if she's our nominee. At the same time, I hope change comes on the local level and we get more progressive populists elected to higher offices because it's my belief that government SHOULD represent PEOPLE not CORPORATIONS which makes ME a far left LOONY progressive f'ing POPULIST socialist democratic commie PINKO.

Other than that, I'm a pretty nice person.

Oh and btw... didn't NAFTA "happen" in the 90s? Didn't the number of people living in poverty rise during the Clinton presidency? So the '90s, at best, were a mixed bag for the populice. Great if you're an investor (much like the chimp's residency) and bad if you're part of the working poor (much like the chimp's residency).

[SaveElmer]

26. Tell ya what...

If the left wingers on this site can go a week without using the following terms when referring to fellow Democrats here and elsewhere...I will never use the term left wing loony again...

Corporate Whore (or corporo-whore)
LieberDem
Vichy Dem
Repub-lite
Republican
neocon...

[katsy]

30. Whoa!

I game except for LieberDem, I like that one.

:evilgrin:

[ProudDad]

171. Let's see

If they've got their hand out for corporate money and their legs spread for corporate "favors", I'd say that's a good definition of corporate whore... :hi:

If it quacks like a duck...

[SaveElmer]

182. Wow...lasted all of a minute...

Not surprising!!!

[manic expression]

254. Typical

I've been reading your arguments this entire thread, and it is clear that your only argument is saying that people don't like Hillary and then claiming victory when someone says they don't and gives reasons why.

So, basically, you don't really HAVE an argument.

By the way, it's not like I have a horse in this race, I'm basically neutral on this issue. I just thought I'd let you know that you're making yourself look very petty, at best.

[SaveElmer]

259. Jeez...

The premise of the thread is that people don't like Hillary...that is a given...in fact the thread would not exist were it not for that fact...

I gave my opinion on the reason, and the methods people will go to to trash the Clintons...many examples of which we have seen here...

[manic expression]

260. Not quite

the premise of this thread is that those who don't like Hillary don't like her because she and her husband are successful.

The methods of which people trash Hillary are nothing compared to the methods you have used to criticize them for merely expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

[SaveElmer]

266. No that is not what I said,,,

Read it again....

Better yet look at post 265...I responded in length to Kerry2008

[manic expression]

268. Read your own OP title

I think it speaks volumes.

More importantly, it is a blatant bashing of the left end of the Democratic Party, simply because they don't like a certain candidate they inherently disagree with.

[SaveElmer]

269. Wrong...

But feel free to believe it if that brings you comfort...

By the way the ... means continuation

[manic expression]

270. Really?

then who, exactly, wrote this little gem?

"The fact that a centrist DLC member, and not some raving far left loony was the most successful President in a generation just sticks in the craw of our 'progressive' friends. And the fact that this President's wife is a highly successful Senator and the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination drives them to apoplexy..."

And I'm the one who's wrong? :eyes:

[SaveElmer]

271. And did you read the rest of the post?

To see who I was talking about and what lengths they will go to ?

When members of the left propagate outlandish conspiracy theories, ape discredited right wing talking points, and use right wing news sources...all in an attempt to discredit both Hillary and Bill Clinton, their motives are highly suspect..

I gave my opinion that, in keeping with the rigid nature of their intolerance for dissent from their orthodoxy, they must attempt to discredit the man, Bill Clinton, that puts the lie to their notion that only one espousing a progressive populist platform as they see it.

If you do not engage in this type of behavior, do not quote Fox news and the Washington Times, and do not ape the right wing talking points about the Clinton years as is so common on DU...

Then I am not including you in my comments...

[manic expression]

273. We were talking about the premise

and I thought that the first paragraph was a good summary of your premise.

OK, your points are well taken, and I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying a bit better. However, it seemed as though you were angry at the "progressive" side in general instead of the slime-throwers, or at least that's what came across to me. There's nothing really wrong with opposing the use of RW lies, but I do think that many posters here who oppose Clinton (one or both) have valid reasons for doing so (and anyway, the slime-throwers that you're addressing your OP to aren't going to post on this thread in the first place).

[wyldwolf]

283. Look out, SaveElmer, there is a spectre haunting DU...

And he doesn't care about capitalist candidate gets nominated!

[manic expression]

285. What does that have to do with our discussion?

That's right, nothing, as usual.

[wyldwolf]

296. Just a fair warning that a spectre is haunting DU

[manic expression]

299. Do you even know what that means?

I doubt it, seeing as you are the embodiment of pettiness.

[wyldwolf]

304. sure, but what does it matter?

the sig line is just some lame attempt to be "mysterious." Hey! I do have a better picture depicting your take on communism than the one you use.

[manic expression]

309. Not really

it's a blatant reference to the Manifesto, not exactly "mysterious".

I change my sig pictures quite a bit, I'll probably have a new one in about a month. What picture are you speaking of?

[wyldwolf]

318. yes, really

Since the number of people here who have ever read one line of the "Manifesto" is tiny, you're trying to appear mysterious... whoooooo....

[manic expression]

324. No

because the Manifesto is one of the most important political writings in history, it's not exactly mysterious. Just because people here don't know much about communism doesn't mean anything about me.

[wyldwolf]

330. but you sig line is about DU... and only those here read your sig

[manic expression]

335. And?

Shouldn't people make references to writings they agree with?

[wyldwolf]

338. oh...sure... For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son to DU...

...there's a holy ghost haunting DU...

[manic expression]

342. What's the problem with that? n/t

[wyldwolf]

345. did I say there was a problem with that?

[manic expression]

347. Yes

you tried to make fun of a reference to a well-known writing.

[wyldwolf]

350. no.

[manic expression]

352. Again

go ahead and have the last word, if you wish, because they're for people who haven't said enough in the discussion.

[wyldwolf]

355. coming from you, the one who has said nothing in this discussion

[manic expression]

371. OK

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

373. glad you can laugh about your folly now.

[paulk]

44. the number of people living in poverty fell under Clinton

Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979. In 1999, the poverty rate dropped from 12.7 percent to 11.8 percent, the lowest rate in two decades. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore passed their Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999 - the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1964-1970). There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993, and over 2.2 million, or over 30 percent, of this decline occurred during the past year.

Largest One-Year Drop in Child Poverty in More than Three Decades. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore child poverty has dropped by 25.6 percent -- from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 16.9 percent in 1999. While this is still too high, it is the lowest child poverty rate since 1979 and includes the largest one-year decline since 1966, which occurred from 1998 to 1999. The African American child poverty rate has fallen 28.2 percent since 1993, and dropped from 36.7 percent in 1998 to 33.1 percent in 1999 -- the largest one-year drop in history and the lowest level on record (data collected since 1959). The Hispanic child poverty rate has fallen by 26 percent since 1993, and dropped from 25.6 percent in 1998 to 22.8 percent in 1999 -- the lowest level since 1979.


more on Clinton's record:

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000204_13.html


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


many of both the right and left wing's "facts" about Clinton's record as President are either disinformation or outright lies. The same goes for HRC and her voting record and positions on issues.

And that's what bothers me most about the anti-Clinton crusade.

[katsy]

50. I may be wrong.

about the poverty rate under Clinton. But maybe not. There's conflicting info out there about this.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Street0929.htm

[paulk]

53. the numbers I quoted are from the US Census

it is information that is hard to dispute.

OTOH -

Jesus Christ himself could run for President and leftists like Paul Street would find something to criticize.

[katsy]

56. "leftists like Paul Street would find something to criticize"

This is not necessarily a bad thing.

[paulk]

69. I would agree if the criticism

wasn't so selectively arrived at...

by seeing through an ideological lens just as distorted as any right wingers

where reality that doesn't fit the proper world view is discarded

where inconvenient facts are ignored

[oasis]

232. Great post. Information is a necessary compass in navigating these waters of discussion. (eom)

[papau]

68. Where did you get the idea that poverty did not drop under Clinton ?- It did. n/t

_______________________________________________________________________
Male Female
________________________ ________________________
Below poverty Below poverty
All _______________ _______________
Year People Total Number Percent Total Number Percent
_______________________________________________________________________
2005........ 293,135 143,803 15,950 11.1 149,331 21,000 14.1
/.... 290,617 142,433 16,399 11.5 148,183 20,641 13.9
2003........ 287,699 140,931 15,783 11.2 146,768 20,078 13.7
2002........ 285,317 139,558 15,162 10.9 145,759 19,408 13.3
2001........ 281,475 137,558 14,327 10.4 143,917 18,580 12.9
/.... 278,944 136,274 13,536 9.9 142,670 18,045 12.6
/.... 276,208 134,823 14,079 10.4 141,385 18,712 13.2
1998........ 271,059 132,408 14,712 11.1 138,652 19,764 14.3
1997........ 268,480 131,376 15,187 11.6 137,105 20,387 14.9
1996........ 266,218 130,353 15,611 12.0 135,865 20,918 15.4
1995........ 263,733 128,852 15,683 12.2 134,880 20,742 15.4
1994........ 261,616 127,838 16,316 12.8 133,778 21,744 16.3
/... 259,278 126,668 16,900 13.3 132,610 22,365 16.9
1992 9/... 256,549 125,288 16,222 12.9 131,261 21,792 16.6
1991 8/... 251,192 122,418 15,082 12.3 128,774 20,626 16.0
1990........ 248,644 121,073 14,211 11.7 127,571 19,373 15.2
1989........ 245,992 119,704 13,366 11.2 126,288 18,162 14.4
1988........ 243,530 118,399 13,599 11.5 125,131 18,146 14.5
1987 7/... 240,890 117,123 14,029 12.0 123,767 18,518 15.0
1986........ 238,554 115,915 13,721 11.8 122,640 18,649 15.2
1985........ 236,594 114,970 14,140 12.3 121,624 18,923 15.6
1984........ 233,816 113,391 14,537 12.8 120,425 19,163 15.9
1983 6/... 231,700 112,280 15,182 13.5 119,332 20,084 16.8
1982........ 229,412 111,175 14,842 13.4 118,237 19,556 16.5
1981 5/... 227,157 110,010 13,360 12.1 117,147 18,462 15.8
1980........ 225,027 108,990 12,207 11.2 116,037 17,065 14.7
1979 4/... 222,903 105,542 10,535 10.0 112,306 14,810 13.2
1978........ 215,656 104,480 10,017 9.6 111,175 14,480 13.0
1977........ 213,867 103,629 10,340 10.0 110,238 14,381 13.0
1976........ 212,303 102,955 10,373 10.1 109,348 14,603 13.4
1975........ 210,864 102,211 10,908 10.7 108,652 14,970 13.8
1974 3/... 209,343 101,523 10,313 10.2 107,743 13,881 12.9
1973........ 207,621 100,694 9,642 9.6 106,898 13,316 12.5
1972........ 206,004 99,804 10,190 10.2 106,168 14,258 13.4
1971 2/... 204,554 99,232 10,708 10.8 105,298 14,841 14.1
1970........ 202,489 98,228 10,879 11.1 104,248 14,632 14.0
1969........ 199,848 96,802 10,292 10.6 103,037 13,978 13.6
1968........ 197,618 95,681 10,793 11.3 101,919 14,578 14.3
1967 1/... 195,677 94,796 11,813 12.5 100,861 15,951 15.8
1966........ 193,390 93,718 12,225 13.0 99,637 16,265 16.3





Footnotes


Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements.
Poverty and Health Statistics Branch/HHES Division
U. S. Bureau of the Census
U. S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC

[katsy]

74. Thank you. n/t

[k_jerome]

127. talk to your fellow smear merchants ...

about corporate whore and DLC pig. what a bunch of freaking hypocrites.

