Why do some Democrats think the Clintons have been kicking Republican butt for years?

[Dawgs]

1) The Democrats dominated both houses of Congress from 1954 to 1994(two years after Bill Clinton was elected).

2) From 1994 to 2006, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress; primarily because of their ability to divide the country over Bill Clinton's morality issues.

3) President Bush was able to get close enough in the 2000 election to steal it because morality was made an issue by Bill Clinton's presidency. Al Gore made a decision to not run with Bill Clinton because of how he divided the country.

4) The result of the close election of 2000 gave us eight years of the worst President in history.

How is this kicking the Republican's butt for years? The Clinton's do know how to win elections. I will give them that. But what happens in another few years when the country is as divided as it was in the late nineties? Is this what we want? Do we want to lose the momentum we have finally gained in Congress? Do we want another eight years of someone like Bush?

[papau]

1. Reagan control of the Senate never happened? n/t

n/t

[KittyWampus]

2. Clinton(s) know how to win THEMSELVES. Fuck the rest of the Democratic Party.

We can squarely place blame on Clinton(s) McCauliffe for allowing the Dem Party structure to rot across the country.

And that's how elections were stolen in so many places.

And a big part of why they ignore that fact and place blame on candidates running.

[JNelson6563]

53. Right on the money.

They win, most everyone else loses.

Julie

[truebrit71]

56. BINGO!!!

McAuliffe was DREADFUL....

[PurityOfEssence]

71. PRECISELY the point

All of the ballyhooing about Senator Clinton being so tough in the face of the Republicans is simply NOT TRUE. She's triangulated, third-wayed, appeased, sought accord with and generally accomodated the right to somehow soften her image and position herself for further personal gain. It's about her. They both share an incredible, narcissistic ambition, and it trumps anything for which they stand.

She has danced and maneuvered in her short legislative career to position herself, and she's done it at the expense of the disenfranchised. Trade votes and outsourcing are proof enough of this without going any further.

The very idea that people can swallow this grandiose deception is incredible: she's been ANYTHING BUT the great defender against the wicked, wicked conservatives.

[sniffa]

3. easy

when they get together at their gatherings, they backsLap and teLL each other how great the cLintons are.

isn't that enough?

[ccpup]

4. to encapsulate the issue

the Republicans threw everything but the kitchen sink at Bill and Hillary yet still the American Public gave him high Approval Ratings when he left Office and she went on to win two Senate races and is now the current Leader for the Democratic Nomination for President. If the Republicans were effective in their constant $40 million (or was it more? I forget), multi-year smear against them, they'd both be public pariahs, hated by everyone and immensely unpopular. And that's just not the case!

So, the Clintons do have some insight in how best to handle the Smear Machine. Oh, and one can't fault Clinton for Gore's boneheaded decision to run away from him in 2000, despite Bill's high approvals and public popularity at the time.

Just my two cents.

[MADem]

7. Very succinctly said! nt

[Dawgs]

10. If there wasn't such divisiveness in the country it wouldn't even have been a decision for Gore.

The fact that he had to make one is the problem.

So, THEIR popularity and their elections is more important than what they left us with?

No thanks.

[MLFerrell]

22. Wait...

If the Republicans were effective in their constant $40 million (or was it more? I forget), multi-year smear against them, they'd both be public pariahs, hated by 50% of everyone and immensely unpopular among many segments of society, including Democrats.

Fixed that for you.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Bill Bradley thinks you're wrong

==Q: You criticize Bill Clinton in your book as an illustration of the painful limitations of charisma.

A: Bill Clinton was the first two-term Democratic president since F.D.R. and was enormously popular — and yet at the end of eight years in office, there were fewer Democratic senators, fewer Democratic congressmen, fewer Democratic governors, fewer state legislators, and the party was in debt. You can be regarded as a charismatic president, and yet it doesn’t translate into structure.==

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/magazine/25WWLNQ4.t.html

As for Gore being a bonehead, the data from October 2000 strongly suggests he was right to stay away from Bad News Bill. You make the usual mistake when you rip Gore; job approval and personal popularity are two different things:

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

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

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

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

[DrFunkenstein]

36. At a Very High Cost to Liberalism That Remains to This Day

The Clintons cynically fed upon micro-polling to drive a wedge between themselves and the Democratic Party and undermined decades of liberalism going back to FDR. By essentially accepting that "liberal" was a dirty wordat the Presidential level, they have put our core values at a deep loss from which we are still recovering. They basically handed over the farm to bolster their own approval ratings.

Further, they compromised just about every Democrat in their own personal and political shortcomings - a matter that was at the heart of Gore's decision not to stump with them, regardless of what the polls were telling him.

Gore, like myself, was tired of having his beliefs undermined just to keep the Clinton's smelling rosy. Unfortunately, he was slow to shake off his DLC handlers and consultants that insisted that the only way to be competitive was to run a corporate-sponsored campaign, Clinton-style.

I'm glad that he eventually came around. Wish I could say the same for the Clintons. If Hillary had undergone a conversion like Gore's, it wouldn't be this huge drag watching her poll-tested prattling.

[Kermitt Gribble]

5. You contradict your own post.

"2) From 1994 to 2006, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress; primarily because of their ability to divide the country over Bill Clinton's morality issues."

The repukes were guilty of dividing the country, not the Clintons.

[Dawgs]

11. The repukes were ABLE to divide the country, BECAUSE of the Clintons.

[Kermitt Gribble]

17. A huge majority of the country

was supportive of Bill Clinton even through the bullshit impeachment. The repukes were ABLE to divide the country because of their biased media.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Thank you!

For those who refuse to acknowledge the heavy handed role the media has played in our politics, in reference to creating devisiveness, then they are not looking!

It is the media that have aided and abetted the GOP in creating what we are looking at today! They tried as hard as they could to demonize the Clintons, and it didn't work with the General voting public, although it appears to have worked pretty well here on DU!

[cali]

6. Well,

1) The Democrats dominated both houses of Congress from 1954 to 1994(two years after Bill Clinton was elected).

One can hardly put all the blame on Clinton for the loss of the Congress in 1994. The dems had become increasingly corrupt and arrogant while in power. Not to mention that the desire for change in politics, is a fundamental. Please note that dems made gains in both '96 and '98.


2) From 1994 to 2006, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress; primarily because of their ability to divide the country over Bill Clinton's morality issues

Opinion, with no evidence to back it up. So again, why did dems make gains in '96 and '98?


3) President Bush was able to get close enough in the 2000 election to steal it because morality was made an issue by Bill Clinton's presidency. Al Gore made a decision to not run with Bill Clinton because of how he divided the country.

Again, this is opinion with nothing to back it up. Gore made a significant mistake trying to distance himself from a widely popular President. Please read this article to understand why running away from Clinton, particularly in FL, was a mistake.
http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm

4) The result of the close election of 2000 gave us eight years of the worst President in history.

So? That's hardly germane to your argument. Finally, if Clinton so divided the nation, how come he left office with a high approval rating, and has seen his popularity increase since he left office?

[Dawgs]

12. I'm sorry. You might want to forget what happened in the nineties, but I'm not.

I don't want another 4 years like we had from 2001-2004.

[cali]

16. That's just ridiculous.

You're actually blaming bush and everything he's done on Clinton? That's not exactly rational.

[Dawgs]

26. I'm not doing that at all. I'm blaming the Republicans for being stupid.

I don't blame the Clintons for anything. I thought Bill Clinton was a very good President.

I'm tired of her supporters ignoring the hatred that 4 out of 10 people in this country have for her. I'm tired of them trying to convince me that the Republicans won't unite to defeat her.

Should I ignore the large billboards all over Atlanta that say "STOP HILLARY NOW!"? Should I ignore how they use her in the debates to gain support?