[katsy]

138. I'm not a smear merchant.

Why the attack?

We all have opinions and when I'm wrong or misinformed I own up to it.

That being said... I consider myself to be a social democrat.

[Cassandra]

24. Another round of...

the DLC's trashing of anyone left of them (which is most of the party). NAFTA is what most pisses me off about Bill but I'm hardly apoplectic, just wary of Hillary and the centrist agenda. I would like a president who aspires to be more than simply better than a Republican; that's such a low standard.

[enough already]

186. NAFTA and Welfare "Reform" pissed me off

Two open acts of warfare on the poor and middle class that the Clintons wholeheartedly supported. Couple that with Hillary!'s war votes, I have no fucking desire to relive the "good old days".

[Thickasabrick]

27. The 65% who like what they saw are comparing him to Bush. When

taken in that context, I'm surprised it is so low.

[wyldwolf]

28. no. He had that number the day he left office, too

It is surprising the number is so high considering they poll ALL voter (including Republicans.)

[Thickasabrick]

31. I stand corrected. I thought the OP was referring to what he was

polling at now based on his presidency.

[wyldwolf]

34. he is. My post says he has been consistantly popular in the American populace

...and among Democrats, his numbers approach 90% approval.

[election_2004]

36. Nope....DOMA, NAFTA, Communications Indecency Act....

...just to name several bad policies embraced by the Democratic establishment during the Clinton years.

The Clintons have also done a minimal amount of effort speaking out against the BFEE during the past six years. And now they want to get voted back into the White House? Puh-lease! :eyes:

[SaveElmer]

37. From Canis Lupus Politicus!!!

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=298&page=5

[election_2004]

40. It was also pre-9/11, pre-GWB....

Much different circumstances that President Clinton had to deal with.

Bill Clinton also presided over a Republican Congress during six of those eight years, so are you willing to give them partial-credit for what happened during that era?

[SaveElmer]

42. Absolutely not...

The 1993 budget deal that put us on the road to prosperity was passed in a Democratic Congress with no Republican votes...none...

Clinton's success was despite a Republican congress not because of it!

[election_2004]

45. How convenient

And was the 1993 budget deal also passed in the aftermath of post-9/11 fear-mongering, vote-tampering, and stolen elections?

Apples and oranges.

[wyldwolf]

47. uh... huh?

[election_2004]

48. I'll rephrase the question

Was the mess that George H.W. Bush left this country with at all comparable, in magnitude, to the mess George W. Bush will be leaving us with?

[papau]

72. The GOP fought Clinton Tax and budget bills - they get no credit - key 93 bill had NO GOP votes n/t

n/t

[OHdem10]

54. Succes has nothing to do with it. DLC thinking has

everything to do with it.

The word Centrist sound good--people envision balance, working
for the middle or center of political spectrum. In practice
this does not happen. Centist and or Conservative Democrats
always supply the Republican Party with the votes they need
to pass any legislation and call it Bipartisan.

Most often when Moderate Republicans refuse to support their
own party you can be sure a bunch of Centrist, DLC,Conservative
Dems will vote with the Republicans. This gives the moderate
republicans cover so they can hold their seats in Congress
and thus keep Dems from ever winning these seats.

Their votes are very often controlled by Business. If a choice
is forced--Help Business or Help American People--they will
vote to help Business. Look at our economy--The Wealth
Gap is an absolute reflection of Collusion between Republicans
an DLC Democrats.

Could go on an on. The difference is Philosophy. I like
the Clintons. I am explaining why they receive Criticism.
I happen to believe Liberals were put on this earth to
make Capitalism palatable anc create and maintain fairness
in our economic system. DLC is so Pro Business they
have assisted the Republicans in getting us to this point.

[fuzzyball]

57. Nafta has created more jobs in US & Mexico & Canada than

it lost. Kudos to Bill Clinton & Al Gore for pushing it.

[marmar]

60. Not according to the Economic Policy Institute....

November 17, 2003 | EPI Briefing Paper #147

The high price of 'free' trade
NAFTA's failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation



by Robert E. Scott

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

False promises

Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. When the Senate recently approved President Bush's request for fast-track trade negotiating authority1 for an FTAA, Bush called the bill's passage a "historic moment" that would lead to the creation of more jobs and more sales of U.S. products abroad. Two weeks later at his economic forum in Texas, the president argued, "t is essential that we move aggressively , because trade means jobs. More trade means higher incomes for American workers."

Much more at: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147

[papau]

75. EPI's simple minded trade deficit=job loss doesn't exist in real life numbers

NAFTA and Job Losses by Cyril Morong, Ph. D.

(A LTE published in the WSJ 5/4/05 page A19, and on his web site - Links to all of the data sources from the Department of Labor are listed at the end of the article.)

(both Mr. Guerra and Ms. Collins mentioned... large job losses, especially in manufacturing, that resulted from NAFTA, which went into effect in 1994. Mr. Guerra wrote, “more than 2 million manufacturing jobs vanished, most moving to Mexico…” Ms. Collins was more specific (although she mentioned a smaller figure): “Since NAFTA was signed in 1993, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has risen and led to the loss of 879,280 jobs through 2002. Most were high-paying manufacturing jobs.”

Was this the case? Did NAFTA cause the U.S. to lose so many jobs, especially high-paying manufacturing jobs? Probably not. I say probably, since causality, in any social science (economics included), is difficult to prove since so many factors change so quickly in the real world. But if many high-paying manufacturing jobs were lost, it took many years until after NAFTA went into effect before they were.

Let’s start with jobs in general. The U.S. unemployment rate was 6.9% in 1993, the year NAFTA was agreed to. It was 6.1% in 1994. The rate fell steadily until reaching 4.0% in the year 2000. Even in 2002, the year after we had a recession, the rate was 5.8%, lower than the year NAFTA went into effect.

But what about manufacturing jobs? We had just about 17 million in 1994. It actually rose to 17.56 million in 1998 and was at 17.26 in 2000 (still higher than in 1994 the year NAFTA went into effect). Then we had a recession in 2001 and since then the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen quite a bit, down to 14.3 million. So that is a loss of nearly 3 million since 2000, which might be due to the recession. If it were due to NAFTA, then why did it take so long for the loss to happen?

But what about wages? Ms. Collins mentioned that we had lost many high-paying jobs. But real hourly wages have risen since 1994 for all workers. For all workers, hourly wages rose 38.4% while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) just rose 27.1%, hence the real gain. For manufacturing jobs, hourly wages also rose more than prices, with a 34.1% gain. But a pre-NAFTA comparison is in order. From 1984-1994, hourly wages for all workers rose 33.5%, while the CPI rose 42.2%, indicating a fall in real wages. The same happened for manufacturing jobs with hourly wages rising only 33%, well under the rise in prices. So it looks like workers did better in the years after NAFTA went into effect than before.

Economists generally like trade since it allows each nation to specialize in the goods it can produce most efficiently. The increased output can be traded to other nations for their increased output. In that case, jobs move from one industry to another. For example, although we lost manufacturing jobs, we gained about 2 million construction jobs from 1994-2004, which paid well. In 2004, the average hourly wage for construction workers was $19.23. Construction wages also showed real gains from 1994-2004 while showing losses in the 1984-94 pre-NAFTA period.

So my educated guess is that NAFTA caused no significant job loss or wage loss. We probably should not be against DR-CAFTA based on the job impact of NAFTA. I used data from various U. S. Department of Labor websites. Feel free to email me about these sources.

Click here for unemployment data http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Unemployment.htm
Click here for data on the number of manufacturing jobs http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Jobs.htm
Click here for data on the hourly wage for all workers http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Hourly.htm
Click here for data on the hourly wage for Manufacturing workers http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Manufacturing.htm
Click here for data on the Consumer Price Index http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/CPI.htm
Click here for data on the number of construction jobs http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Jobs.htm
Click here for data on construction hourly wages http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Hourly.htm


"An 8-year report signed by all three countries (in 2003) declared the pact a success. The report concludes "Eight years of expanded trade, increased employment and investment, enhanced opportunity for the citizens of all three countries have demonstrated that NAFTA works and will continue to work." From page 387 of Principles of Macroeconomics (7e) 2004 Pearson Prentice Hall by Karl E. Case and Ray C. Fair

The unemployment rate was 6.6% in January, 1994, when NAFTA went into effect. It has only been as high as 6.0% or above in just 15 months since then (out of 135 months). After 6.6% in Feb. 1994 and 6.5% in March, 1994, the highest monthly rate was 6.3%. The average montly rate since January 1994 is 5.15%. It is 5.2% now (as of April 2005).



The average annual unemployment rate in the 1970s was 6.21% while in the 1980s it was 7.27%. The average for the 1960s was 4.78%, so the post NAFTA adoption period has been almost as good for unemployment as the 1960s were. The average in the 1950s was 4.51%. So by historical standards, unemployment rates have been very low after NAFTA was adopted. (the average annual rate from 1994-2004 was also 5.15%) The average unemployment rate from 1990-3 was 6.45%.



Another good comparison is the period from 1983-89 (when the economy expanded-there was a recession in 1990) and the 1994-2000 period (from the adoption of NAFTA to the next recession). From 1983-89, the CPI increased 24.49% while the hourly wage increased just 19.66%. So there was a fall in real wages. But from 1994-2000, the CPI increased 16.19% while the hourly wage increased 23.67%. So real wages increased right after NAFTA went into effect but they actually fell in the expansion of the 1980s.



Some people criticize free trade advocates as not living in or understanding the real world. But the real world tells us that workers have done very well since the adoption of NAFTA since real hourly wages have increased and the unemployment rates have been lower.



Yes, 136,000 workers were certified for adjustment assistance (cash and training allowances) under NAFTA. That was through August 1997. That is a little under 40,000 workers a year. From 1994-2000, the U.S. economy added about 2.7 million jobs a year. Also, to qualify for assistance, workers only needed to show that imports contributed to their losing their job. It did not have to be a result specifically from NAFTA (from page 100-101 of the book reviewed below).

[Hippo_Tron]

150. NAFTA like all trade has its advantages and disadvantages

For one, the Republicans gut trade adjustment assistance at every opportunity. Secondly, communities that are centered around manufacturing feel greatly magnified effects compared to the rest of the country when the jobs are outsourced. And of course the race to the bottom is very real, considering the working conditions in Meixco, China, and the other countries that we trade with.

Jobs are going to be outsourced and the trend toward a complete service sector economy is pretty much irreversible. But that shouldn't stop us from refusing to trade with countries that don't comply with human rights standards. I'd add environmental standards as well, but frankly we need to get our own pollution under control first. The US is still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and by far the largest per capita (China has a billion people and we still emit more greenhouse gases than them). It's hypocritical for us to tell the third world to pollute less while we drive around in SUVs.

[ProudDad]

202. FYI - NAFTA is NOT a "free trade" agreement.

GATT and WTO are NOT "free trade" agreements.

They are INVESTMENT agreements -- protecting the haves from the have-nots.

They are the weapons of the rich in the class war.

And we're still losing...

[wyldwolf]

248. spoken as only Pendejo the Revolutionary can

:rofl:

[ProudDad]

201. There are "jobs" and there are "jobs"

By replacing good union manufacturing jobs with McJobs -- the middle and lower classes STILL GET SCREWED even if the unemployment numbers (which are jiggered by the govt. to appear as low as possible) remain "steady".

I would rather live in a world where everyone has a decent standard of living and there ARE NO RICH than this current bullshit economy where a few get it all and the rest get screwed...

Your post proves again why "economics" is called the Dismal "Science".

[ProudDad]

199. Not to mention that HORRIBLE

"telecommunications act of 1996" that gave away OUR airwaves to the Murdoch's of the world.

[Southsideirish]

41. No.....its cuz they're republicans and I don't like republicans. Period.

[paulk]

46. another well thought out and researched anti Clinton post

:nuke:

[katsy]

59. Really?

Then this song's for you:

http://www.podcast.net/play/76807/5

[treestar]

49. And this is a right wing meme

That the poor and middle class hate the rich because they are "successful."

Just opposing them in favor of another candidate does not mean they are "hated" let alone "just for being successful." It reminds me of RWs telling me the same thing, I hate Bush because I oppose him, and probably hate him for being "successful" too.

[MaineDem]

88. Thank you!

It certainly sounds like a RW meme.

I never knew the left hated the Clintons. :eyes:

[ProudDad]

203. I'm HARD LEFT

and I enjoyed the hell out of Bill Clinton. I hated most of the legislation he signed but I thought it curiously refreshing after 12 years of ray-gun/bush to have a president who could actually think and articulate his thoughts.

I liked Hillary the "hippie chick". Hell, I even voted for Bill the first time (anything but bush). But I've never thought much of corporate lawyers and Hillary was one. Hell, she probably still thinks like one -- she hasn't proved it to me that she doesn't still think like the ubber-class.

Despite what certain crypto-fascists on this board would like people to think, we on the far-left are neither loony nor incapable of nuanced though and opinion. We DO know that the current trend - repuke and Dem -- is in the entirely wrong direction for the survival of the species.

The only hope I see today is in Venezuela and most of the rest of South America.

The "old America", that is, the U.S.A. is on the downward spiral that is the fate of all Empires, I just hope they don't take the rest of the Earth with them...

[marmar]

51. "and not some raving far left loony"

What enlightened dialogue. :eyes:

[SaveElmer]

52. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3131647&mesg_id=3131729

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

58. Wow. Hyperbole, anyone?

Glad to see you've adopted the Rovian tactic of categorizing any "group" that doesn't walk in lockstep with supposedly "mainstream" thinking.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

64. I'm not even a leftist....

...and I was insulting by fuzzyball's rhetoric. He/she better not be representative of future generations of the Democratic leadership, or we're all irreparably doomed. :(

[zulchzulu]

87. Wow...you called the "Far Left" socialists... ROTFLMAO!!!

Should they leave this country? Love it or leave it?

Wow. Stunning... your support for your candidate and this statement tells me a lot about the appeal... I get it now!

Thanks for pointing out what I didn't even suspect...

[ProSense]

66. Laura Bush's approval rating is 76%

see.

Also, the trouble with Clinton isn't just from "the left wing," see.

Approval ratings have nothing to do with valid criticism.

[SaveElmer]

67. Has to do...

With how a Presidency is viewed by the country...deny it all you want...

Bill Clinton was the most successful President in a generation...deal with it!

[ProSense]

71. Don't care, and not in denial.

He made some colossal mistakes. His legacy for the party lasted his term in office and then ended, completely dismantled by its inability to translate to wins in the House, Senate and WH. Then further annihilated by the very people he looked the other way on.

[SaveElmer]

73. Nice try...

A fine demonstration of the new left wing meme blaming Bill Clinton not only for his mistakes(which were relatively few), but for those of the Bush's and Reagan as well...

Doesn't wash. People know damn well they were better off in the 90's than they are now...left wing smoke and mirror tactics trying to convince us otherwise won't work...any President's success can be reversed by the stroke of a pen...doesn't obviate the fact that centrist Bill Clinton is the most successful President in a generation...

[ProSense]

77. Let me

elaborate.

People were better off until Clinton's failure to hold the Republicans accountable gave rise to Bush and the same Republicans he let slide.

Deny it all you want to, but do you deny that everything Clinton did has been undone?

[eridani]

147. Your notion of "prosperity" is delusional

Most people lost ground. The number of prisoners from the War on Some Drugs skyrocketed, permanently eliminating large numbers of reliably Democratic voters from the rolls. Homelessness increased throughout the decade, as did food stamp use. Average Mexicans and average Ameridans got poorer throughout the 90s.

Note that poverty rates have no relationship whatsoever to reality, being calculated from food expenses on the assumption that 1/3 of poor peoples' incomes are spent on food. Anybody in the real world knows that rent and utilities are the huge budget breakers for the urban poor.

[wyldwolf]

167. The entire notion of your reply is delusional.

[eridani]

173. Let's see the URLs n/t

[wyldwolf]

177. LOL! YOU ask for URLs?

Where are the "URLs" in that "everybody lost ground" reply you just did?

I guess the things documented here never really happened:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3133181&mesg_id=3133181

I've said it before, the historical revisionism of the left is comical.

[eridani]

178. Meaningless to people who fell behind in the 90s--fell behind by a lot

Food bank utilization was up in the 90s
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/09/14/loc_complex_regulations.html

“What we saw in '98 (over '97) was a 19 percent decrease in food stamp participation and a 20 percent increase in food bank usage,” said David Maywhoor, executive director of the agency.

Homelessness way up in the 90s http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/homelessnesshowmany.html

Incarceration way up in the 90s

http://mensresourcesinternational.org/uncommonman/archives/racism/index.html

While the economy shifted upward in the 90's and welfare was overhauled, black men have only seen an increase in incarceration and unemployment. ...

http://www.theexperiment.org/?p=732

During the ‘’90s, the United States surpassed South Africa, Russia, and China in the proportion of its citizens locked up behind bars. This race to incarcerate has been fueled by a “rage to punish,” but in the process, the US has inadvertently recreated all the vestiges of a forgotten horror - slavery. Minorities are the ones who form the demographic majority within this nation’’s prison industrial system, where they are daily stripped of their humanity, and brutally exploited for an economic gain by the private sector.

[wyldwolf]

180. Apparently you're beef is Clinton didn't have a magic wand to make it all better

[eridani]

220. My beef is with bullshit

If 9 kids get nothing for an allowance, and the 10th kid gets $10 a week, you can jsut spare the rest of us the bullshit statistic that our average allowance is $1 a week. It means nothing to our lives.

[Forkboy]

221. So well put

:thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

239. you mean your beef is with youself?

[Telly Savalas]

155. Given that his competition was Reagan, GHWB, and GWB

bragging that Clinton was the most successful president in a generation is like me bragging that I can bench press 40 pounds.

He did some good things. He made some mistakes.

But saying the guy shits ice cream does just as much disservice to honest political discourse as accusing him of being a Republican does.

[Cameron27]

70. Good thread...

thanks for the info. (bookmarking)

K&R

[Tom Joad]

76. Ronald Reagan was successful and popular too.

[SaveElmer]

80. Popular...

Successful no...and as his failures have become more apparent his popularity has been dropping...

No diminution in CLinton's

[Tom Joad]

82. RR was "successful" in supporting genocide in Central America

supporting the extremists in Afghanistan, supporting Saddam, made it through Iran-Contra (he was never impeached)... i mean the man should have been tried for crimes against humanity... but he never lost much popularity

Bill clinton, who said that Nixon was a trusted adviser, was no less "successful".
But that regime was also guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. Including sanctions against the people of Iraq, bombing of a civilian pharmaceutical factory in Sudan...

Hillary was "successful" in working with others to support Bush's war against Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

94. Are You, Mr. Joad, Actually Accusing President Clinton Of Crimes Against Humanity?

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[OHdem10]

89. Calling people socialists solves nothing and

gets us no where.

Great and Smart Democrats know and even agree:
Capitalism left to work its will and unfettered creates
a society of a few haves and have mores at the top
and huge numbers of have nots. Most Democrats want
the opportunity spread across the entire spectrum.
Without a Middle Class Democracy fails. Regulations,
and at times taxation, are tools used to make Capitalism
work for all citizens not just the few at the top.

This is not a socialist speaking, a common sense Democrat.

[ruggerson]

132. Oh, yeah, he successfully killed hundreds of thousands of people with HIV

very successful, yep.

[ananda]

78. Loathe? No...

I would say that I'm just not a big Clinton supporter, but they're both
better than any Reep, period.

And why would I care if anyone is successful or not? The Kennedy's
are successful, and yet they've managed to maintain a liberal view.

Sue

[Morgana LaFey]

79. Oh, nonsense

Nobody here resents their fame, fortune or success. I'd say more, but I decided your OP wasn't worth going past the first sentence.

So if you need to console and delude yourself with such an inanity, go right ahead.

[SaveElmer]

81. See I suspect you read the words...

And then substituted your own meaning...I said nothing about their fame or fortune...

And their success was the countries success....

[Morgana LaFey]

90. No, your quibble is meaningless and pointless

Parse words all you like. Your OP isn't any more meaningful or accurate (and I did go ahead and read it) than I suspected. It's nonsense and drivel. BUT if it somehow gives you comfort, no matter how delusional and small-minded, then have at it.

[SaveElmer]

181. It is spot on...if you want to deny it and if it gives you comfort then have at it..nt

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

84. Bill Clinton was successful in making the Telecommunications Act

become law, making it possible for greater media monopolies.

do we not like him for that?

[Tom Joad]

85. Clinton was successful in Iraq, making the death of hundreds of thousands "worth it"

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

[Tom Joad]

86. Clinton was successful in pardoning a man like Mark Rich, the wealthy

(and with a name to go with it) while our prisons hold political prisoners.

[AJH032]

91. First president ever to care about global warming

as is shown by his signing of the Kyoto treaty.

And just a little side note to those calling him a "corporatist republican": Corporatists do not raise corporate taxes; corporate (and high income) tax rates, however, increased with Clinton's budgets.

Don't even try to reconcile. It's not worth it.

[MethuenProgressive]

95. Anti-Hillaryism is really just sexism. Men hate powerful females.

And many females are extremely jealous of powerful females.
The root of all this hate focused on Hillary has everything to do with her gender, and very little to do with her politics.