[Kermitt Gribble]

49. If 4 out of 10 people in this country have hatred for her

that means 6 out of 10 do not hate her. That's a 60% to 40% majority. Instead of worrying about the 40%, maybe you should work to get that 60% to come out and vote, no matter who wins the nomination.

[Mass]

23. Well, the Clintons are not the only ones responsible for the loss of the House and Senate,

but they certainly did NOTHING to help keeping it, neither did they do anything to reinforce the Party. The sad state of the Party infrastructure in 2000, 2002, and 2004 can be in part blamed for our losses (not only, but in part), and it took Dean and the 50-state strategy to start to fix it.

Yes, the Clintons are good for themselves; for the party, not so much.

[cali]

25. I think that's largely true, and one of the reasons

I don't want to see them back in the White House.

[wyldwolf]

57. Sincere questions

1. If our party infrastructure was so bad, how did Clinton win in 1992 and 1996 and how did the Dems pick up House seats in 1996, 1998, and 2000? A realize a reasonable answer would be people were reacting to the Republicans. If that is so, were they not reacting to the Republicans when we picked up 30 or so seats in 2006?

2. What exactly did Dean's 50 State Strategy do?

I have yet to see any evidence that it did anything to push the party to victory in 2006. Like many things in politics, it is asserted that it did, but there doesn’t appear to be a lot of empirical evidence to support the assertion.

I want names, circumstances, statistics, something that demonstrates a nationwide effect by the 50 State Strategy.

And it isn’t as though the question has never been asked. I’ve asked it often. I’ve seen it posed on various blogs. It’s always answered with vague references to unnamed folks hired by the DNC and grassroots training that may or may not have ever taken place in all 50 states.

Someone asked this before on DU and got answers like:

* Our State House Went Democratic! And Our Governor Won Again!
* Paid staff positions with the state Dem party that weren’t there before.
* The results are showing in the increased communication efforts with the grassroots, at least by email. For the first time our state party pushed the DNC Reunion day. They have never mentioned it before.
* He has helped move a younger, more aggressive grassroots activists into positions of power within the state Democratic Party.
* There were some dramatic changes in Ohio last election. Factors involved: Government Corruption at State Level People upset with DC and War. However, without the 50 state strategy with efforts to breathe life into Democratic Party and get it organized, the changes could not have happened.

Better e-mails? Paid staff positions? Younger activists? Elections wins in Ohio, a state with intense corruption by GOP leaders? THESE are indications that the 50 State Strategy worked in 2006? Give me a break!

The person who posed the question finally made this determination: My conclusion based on the response is that Dean’s strategy had little or no impact in most of the US.

Void of any specific names, events, and statistical data, that would be my conclusion, too. And I speak not only from that vantage point, but from personal experience in Georgia which received nominal favors from the DNC. The Democratic party of Georgia employs up to 20 people year round. Howard Dean visited the DPG office in 2005 shortly after being elected party chair. I recall that vividly because a friend of mine, who is the chair of the PAC that I’m the vice chair of, called me and asked if I wanted to come meet him. Well, I was over an hour away in Atlanta traffic so I had to decline. Anyway, Dean visits the DPG and finds a fully staffed operation, including directors with years of federal and state experience (my friend being one of them.) So what was Dean’s ultimate contribution to GA? He tranferred a few of the DPG staffers to the DNC’s payroll. Big whoop!

As for grassroots activities, nothing much changed. We knocked on doors in 2006 the same way we did in 2004, 2002, and 2000. There were more canvassers in 2004 than 2006 by my experience. The DNC did provide us with some nice door knob hangers, but some declined to use them in some districts because information on them was strictly national party stuff and in the south, that doesn’t always play well.

As far as congressional seats, 13 were in play. Only one was determined not winnable - the 6th district. That’s Tom Price’s district. I know the Democrat who ran - Steve Sinton (he was a founder of Air America Radio.) I recall one afternoon in his campaign office asking his manager (now his wife) if the DNC had provided any assistance. She told me no.