[jonnyblitz]

99. self-delete

nevermind. not even worth commenting on.

[mitchum]

108. Absolute cowshit (see, I didn't use the patriarchal "bullshit")...

but make no mistake...DLClinton will also play the same card you wielded in an attempt to shut dowm criticism of her corporatist water carrying

[Warren Stupidity]

110. Wait I'm So Confused.

First Elmer Nails It: we loathe the clintons because they are successful, and now you renail it: we loathe senator clinton because she has an innie instead of an outie! I am nailed up there in kind of a cross like position. Help!

[PassingFair]

159. That's bull*hit.

I'm a female, and I'd vote for Barbara Boxer or
Jan Schakowsky RIGHT THIS MINUTE, but I'll have
to hold my nose to vote for Hillary.

And I would NEVER vote for her in a primary.

Absolute LAST choice for me.

[mtnsnake]

187. Not in all cases, but in many cases you're right, especially about the jealousy part

Lots of people despise her for all the wrong reasons, but there are just as many or more who admire her for her strengths, which are many.

Quite often, though, the far left extremists can't stand her because she can't possibly subscribe to ONLY their one or two special interests that take priority in their book over ALL of the interests of our Party as a whole. So they try their best to spin her as some kind of a war monger in return, when anyone with an open mind knows she's anything but that.

The far left extremists who hate Hillary are just as narrow minded as the rightwing neocons who hate her.

[ProudDad]

205. I don't hate Hillary

I just think she's another step in the wrong direction. She's a friend of corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism is the enemy. She's a friend of the enemy.

So are most Dems and nearly all repukes.

Kucinich isn't...but you "centrists" don't think he can win.

But, of course no left winger can win (cough, Bernie Sanders) in this (cough, Barbara Lee) country (cough, John Conyers)...

You're probably right because thanks to Clinton's signature on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 there's a rather monolythic right-wing, corporate capitalist media that's the source of information for most of the sheeple in this county. Pretty much stacks the deck for "centrist" corporate capitalism against the interests of most of the people...

[rhett o rick]

230. Sorry i will not vote for anyone that let this Country down and voted to give

the neocon nazi's power to invade. Don't care what gender.

[uppityperson]

237. Not entirely or always.

For me, I don't like Sen.Clinton because of her policies, yet I want to support her because she is a female and I would like more women in political positions. I am female, by the way. So, for me, reverse sexism comes into play. Now, looking at the phrase "anti-Hillaryism", compare it to "anti-McCain" or "anti-Edwards" or "anti-Kerry". Do you notice the inherent sexism there?

Why is Sen. Clinton known as "hillary" yet all those other senators by their last names?

[fooj]

92. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...

Round and round we go.

[MethuenProgressive]

97. Bush, Clinton, Bush... Rodham!

I'd support Sen. Clinton if she were our nominee.

[lostnotforgotten]

93. Successful At Lying To Us - War Mongers Need Not Apply!

eom

[k_jerome]

96. spot on.nt.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. I have a spot on my shirt. neat.

[PresidentObama]

98. You know, I like the Clintons.

Bill Clinton was one of a kind, and in a class of his own. I really enjoyed his Presidency, and thought he did a wonderful job. And I personally like Hillary as well. She is my number five pick for 2008, and I've really had much respect for her throughout the years. And even if I haven't agreed with the Clintons all of the time (don't really like their team much) I've always thought they were deserving of my respect and admiration. And I like them!!

With that said, I don't know that I agree with the OP. First off you aren't doing favors by calling out the left wing of the party and calling them "loony" and mocking them. SaveElmer, I enjoy your posts and like I said in that PM I sent, I admire your support for Hillary. But I think that was kind of out of line. And I don't think people dislike the Clintons because of their success. I mean take any one of our fine Democratic candidates, and they've all had success. The people who dislike Clinton have their reasons, and it all comes down to what you believe and how strongly you believe it. I know a lot of people dislike John Kerry, and personally I thoroughly enjoy the man for example. I understand that those who dislike him have reasons, and sometimes no matter how much you defend a candidate you can't change minds. I don't think it comes down to success, it comes down to what you value and how you feel about issues!!

I appreciate the fact that you're exposing one of the main problems on DU, and among some Democrats: the loathing of our fellow Democrats and possible 08' nominee

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

196. Baloney. SaveElmer was no more out of line than anyone else defending their fave

You're the last person on this forum who should be calling someone else "out of line" for sticking up for their favorite candidate, especially when SaveElmer was absolutely correct in calling out the people he did. He nailed it, and you know it.

[PresidentObama]

225. Nope.

I was addressing SaveElmer, and not you mtnsnake. Thank you, now run along. And this is an opinion board, and IMHO I don't think he nailed it. The only thing he accomplished was pissing off the left calling them loony, and claiming people who give criticism of Hillary are jealous of the Clinton's success. Which isn't so. I have deep respect for SaveElmer because he is passionate about what he believes, and I recently messaged him to tell him so.

[mtnsnake]

229. Nice try

I was addressing SaveElmer, and not you mtnsnake

That's funny. I don't remember ever whining about all those hundreds of times you went butting into my posts totally uninvited and started some marathon of nothingness. You know what that means? As you sow so shall you reap. Get used to it.

now run along

I guess I'll have to consider it a feeble attempt at a compliment since you love to copy some of my phrases even though it just doesn't sound right coming from you. Maybe I can help you with your delivery in the future (snicker)

[SaveElmer]

265. Hey Kerry2008...

Well see the problem is moderate/centrist/DLC democrats here, and those that we support, are continually insulted using terms like...

Vichy Dem
LieberDem
CorporoWhore(and the full Corporate Whore)
warmonger
DINO
neocon...etc

There seems to be no compunction on the part of many to use these terms...and no thought that they might be counterproductive...so a bit of push back I believe was in order...

There was of course no way for me to poll 100,000 Duers to screen out those for whom it did not apply, so I have to trust that folks like you who do not engage in that kind of namecalling would know they were not included.

As to my main point, I am not arguing it is not possible to be opposed to Hillary on legitimate grounds, but what I think I made clear is, those that engage in the use of outlandish conspiracy theories, blatantly ape right wing talking points we know to be untrue, and have decided the use of the Washington Times, Fox News, and Drudge are legitimate news sources if they are bashing Hillary, do so for the reasons I stated.

There is a significant portion of the left that rigidly adhere to an out of the mainstream liberal doctrine (this does not encompass all Liberals, or all liberal ideas). So when any Dem, especially a DLC dem, moves away from that orthodoxy the long knives come out. It is a common feature here and on other liberal blogs.

And anathema to the view that they hold, is that a centrist DLC Democrat could be an effective, successful President. The major flaw in that theory of course is that we have had an effective, successful centrist Democratic President. So in order to maintain the rigidly held view that this is not possible, they attempt to convince the rest of us (or maybe just themselves), that this effective successful centrist Democratic President, was not effective and successful, and they will go to almost ridiculous lengths to do so!

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!!!

[PresidentObama]

281. I welcome all Democrats.

Centrists or leftists, and anything in between. We have a big tent, and no we won't always get along....but I think we have room for Democrats whom are moderates and whom aren't. I just don't know how productive it is to call them the "loony" left. Especially since I consider myself out of the mainstream and in the far left wing.

I understand the need for some liberals to go after people like Hillary because she isn't as left as they would like. Bill Clinton wasn't as liberal as I am, and I personally enjoyed most of his Presidency deeply. Governor Dean in 2003-2004 wasn't the most liberal guy when you looked at his record, and even as a Kerry supporter then I still enjoyed him thoroughly. And if Kerry wouldn't of been the nominee in 04', and Dean would have been....I would have rallied behind him just as I did with Kerry. Just as I'll do with Hillary when and if she gets the nomination!!

I think good candidates and good Presidents can come out of both ends of the spectrum, just as long as they're in touch with reality (AKA Democratic)

Speaking of in touch with reality, a lot of DU isn't. So much of what you read here should and probably is taken with a grain of salt. Maybe two grains if you're nice enough ;)

[Warren Stupidity]

100. Elmer Nails It Again!

How Did You Know Our Secret?

Note to politburo: we have a mole, start the purges now.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. Why must the opposition to candidate x be cast as evil?

How about promoting what you think is good about your favorite instead of getting out the tar brush to run yet another assinine attack against all who oppose your champion?

And if you must attack, why not try attacking on the issues instead of attacking the supposed personality disorders of all of us not currently joining you on the Clinton bandwagon?

Do you think you are winning anyone over with your crap?

[SaveElmer]

183. Not too hard...you have to be able to read!!!! ...nt

[MindMatter]

102. Nobody disputes that selling out our principles

can win favor with the fascists that want to control everything.

[caligirl]

103. Whats Hilary's stance on NAFTA Plus, the NAU, and the SPP ,superhighway

North American Union(NAU) which is NAFTA PLUS, a bigger more damaging form of NAFTA which Bill signed into law?

After reading several articles on SPP and this plan, I worry Hilary is too close to big business now as Bush puts the NAU in place, will she finish it?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.CON.RES.487:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2743628&mesg_id=2743628

[paulk]

104. recent statement on NAFTA, CAFTA, free trade

CLINTON: I think it's about the changing world in which we find ourselves. I believe very much in trade. Trade on balance has been very good for America. But I don't see how anyone can look at what's happened in the global economy and not ask yourself, what are we missing here? Why is it that we have such a huge trade deficit with the world, particularly with China? Is it all because we can't compete? I don't think so. Is it because the rules are not being enforced? Is it because most other governments in the world take actions that maximize the positive impact of their trading relationships for their workers? I think so. And it's not just China, which is just the most egregious example.

I issued a report earlier this year about some of the problems we have with Canada, our very good neighbor and ally along our border. We have trouble getting New York agricultural products into Canada. And I believe that it's because the federal and provincial governments of Canada, they protect themselves. They protect their farmers. They are not going to just open their borders regardless of what NAFTA says.

I voted against CAFTA , because I looked at the facts and I thought we have no environmental or labor standards—something that I believe is within the rubric of free trade. Free trade doesn't mean trade without rules. It doesn't mean a race to the bottom. It's supposed to be based on comparative advantage, so the trading partners all improve their standard of living. If you don't have some rules that will create conditions for employees to be treated fairly, the money is all going to go to the pockets of the elite. I heard the other day that in Mexico, they are importing cheap labor from Central and South America. Meanwhile, you have all of these ambitious, motivated Mexicans leaving their country to get a better life in ours. There's something wrong with this picture.

TIME: Do you think NAFTA was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.

For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.

As we look at trade today, I don't think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don't think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we've kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.

[caligirl]

114. Corrupt governments are easier for corporate interests to do business with

as we have seen with Bush. Mexico is not clean, and the Canadian PM is very conservative, ie on big business side all the time.
so governments run by leaders who are too business friendly make NAFTA PLUS, or the NAU, a huge risk for our people and our democracy. Bush is shredding everything in the name of the elite. Remember Hilary is a New Democrat. She is business friendly, recall Bill didn't scare the hell out of big business which helped him get elected. Government is here to serve the people of this nation first, not business. I'm not sure I would be willing to support her if given another choice in view of the past 6 years of obvious control by business in the WH and Congress. I wouldn't feel comfortable with her business ties now, but if she were the choice over a Repug, I would have to vote for her.

[Solon]

160. So she shifts blame for NAFTA back onto Bush the First?

Apparently, she thinks NAFTA was just as bad for this country as I do, but the difference is she doesn't blame her husband for not bothering to renegotiate the treaty that Bush the first negotiated initially.

[paulk]

188. The supplemental agreements adding

environmental and labor protections were negotiated under Clinton.

Bush the 2nd hasn't bothered to enforce them.

[ProudDad]

206. Those phony "protections" were NOT BINDING

The protections for the investor class were.

That WAS Clinton's decision. Of course, he knew it wouldn't pass with strong protections for labor and human rights and he HAD to pay off his backers -- the rich -- so he didn't veto NAFTA...

[wyldwolf]

323. does your revolutionary act get laughs around the dinner table?

[lligrd]

105. Total BS

I am as left as they come (even left handed) and I was a big Hillary supporter until she voted to give Bush the powers he wanted.

[Larkspur]

107. The Clintons were only successfuly for themselves

It only took Bush a couple years to lose the surplus built during the Clinton Admin and that surplus was built by taxpayers after Clinton and the Dems raised taxes. Some of those Dems who raised taxes lost their seats and under Clinton's Admin Congress reverted to Republican control. It was only with economic populism in 2006 that Democrats retook Congress. The DLC wimpy campaign strategy against Repukes was a loser.

[Unvanguard]

109. Yeah, that's right. We're just jealous.

The slaughtered Iraqi children, the poor harmed by "welfare reform", the workers devastated by NAFTA, the soldiers sacrificed for greed and power... no one could possibly give a damn about them, right?

:eyes:

[Bjorn Against]

111. Thanks for repeating the right-wing talking point that the left loathes successful people...

If that talking point were true however none of us on the left would have a candidate, because every single candidate who is campaigning for the office is a successful person. You can not get elected to be Senator, or Congressperson, or Governor, or become a four-star general if you are not successful.

Please I hear the right-wing accuse me of hating success all the time, I don't need to hear it here on DU as well.

[smoogatz]

112. I'm pretty far left, and I don't hate the Clintons--

though I would argue that without the backlash over Big Dawg's blowjob debacle, a moron like George W Bush would never have gotten selected in 2000. And of course Hillary's idiotic vote on the IWR was an error in judgment of similarly epic proportions. What I'd like is a candidate who doesn't owe his/her soul to the big corporate money boys, and who had the sense and the courage to oppose the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, before the shift in public sentiment made it the expedient (and fashionable) thing to do.

[thethinker]

115. I highly resent being called "raving far left loony"

because Hillary will not be my first choice as a candidate.

I am seeing a lot of rude comments out here on DU. I have not seen anyone posting that I thought hated the Clintons. That is just silly. What I am seeing is Hillary supporters saying everyone that doesn't support their candidate is somehow less of a democrat. This type of angry rhetoric is not winning any converts to your point of view. This heavy handed approach just reminds me a lot of Karl Rove. Attacking folks that don't agree with you is not very civil and calling fellow democrats "raving far left loony" is very childish behavior.

Clinton was a successful president - but he isn't running. Hillary is. She is the candidate that the MSM and the republicans want really badly as the Democratic nominee.

I also think you are very misguided about where the "center" is these days.

[Arugula Latte]

117. Yeah, that's it. We hate them for their success ...

:eyes:

[Zorra]

118. Compared to Chimpy, President Clinton is eligible for sainthood.

Bill did a lot of good things. Almost any Democrat is a million times better than any republican when it comes to political leadership. A populist progressive could, possibly, have done much better; we'll never know.

Personally, I'd like to see any of our Dem candidates in the WH. A populist progressive would be my first choice, but all of our candidates are smart and talented.

[GregD]

119. I don't hate Bill, but I do feel some of his policies sucked.

Nafta and media issues come to mind.

But I LOATHE Hillary for what she did (and didn't do) in the electronic voting / election integrity area. The legislation she advanced and in that process her personal opposition to better legislation really set us back. I don't trust her. Period...

[SOS]

121. Stinkin' left wing loonies!

Check out this left wing nut:

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism and war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money
is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today.
They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."


This type of populist progressive could never win!

[MadHound]

122. LOL, you Clinton folk are so amusing in your desperation and denial

As more and more people are criticizing Hillary on her record, the more and more people bring the truth of Bill's record to light, the more and more you folks resort to ad hominems. You expose yourselfs, taking on the language and talking points of those very people that you claim to dislike, the Republicans, the neo-cons. You, much like your candidate Hillary, take a high-handed, insulting tone to those in your very own party whom you need in order to win both the primary and the general election. Rather than speaking of compromise and consolidation, you threaten, you insult, you try to bully people into your camp, for you think it is inevitable that your candidate should win, and you are ready to demonize anybody who hints otherwise.

You're doing a very, shall we say true to form, representation of your candidate and her positions. Bluster and bully all of those who stand in opposition. Demand, not compromise. Your way or the highway.

This is why Hillary, and her supporters, will be severely disappointed in '08. Nobody likes a candidate, or their supporters, who is unwilling to compromise, who threatens rather than converses, who is bully rather than a true leader.

Bravo, Elmer, you're doing a fine job of representing your candidate:eyes:

[hippiechick]

263. Post of the day!

:applause: :thumbsup: :applause: :thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

288. Denial is only relevant if it is denial of established fact.

The opposition of HRC here at DU is opinion. SaveElmer is merely cheerleading his/her candidate, not unlike others here at DU, in fact, in a much less obnoxious way, yet just the very fact that he/she is doing so ruffles your feathers. Is there a reason why you take personal umbrage at it?

You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but yet again we will watch the third party types peel off once the primary is done, regardless of the candidate chosen. We watched this in 2000 and 2004 in most recent memory. Gore and Kerry were pilloried then; I remember it well because I worked in a third party environment; in fact lost my job because I refused to write my column against the Dem Party candidate.

And those that ultimately choose yet again to abandon the Democratic Party and either vote third party or stay home - which are pretty much one in the same thing in effect - will again reveal themselves to be the ones that are unwilling to compromise, unwilling to honor the will of the majority of Dem voters by supporting the candidate chosen democratically in the primary.

SaveElmer is fine and is entitled to cheerlead his candidate just like everybody else here without people like you lobbing personal insults at him/her. Nobody knows what the outcome will be in the primary, but it would be nice if people would ultimately choose a candidate and rally for them rather than fire-bombing other supporters on the these boards.

[MadHound]

361. No, the OP is going far beyond "cheerleading his/her candidate"

In fact if you would reread the OP you will find that this is a broad brushed attack on all of those who criticize Clinton, not one in praise of her. And there are some of us calling bullshit on the OP's non-factual, broadbrushed attack.

And frankly, most of the criticism one sees of Hillary isn't based on opinion(though opinion is a valid reason for opposing a particular candidate), but is based on fact, on Hillary's dismal record in areas that matter the most, like her support for the war.

And yes, the OP, and anybody else, is entitled to voice their opinion, or even to do a broad brush attack of dubious factual value. But others are also free to point out that he/she is full of it, how, and why. Deal.

And what is funny is that this same cadre of posters who are supporting Hillary seem to function more as a pack, coming in and trying to shout down and shut up any debate or criticism in the name of supporting their Hillary. Uncompromising, much like Hillary, who has basically told the anti-war crowd to go shove it.

And in a truely ironic twist, you are telling me that I shouldn't be lobbing personal insults:wow: Considering the flame baiting nature of the OP, and the insulting nature of other posts dealing with progressives, your protests ring very, very hollow.

If you or the OP want a true debate on the issues concerning the Hillary, and Democratic primary in general, fine, great, we can do that. But don't try to stifle people who are calling bullshit when responding to flame based, broad brush posts. It reflects badly on you, and on the candidate that you purport to support.

[AtomicKitten]

363. whatever

Considering the fact that the pro-HRC contingent is in the minority at DU (which is often misconstrued as reflecting the sentiment out there), I find myself instinctively trying to equalize the pile-on that inevitably occurs. Perhaps the inequity of the situation is why I give SaveElmer more slack than you think is fair or deserved.

Second, tracking the genesis of personal insults could be a full-time job here at DU. I would suggest you try some introspection in that regard because you seem to think your repartee pristine.

I have an eclectic group of friends here in SF and we don't see eye-to-eye on issues, the difference being we have delightful fireworks at dinner parties as opposed to the anonymous insult oneupmanship and clumsy brow-beating that seems to be confused for debate here. Feh.

Other than that, I am rapidly losing interest in the caliber of conversation at DU. It has degenerated into a lot of posturing about candidates, pro and con; however, as I missed the 2004 slug-out here, perhaps my expectations are just too damn high.

[MadHound]

366. Oh please stop with the pitiful pauline routine

You know as well as I do that the pro Hillary crowd is nowhere near the minority on these boards, nor in the real world. You are simply piling on for the pleasure of piling on, following that same pack mentality that I mentioned earlier that seems to be prevalent among the pro Hillary crowd around here.

And nowhere do I claim that my repartee is pristine. One difference however, I don't open up with flame bait, bullshit posts that demand lockstep thinking or ridicule other political candidates or groups. The other difference is that I don't open up until somebody opens up on me.

And it's nice that you have an eclectic group of friends in SF. I have an eclectic group of friends here in Missouri, including some *gasp* Republicans. And you are correct, the debates that we get to in a face to face discussion aren't marked with the acrimony that one sees on anonymous internet chat boards. I think that is simply due to the nature of the beast. People feel free to be more snide, snarky and downright assholish when they're behind a computer screen than in person.

So if you're so sick of it, perhaps it is time for you to take a break and get away from it all. The way this primary season opened up, especially how early it opened up, I may be doing the same here in the upcoming months. All depends on what my tolerance level is. As the DU rules say, you've gotta walk in here with a thick skin.

[AtomicKitten]

367. hardly

Oh please stop with the pitiful pauline routine

Doesn't surprise me that you would read it that way, though. Your inability/refusal to pitch in even a tiny bit of insight means this conversation has reached a dead-end.

[MadHound]

368. Doesn't suprise me that you are addressing style over substance, again.

You seem to like to take the tiniest, most off subject strawman, blow him up, and let him go. You get all offended when somebody calls you on this and tries to, futiley I might add, steer you pack to the substance of a discussion. So go ahead, get upset about some triviality, and get your last word in. You're right, this has reached a dead end.

Peace:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

369. The crux of the conversation is really that SaveElmer has the right

... to express his opinion, one that you clearly don't want to hear. Tough shit. How's that for style and substance?

Save your pseudoanalysis for people you actually know; it just comes off as silly at best on these message boards.

[MadHound]

370. Thank you for making a point that I already made upthread.

"And yes, the OP, and anybody else, is entitled to voice their opinion, or even to do a broad brush attack of dubious factual value. But others are also free to point out that he/she is full of it, how, and why. Deal."

However like I said, he should expect others to criticize him for his opinions, especially an opinion that also combines a broad brush attack on all of those critical to Hillary.

However it seems repugnant to Hillary supporters like yourself that there are those of us out here who will challenge the BS posturing that the OP and other Hillary supporters are engaged in. Oh fuckng well.

[Joe Chi Minh]

123. That is just childish hogwash. I've been one of Bill and Hillary Clintons' most

vocal and adamant supporters from well before the disgraceful persecution of them leading to the impeachment fiasco, and never cease to remind American that he is revered all over the world. And rightly so.

The plain fact is, however, that their centrism is actually distinct rightism. Under Bill's aegis, the worst of the corporatists depredations of the American people were mitigated. That's all. I doubt if he'd be alive today if he'd been the least bit radical though.

However, this current mega-fiasco the neocons have visited upon the country and the world, open up immense possibilities for a radical change for the better for the American people: a New Deal. Only a left-wing populist leader is apt for that task.

[Forkboy]

128. And the Muslims hate us for our freedoms.

Nice to see RIGHT WING memes being used to scold the left of a left-wing board.I bet those at FR would love this oversimplified drivel.

Is this really the depth of your thinking? Is this really the best you can offer as to why the left isn't happy with Clinton? Are you really that unable to "thinkify" your way through this a little deeper?

[fuzzyball]

129. The Clinton era 1993-2000 was the most prosperous times I have

experienced since 1960 when I was fortunate to legally immigrate
to the greatest country in the world, USA. More people made more
money during Bill Clinton's rule than any president before. The
Treasury collected such a high volume of taxes (best proof of high
incomes since no one pays more tax than they have to) that the
deficits were wiped out completely! Having grown up un a socialistic
country, I greatly appreciate the pro-business culture of the Clintons.
I have actually lived under soccialism as opposed to 99% of people
in this country and I know first hand what a crummy system it is.

But I know why the far left loathes the Clintons. The Clintons did
not promote socialism. They even reformed welfare, first for a
democratic president. They promoted foreign trade via NAFTA. The left
also loathes the Clintons because there were few handouts legislated
such as free healthcare for all, free college education for all etc.

And the best part of the Clinton induced prosperity was the accompanying
emphasis on pro-environment directives and safeguarding womens right to
choose.

[ProSense]

131. Bill Clinton's

legacy

[fuzzyball]

154. No president is perfect, you take the bad with the good...

In Bill Clinton's case, I will take peace and prosperity
and environment and women's issues over Monica and loss
of seats in congress anyday. Congressional losses were
in 1994, but Clinton got re-elected in 1996. That shows
to me that people liked his policies but not those of the
congress.

[ProSense]

161. Perfect formula

Eight years of Clinton-style rule, enabling eight years of Bush-style power grab. No thanks!

[amandabeech]

174. Apparently, you don't remember the guns and butter of the Vietnam

years, approximately '65 to '73. The money was flowing like the Mississippi in the unionized industrial sector. That meant lots of money for lots of people, not just at the top. Eventually, the economy overheated, price controls were instituted, and it crashed in an inflationary disaster (abetted by oil shocks) in the '70s. The economy resurrected itself in the '80s but with unhealthy underpinnings and took a big hit in '87. I was in New York then. Lots of people made lots of less inflated money and took a hit later.

What goes up generally comes down some. Clinton was fortunate to ride the bubble.com wave in the '90s. Sure, he helped it, but like most bubbles, it popped. Read up on Japan in the '80s and very early '90s. Or you could google Tulip Mania. Or read about past U.S. bubbles in canals, railroads and radio.

I hate to say it, but the tech bubble would have brought at least temporary prosperity under just about any President. The Republican idiots Coolidge and Harding presided over the 1920s prosperity, including the radio boom and wild speculation in stocks which were not subject to any disclosure. The bubble popped in 1929. It took some socialism and a war to get the U.S. back on its feet economically.

It might be a good time for you to do a little reading on the economic and social history of the country that you love so much. Certainly, I have not lived under socialism, but the history of unfettered capitalism here and in other western countries is not as wonderful as you may think.

The grass always looks greener on the other side, particularly in the short term.

[ProudDad]

207. Don't worry

In India, Fuzzyball didn't live under "socialism" either.

He's just pissed 'cause it took too long to get a phone installed.

[fuzzyball]

233. I was going by taxes collected during Clinton years

Taxes are the best indicator of incomes since no one
likes to pay a penny more than required. Granted the
dotcom had something to do with it, but not entirely.
Every segment of the stock market went up along with
Internet related.

I would love to see a return of that prosperity. 70%
people with incomes own stocks today, so a bull market
raises a lot of boats.

[CTLawGuy]

130. I think it's more the legacy and cynicism of triangulation

which has brought us NAFTA, "welfare reform", a lack of a universal health care system, a failure to oppose the war in Iraq on moral grounds that annoy leftists.

[NashVegas]

133. Disrespectfully Disagree

But keep trying, this is fun.

[AtomicKitten]

134. I am convinced

the Clinton legacy will overpower the Clinton opposition. What Bill Clinton did do was please most of the people most of the time, certainly nothing to sneeze at. IMO that's what democracy is all about. And while the pockets of discontent, or in this case the anti-Clinton contingent at DU, continue to fester and spew bile, the overall effect will be like spitting in the wind.

[ShortnFiery]

240. "the Clinton legacy will overpower the Clinton opposition..."

Let go AK because they are going to fall from grace, and fall hard. Not the amorphous "left" but LIBERALS despise their sense of entitlement and pro free trade views.

When you're equally despised by both conservatives and liberals, it's time to come into reality. Not all the media hype that money can buy will winn Bill and Hill the WH again. Bank on that fact! ;)

[AtomicKitten]

261. Don't let the bile at DU persuade you

that the overall regard for the Clintons within the Democratic Party is anywhere in the neighborhood of pervasive. This website is inhabited by some people that would be loathe to identify themselves with the Democratic Party and they constitute the vast majority of those vociferous in their opposition to the Clintons.

In the real world and within the Democratic Party, however, the Clintons are still regarded fondly. I am often pilloried for the audacity of saying that, but statistics point to that being true much to the chagrin of some. And although my support in the upcoming presidential election is for those that opposed the Iraq War from the get-go, I am not convinced that Hillary's candidacy will be so easily waylaid. But by all means give it your best shot. I expect no less from her detractors. :)

In the meantime, I wait with bated breath for Al Gore to jump in and save the day. It is breathtaking that Al Gore appears to be the unity candidate here and out there. But I digress ...

On edit: Some people forget or aren't aware that similar bile was spewed against Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004 respectively; I know, I worked in a third party environment then, in fact, lost my job when I refused to write my column against the Democratic nominee in 2004. I heard the exact quantity and quality of venom against them as I do now against Hillary.

[ulysses]

135. actually, no.

Welfare "reform" and NAFTA are my primary reasons for disliking the Clintons. Props where they're due though - Bill is the premier politician of our time. I don't begrudge them the success. I just wish, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, that those talents had been used more wisely.

[AZBlue]

136. Interesting point and one I hadn't thought of before.

The knee-jerk anti-Hillary coalition is basically the same one that ignorantly stereotypes all "rich" as being evil (at least it is here on DU). I think there are various factors weighing in against the Clintons, but you've probably hit on something here and their success is one of them.

No matter...the Clintons are widely viewed in this country as good politicians - the "progressives" you speak of are a small, albeit noisy, minority.

[ProudDad]

209. The "rich" aren't all evil

The system that allows a few "rich" at the expense of the great majority is evil.

The social attitudes that the "rich" exhibit; "I've got mine 'cause I deserve it. You don't because of the pathology of your class or you didn't 'work hard enough'" is evil.

Most of the rich do evil though.

Gee, I guess that's a good working definition of "evil", isn't it?

Hmmm, I guess the "rich" ARE evil...

[ShortnFiery]

241. Yes, and force feeding us the richs pukes' personal excesses and Soap Opera stories ...

Britney, ANS, Paris Hilton, etc., adds insult to injury ... PURE EVIL! :puke:

I don't give a shit about these spoiled rich people (or their kin) - why does the media force them on us?!? :shrug:

[Jack Sprat]

137. The left doesn't loathe the Clintons

The entire premise is absurdly inaccurate. I am an extreme left "liberal" progressive from the far loony left of center, but I reserve my judgment on any candidate until more time has passed. It is far too early for me to commit to any candidate and I always give a serious thought to the electability of any candidate. After the party nominee is selected at convention, I have always supported them with my vote if not my enthusiasm.

[Carolina]

139. Not so

You're painting with a broad brush.

This liberal loved Bill Clinton, still does. Supported him from the start back in 1991.

It's her I can't stand. As a smart lawyer, she should never have surrendered war power to the moronic Bush. And you can't tell me she didn't know what was going to happen; we at DU knew.

Many of us at DU back in early October 2002 knew exactly what the IWR would mean. This board was full of activists calling and faxing their congressmen and urging others to do likewise. DUers were speaking out against haste, against giving Bush such awesome authority, against a war we knew was sure to come and predicted would be a catastrophic mistake. We knew about PNAC, we listened to Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, we read.

Besides common sense said 15/19 hijackers as well as Osama bin Laden were from SAUDI ARABIA! The other hijackers were from Egypt, Yemen and United Arab Emirates. Not an Iraqi among them. And as for WMDs, anything Iraq had was provided by the USA during Iraq's 8 year war with Iran which, by the way, was when Saddam gassed the Kurds. History tells the real story. Byrd and Kennedy along with 21 others got it right when it mattered before so much loss in life & limb, capital, good will and Middle East stability. They voted AGAINST IWR. But not Hilary ...

I am so sick of her excusitis, of her saying: if I knew then, what I know now ... blah, blah, blah. Hell, hindsight is always 20/20 but a lotta good it does when so much damage has been done. Too little, too late.

The IWR ceded too much authority to an unelected (at that time), untrustworthy zealot. That alone was wrong and should have been a red flag. But further, everyone with a grain of brain knew exactly what he'd do with such power.

Hilary is not Bill. He had intelligance coupled with charisma; and he was the right man at the right TIME. But sadly, NOW they are both (timing again)lightning rods for GOP hate. With her at the party's helm, we Dems might as well walk the gangplank of presidential defeat ... AGAIN!

[JeremyWestenn]

142. You couldn't have said it better.

And I still believe Hillary will probably get the nomination. And one thing is true of the Clintons, they don't take hits without punching back. I think she will do a fierce campaign, which quite frankly is something Democrats have been negligent in doing these past many elections...

[Gabi Hayes]

144. hey, james. Mary's calling. she's got the salad dressing.

[roguevalley]

145. nafta is a problem for me. why can't anyone understand that many

of us have REASONED problems here. Why do people have to find broad slurs for people who have REASONED problems? I don't get it. And I know it doesn't help their candidate.

[gulliver]

146. Bill's a jerk for giving us Bush...

... but he was a very good president basically.

Hillary is no success. She's a remora.

[wyldwolf]

166. Ralph's a jerk for giving us Bush...

[ProudDad]

211. here we go again

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Evilismdestroyer07]

238. I had a friend who

was on Hillarys senatorial campaign staff. I can tell you she was impressed. I trust her judgement and will vote for her if it happens to pan out that way. It doesnt really matter becuase people in Washington State dont get to decide who ends up on the ticket anyway. The whole primary season kinda pisses mee off. Most of the people here agree on most #$^&, but will split hairs and throw mud at good canidates.

[wyldwolf]

247. sad for you, but true.

[Hippo_Tron]

149. Clinton brought no great dramatic changes

He did some good things in office, I won't deny that. But he didn't overturn the Reagan political climate that we still live in today. In retrospect it was probably beyond his power to completely overturn everything from the Reagan era. But people had high expectations of him because he was so talented and charismatic.

[ProudDad]

212. He didn't change the trajectory

of ray-gun/bush because he was hired by the same corporate capitalist interests that they were.

As the old WWII posters said, "Recognize Your Enemy!".

There IS a class war. It's about time all of the working classes recognize their real enemy is Capitalism...

[NV1962]

151. Good grief...

Well, let me first stake out a premise: I'm not going to comment here on the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, full stop.

Reason being, that you're commenting on the legacy (perception in hindsight, current approval - name it as you wish) of the Clinton administration.

Three things:

One - I find it only mildly amusing that you confuse the current and mostly comparative vindication of the Clinton administration by way of a stable, if not even increasing appreciation with appraising the best current approach to politics. In my younger years, I'd have accused you of being stuck in the past; now, I just chuckle, and chalk it up to a biased predisposition to whatever current ambition or project you're attempting to defend.

Two - place as much quotes around the word progressive as you fancy, but don't confuse the nature and outlook of the Clinton administration with progressiveness. Again, I'm not interested here in detailed characterizations of the enormous scope of issues that the Clinton administration dealt with, and while stating the rather obvious truism that President Clinton pursued what at least he envisaged as a centrist approach, but I sincerely doubt that the Clinton administration had high hopes -- let alone, the pretense -- of being "progressive" in nature.

Three - your conflation of "populism" and "progressiveness" is just as amazing as it is revealing. I for one am of the opinion that a populist cannot, by the very nature of the beast, be "progressive". A populist can have a nominally left or right profile, but in the end, a populist is little more than a weather vane turned politician. A progressive doesn't stick a wet finger in the air first and then plays to the masses like populists do, before adopting a position; a progressive centers a priori on common denominators and acts on the greater common good - a distinction that carries sufficient difference to warrant in my belief a disqualification of populists as progressives.

Now, having said that: is there merit altogether in advocating for a centrist profile or approach? Of course there is. I can disagree (which I happen to do, especially given the current mess that a far right cabal has plunged the nation into) but just as with "honest" classic fiscal conservatives (think Barry Goldwater, for example) that's a matter of conviction and belief, certainly not something that can "objectively" sanctioned or rejected per se.

But when you confuse, as you do here, a discussion of desired policy of the Democratic party's "ideal" candidate with your rather blunt attempt at discrediting advocates for a progressive direction, you're not only falsifying debate, you're doing your underlying arguments in support of your preferred candidate a major disservice, clouded by your fallacy and rhetoric dishonesty.

Again: I have no problem in acknowledging a fundamental validity of your seemingly pro-centrist approach, but when you start putting quotes on progressive ideals, and poison the issue further with fantastic references to imaginary "populist progressives" you're summarily dismissed as having little to offer beyond mere volume of words.

Feel free to suggest ways to productively discuss the merits of centrism versus progressiveness (and/or populism, why not) but get rid of that ridiculously pompous claim to insight, when the finer distinctions between historic and present-day politics apparently elude you.

[jakem]

162. I liked Bill. Doesn't mean I have to like Hillary.

And I don't.

[Madspirit]

163. Not a Lunatic

By your standards I am far left and I am not a lunatic.

I voted for Clinton both times and I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. I cannot stand either of them, AT ALL. I think they're sleazy. (...but probably not best to alienate the likes of me, as I will vote for her, if she is nominated.)

...and they gave Socks away and they ran over Buddy. : P

Lee

[MasonJar]

164. I love both Clintons. Separately they came to Louisville to help

the dems and their candidates before the 06 election. Thanks to them both. Hillary raised more money for the Ky. dems than has ever been raised in one night. Bill cmae in support of the Congressional and state candidates (as did Obama) and helped us out Anne Northrup, a Bush rubber stamp (93% of the time.)

[flaminbats]

175. did you mean the right's loathing for the Clintons?

this is where the hatred comes from..right wingers who saw Clinton balance the budget, who saw Clinton as he used the surpluses of the late 90's to begin paying down the national debt, who saw Clinton as he kept peace in eastern Europe without the massive loss of life we now have in Iraq.

The right always loathed Bill Clinton because he proved that taxes can be raised without slowing a booming economy, terrorism can be stopped without a department of Homeland Security, and every American can get universal healthcare without a single-payer system.

The only liberal friends I know who disagreed with Clinton..didn't like his support of NAFTA and for welfare reform. None of those people loathed Clinton, and everyone of them voted for him in 1992 and 1996.

[Vinca]

179. This is what's worrying me about Hillary as our candidate.

The right has been dubbing her the nominee for months, saying she's a threat to them and she can win it, yadda, yadda, yadda. It makes me think that somewhere someone is issuing talking points to encourage the left to nominate her because THEY want her as the candidate. Why? It's clear. They've got dirt. I've got an idea what it might be, but will keep my thoughts to myself for now. I hope all I've got is a case of Swift Boat paranoia.

[dionysus]

190. Hey, you just used a stock Rush Limbaugh line!

the "left" hates sucessful people.

what a steaming cart of crap.

[SaveElmer]

192. Way to distort what I said...

Another favored tactic of the intolerant left...

What I said as you well know, id that a successful centrist put sthe lie to the notion that only a "progressive populaist" can move our country forward...

I call 'em as I see 'em!!!

[dionysus]

218. I did not distort a syllable you said, DLC strumpet

you used a stock RW argument against the "looney far left" blah blah blah.

go on, take the next step and resort to calling us commies or socialists, i dare ya!

[SaveElmer]

219. How about...

Nahhh...don't want to get the thread locked...

Funny how the far left and far right use the same tactics...as so ably demonstrated by you!

[LaPera]

193. Yeah NAFTA, the bullshit welfare bill, signing the Telecommunications Act

Clinton tenure resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. The right-wing corporate DLC is sickening to me!

I voted for President Clinton twice...still far too moderate for my liberal taste!!

[SaveElmer]

194. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3131647&mesg_id=3131773

[LaPera]

195. What you copied is all true and what I wrote is also true!

[elcondor]

210. I respectfully agree with LaPera

Of course it's great that home-ownership went up in the 90's, but it's not a very good response to a criticism of the Telecommunications Act, or DOMA, or any other legitimate criticisms of the Clinton Administration. I like Bill just fine and he did some real good for the country, but DOMA is indefensible and it and example why some of us on the "loony" left will never fully embrace Clinton as being a great president. For me, the good he did pushes him into the "above average" category, but he will never be one of the greats to me. He kowtowed to the darkest part of society's moods; the paranoid, fearful, and hateful.

As for Hillary, I know it's a cliche to say so, but as a woman I would love to be able to support her candidacy from the primaries, but I cannot and will not give my support to someone who voted for or supported the Iraq War Resolution. I can forgive saying it was a mistake, and I think it's lovely she's against troop escalation, but ... it's too little too late in my opinion. I will absolutely vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination however.

Finally, I'm sorry, but part the very definition of progressivism is change. No great and good change ever was borne from someone who liked things moderate and liked things down the middle. The radicals, the "loony" left, have always been the ones on the forefront of positive change in the country. Hell, even Newt Gingrich said so in a speech to the House after being elected Speaker. (He said that without the liberal wing of the Democratic party, segregation never would have ended.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a moderate nor am I insinuating moderates are socially conservative, but do not pretend that Clinton is going to usher in some kind of great new society by towing the DLC line.

[Radical Activist]

217. And what does that get us now?

The economic boom of the 90's is over. What does that get us today? Nothing. The more long-term effects of the Clinton years that we're still dealing with today, like the consolidated media and lack of health care, are negative ones.

[mtnsnake]

197. Instead of knocking Clinton, you should thank your lucky stars he came along

and got us back into the WH, along with giving us 8 wonderful years of relative economic prosperity and relative world peace. Notice I used the word "relative" because I'm sure you'll still have some complaints that you'll make into a priority.

Some of you are absolutely beyond belief how you go on and on about Clinton, when the man is already universally referred to as one of the greatest Democratic presidents ever.

[SaveElmer]

198. The reason for that is simple...

It is in direct contravention of their belief that only a populist progressive as they define it, can be a successful President. Bill Clinton is living proof that that is not true, which absolutely drives them nuts!

[mtnsnake]

204. Ever notice how the same Clinton haters never give the man credit for all his successes?

They'd rather piss and moan and nitpick about this and that, rather than credit him for all the amazingly HUGE accomplishments he had over his 8 years, accomplishments that are now documented by historians.

Thanks goodness this forum doesn't reflect mainstream American Democrats on how they feel about Clinton. Really, the only views that Clinton's naysayers here have anything in common with are the views of the right wing neocons who spread the propaganda about Clinton almost as freely.

To listen to all his naysayers here, you'd think that during Clinton's tenure we had another Great Depression and the onset of WWIII.

[SaveElmer]

208. But, but, but...

He didn't support amendment 4(a) to section 2(b) of section 6 of the Anti-Nose Picking Act of 1993...

Damn him...can you imagine how much money would be saved, and how much less blood would have been spilled, if Bill Clinton had the COURAGE to stand up to the nose-picking lobby in Washington...and their corporate masters the Kleenex corporation!!!

[ProudDad]

213. Right, 500,000 deaths in Iraq

Rwanda. The Balkans.

That's pretty peaceful...

He didn't DO all of that but he didn't do much about it...

Domestically, he tried for the first year or so then his masters gave him the word, don't rock the boat and he got back in line for the rest of his Presidency.

He paid for that "deficit reduction" with an increase in the misery of the lower classes. Great job, Bill.

The President of the United States can't really do much good...but he sure can do a lot of evil...

I SERIOUSLY doubt that he'll ever get to the level of FDR. FDR, in spite of his upper-class sensibilities, DID ease the misery of the working/lower classes a little.

[mtnsnake]

215. If he didn't DO that, then why did you post it in your subject title?

He paid for that "deficit reduction" with an increase in the misery of the lower classes

He got the deficit down because his dream was to avoid having the lower classes PAY for it generations from now.

[ProudDad]

222. He WAS reponsible for hundreds

of thousand of deaths in Iraq with bombing raids and the embargo.

He was responsible for the misery of the working class and the poor with NAFTA and the "welfare" reform bill.

He got the deficit down because he cut some of the safety net and was lucky enough to be able to cut the war budget for a change during his term.

The bottom line is that corporate capitalism is a dead end. Anyone who buys into it is dangerous...

[Geek_Girl]

200. I liked Bill but I don't like Hillary

Her stance on Iraq makes her a major disappointment IMHO.

[Radical Activist]

216. meh. Success?

We lost thousands of good union jobs in the US thanks to Clinton that were replaced with low-wage service sector jobs. The standard of living in the US continued to decline. Clinton also gave us a consolidated media owned by 7 companies, which is causing all kinds of problems today.
All the while, he failed give us meaningful campaign finance reform, universal health care, or any major advances on union and environmental laws.

Clinton did some good things but I don't want another 8 years of that kind of "success." I want a President who will make real long-term changes in America for the better. Changes that won't vanish once the economic boom collapses.

[omega minimo]

223. Forget "forward." --- "only a true "populist progressive" can move the country" away from

corporate fascism.

Like Malloy says, Clinton was "the best Republican president ever."

This is Year 26 of (loathesome) Reaganism, which Clinton was a (Democratic) part of. http://www.ThomHartmann.com

Connect the dots. :bounce: :bounce:


And btw, Dems calling other Dems "raving far left loony" = making "common cause with the far right in a pathetic effort to trash them."

:thumbsdown:

[SaveElmer]

224. Mike Malloy ?

:rofl:

Any insult from him I would take as a compliment!!!

[omega minimo]

226. It is a compliment, duh. So when you're done cracking yourself up

ya might wanna brush up on your history.

[ProudDad]

235. Not suprising

from a right-winger...

[SaveElmer]

243. ...

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

267. I heard Mike Malloy discuss Dowd's column on the Geffen comment

He prefaced his comments by saying he is no Clinton fan - duh! - but that he thought Dowd has been really up in the Clintons' collective grill for years, that he thought Dowd was just pissy because BC didn't play grab-ass with her, and that he thinks Dowd is jealous of Hillary's intelligence.

A paraphrased but true representation of what Mike Malloy said on this subject.

[PhilipShore]

227. The Clinton's ran on Reagan's coattails...

It is easy to be be successful when your a professional thief, in the short run; but, eventually the money, fame, and power will fade away, and the principles of liberalism will prevail.

The Clinton's filled the piggy bank from looted wealth. The Republicans stole the looted wealth in the piggy bank.

Remember Enron?

Reagan's coattails
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan's_coattails

Reagan's coattails refers to the influence of Ronald Reagan's popularity in elections other than his own, after the American political expression to "ride in on another's coattails." Chiefly, it refers to the "Reagan Revolution" accompanying his 1980 election to the U.S. Presidency. This victory was accompanied by the change of 12 seats in the U.S. Senate from Democratic to Republican hands, producing a Republican majority in the Senate for the first time since 1954.

The most stunning defeat was that of U.S. Sen. George S. McGovern (D-S.D.), a prominent liberal Democrat who had been the party's nominee for president in 1972. McGovern lost his bid for a fourth term in the Senate by a resounding 58% to 39% margin to U.S. Rep. James Abdnor (R-S.D.).

[jen4clark]

228. Hahahaha!!!

Yeah, we LIKE stuff like this:

Bill Hosting Elite Fundraising Dinners For Clinton Campaign -- Sans Hillary

A top supporter of Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign tells Election Central that former President Bill Clinton is hosting a series of private gatherings of elite donors designed to bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for his wife's President campaign.

And here's the unusual thing about these big-ticket events: Hillary isn't at them. The main attraction is the former President -- Bill, Bill, and only Bill... more

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/26/source_bill_hosting_elite_fundraising_dinners_for_clinton_campaign_sans_hillary


Best Democracy Money Can Buy! 'Cuz that's what it's all about.

[rhett o rick]

231. To restore democracy we must break the connection between big business

and government. Sen Clinton hasn't committed to that.

[election_2004]

234. Now I just find this funny

It's obvious what the agenda of the Hillarista Tag Team is here...the only point of the OP was to basically say to DUers, "She's gonna be the nominee, shut up and get used to it, and slug down that kool-aid, nah-nah-nuh-nah-nah!"

I hate partisans. And I hate blind loyalty.

[Bonobo]

242. MODS: We need a "Stupidest Post Ever" button!

[GreenTea]

250. What a Rush Limbaugh statement. How fucking stupid is that? Yeah, and liberals want

to see more Americans die in Iraq just to make Bush and the republicans look bad...What idiocy & stupid bullshit!!

[LaPera]

252. It's Her Record, Stupid.....

It's Her Record, Stupid
"Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Hillary" uses up a lot of column inches with sociological psychobabble and, at this early stage of the political cycle, meaningless prognostications that trivialize our politics. There's barely a word about her political positions, her demonstrated leadership — or lack thereof. The day before the last election, a postcard from her showed up in my mailbox. The graphic was of one person saying to another, "I’m standing up for Hillary Clinton the way she stood up to George Bush!" Which stand would that have been? Fighting for better armor for the troops in Iraq? Demanding the secretary of defense's resignation long after the entire country had concluded that he should go? Or something else to create the perception of a fighting senator? These were jabs that cost her nothing.
DONALD WARNER
Bronx, New York

I am appalled at your decision to print an article about Hillary Rodham Clinton that had nothing to say about any issues. I would expect something like this from the likes of People or perhaps Rush Limbaugh, but not from a supposedly progressive magazine like Mother Jones. Would you ever read anything as ridiculous as this about a man?
NANCY DIETRICH-RYBICKI
Urbana, Illinois

Forget what Hillary says and what other people say about her. Look at her voting record. Pro-war? Check. Pro-tax cuts? Check. Pro-torture? Check. Pro-corporations? Check. Anti-choice? Check. Anti-privacy rights? Check. Anti-gay marriage? Check. Anti-immigrants? Check. Anti-working class? Check. Anti-unions? Check. Anti-environment? Check. That’s why true progressives hate her.
LISA AUG
Waddy, Kentucky

[xkenx]

253. I know Bill Clinton, and Hillary, you're no Bill Clinton

[AtomicKitten]

257. While people disagree because they hate Hillary,

The OP makes a salient point that is manifested on this thread and that is the Clintons' success pisses people off. If she weren't a viable contender, those that hate her wouldn't be so vociferously dissing the OP. Point meet nerve.

[Dr Fate]

291. Sure- I remember when the GOP/media said we all "hate Bush" too.

We dont have actual, legitimate disagreements with Hillary, we merely "hate her" in an irrational manner- just like when we "hated" Bush so irrationaly.

Sounds familiar, no?

[AtomicKitten]

297. No, actually the bile

comes from the same gland. The loathing for Hillary goes well beyond her votes - manifested in the fact that she has one of the more liberal voting records in Congress (sans IWR vote, the shame she shares with 27 other Senators) and that factoid is either convoluted, overlooked, or completely denied by some. She is held to a higher standard than the other contenders, so, yes, I would say the hatred manifested toward her from the further left is most definitely hyped. I would rather see people spending their time and energy rallying for a candidate they do support than trying to annihilate another. But that's me, one of those militant liberal Democratic Party types, that is hoping for success as a party in 2008 and the WH being returned to the Democrats.

[Dr Fate]

372. I dont hate her, I just disagree with her on several top issues.

And I stand by my comment- people would rather frame it as irrational "hatred" rather than an honest disagreement over policy, strategy, PR, whatever.

It's the exact same thing the conservatives & media said about people who disagreed with Bush.

[Dr Fate]

289. What is "centrist" about supporting a war based on lies? Sounds right-wing to me.

And not very "successful" either.

If she was as successful as you claim, she would have opposed the war.She was a failure on the most important issue of our time- she supported a war that she knew or should have known was based on lies.

Who is a "raving far left loony"- perhaps someone who did not trust Bush about the WMDs, or didnt believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11?

[Debs]

294. What is with this attack on us lefties?

I am way left even by the standards of this site. I never loathed Clinton and thought he was a successful president. I wasnt enamored of him, and not a huge supporter but rarely attacked him. It does make me crazy when the right calls him a liberal but I support him against rightwing attacks all the time. I will certainly vote for someone else in the primary but if Hillary wins the nomination I wont have any problem voting for her over ANY Republican. Can we dispense with the circular firing squads? The Democrats need both the left and the center, lose either of them and the GOP cleans up.

[Q]

334. Actually...

...it's Mrs. Clinton that has a 'common cause' with the Right. She has adopted many of their 'far-right' policies...from 'preventative war' to putting corporations before people. She and her DLC buddies will attack any (non-new democrat) that gets in their way.

And that you use the phrase "raving far left loony" gives you away as someone LIKE the DLCers who hate the left simply because they believe differently than your ilk.

What you characterize as the 'loony left' is really the average Democrat that is sick and tired of watching their party sold to the highest bidder.

[SaveElmer]

341. Every sentence you wrote...

Proves my point...and another...those criticizing Hillary often do not have a clue as to the nature of her actual record...or if they do are willfully misrepresenting it...

[Q]

359. I've been on DU...

...for a long time...and I know which are the 'lefty' haters. I don't know why you and a few others seem to want to make progressives/liberals appear as 'enemies' of the Democratic party.

As to Mrs. Clinton's record...she was recently crowned queen of the DLC....a group of wall street financed 'think-tankers' who feel they can manipulate the Democratic party in much the same way that the Neocons did the GOP.

[wyldwolf]

360. "you ... want to make progressives/liberals appear as 'enemies' of the Democratic party"

Funny!

Kinda like you routine diatribes against the DLC?

Why vote Republican-lite when you can vote Republican? ... And they are in no way the part of the 'party of the big tent'... is the DLC the Neocon's Trojan Horse? ... I submit that the DLC is the Neocon's Trojan Horse...sent into our camp to destroy us when our guard is down... DLC: "white male-pandering, union-bashing, corporate wing of the Party..."

Would you like more of your greatest "hits?"

[SaveElmer]

364. Boy...

That search feature will get em every time...

[wyldwolf]

365. there was a time Q would write a weekly rant about centrists and/or the DLC

They all read essentially the same. He'd just change of few of the words around.

[ddeclue]

356. Wrong! Don't conflate Bill with Hillary...

There are a lot of us who love Bill but despise Hillary. Bill listened and Bill made it clear what he stood for. Hillary - not so much...

She doesn't have his charisma and she is too hard edged, too calculating and overly ambitious, too concerned about her own career and too unconcerned about what voters think.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Carolina]

362. Touche

Love Bill, loathe Hill.

She is too calculating, too hard edged and that IWR aye vote was pure finger in the wind. How a smart lawter could cede such power to the moronic Bush and now claim if only I knew is ridiculous.

We need completely new leadership and NO MORE DLCers.

[mvd]

374. Locking

This thread is now comprised of circular arguments and too many flames.

mvd
DU Moderator