The seats that were determined safe - we won (without any DNC aid). The two winnable ones, we won, too, and again with no DNC assistance. The money spent in the congressional races of Jim Marshall and John Barrow came from the Rahm Emanuel’s DCCC. Canvassing and phone banking came from local Democratic organizations the same as it always had.

Plus, Georgia continued to lose previously Democratic-held seats. We lost the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Sec. of State races.

In all honesty, that is how I saw Georgia play out in 2006.

I also want to point out that with so many bloggers online who idolize Howard Dean, you would think someone would have done a study on Dean’s impact last year, but to my knowledge there is no such thing.

[madrchsod]

8. why is no one pointing out

hillary`s friend`s comments about gay people? why is no one pointing out hillary has gone to prayer groups with conservative republicans? i guess the clinton`s are just a bit better than everyone else.

[Dawgs]

15. Huh? I'm not following.

[ellenfl]

9. i have long contended that they have been 'licking' repug butt.

they are NOT progressives. they represent the money men in this country just like the repugs do. i see some cosmetic change if hill wins but nothing substantive. just my opinion.

ellen fl

[beachmom]

13. And the Clintons never fought back against the smear that 9/11 was Clinton's fault until 2006

Prior to 2006, Clinton didn't do much to push back on the concerted effort by the Right that 9/11 was entirely Clinton's fault. That is a remarkable smear, and yet for 5 years, Bill didn't criticize the Bush administration much on foreign policy (only domestic issues). Meanwhile, Terry McAuliffe ran the DNC during that time period, and we lost three elections in a row ('00, '02, '04). Clinton not only didn't fight back, he COMPLIMENTED Bush on invading Iraq and so forth. I still remember when he did that, in the run up to the war in early '03 -- that is a pretty fantastic endorsement Bush received for his war.

So isn't that amazing that when we are on the eve of Hillary's presidential campaign, Bill goes on Fox News Sunday to FINALLY push back on the 9/11 smear. And these people have the right to go after Kerry "not fighting back"? I don't think so, UNLESS you understand that the Clintons are not for the Democratic party; they're only for the Clintons.

[Gman]

14. How old were you during the Clinton years?

It doesn't appear that you were old enough to pay much attention.

Do you not know that Bill's approval rating was in the high 60's - low 70's during the impeachment proceedings?

Bill's "morality issues" were non-existent in 1994. A fat, lazy and complacent Democratic majority was the problem in 1994, and I got that exact wording from a Democratic member of congress in 1994 a few days after election day in November 1994.

Clinton was not on the ballot in 2000.

What do you mean by "what happens in another few years when the country is as divided as it was in the late nineties?" Do you not realize this country has probably not been as divided as it is now since the Civil War?

Is this supposed to be another bash Hillary and/or the Clintons thread? Being a bash Clinton thread, this post is bound for the Greatest page.

[Dawgs]

19. I was in my twenties and thirties.

"Do you not know that Bill's approval rating was in the high 60's - low 70's during the impeachment proceedings?"

It doesn't change the fact that the hatred for him united the Republicans. Maybe I should be blaming those in the 60% that didn't vote for him.

"Bill's "morality issues" were non-existent in 1994. A fat, lazy and complacent Democratic majority was the problem in 1994, and I got that exact wording from a Democratic member of congress in 1994 a few days after election day in November 1994."

Sorry, I should have said that they were able to keep control of Congress for twelve years because of "morality issues". And, if the Clintons were so great at beating the Republicans why weren't they able to get Democrats to vote in 1994?

"Clinton was not on the ballot in 2000."

He was for the Republicans.

"Is this supposed to be another bash Hillary and/or the Clintons thread?"

Only to Hillary supporters. I see it as a legitimate question that we as Democrats need to ask ourselves before supporting Hillary.

[Gman]

30. Hopeless

[karynnj]

74. The approval rating you quote is the job approval number

There were other polls that were more negative. Also, many of us who were not thrilled with Clinton, responded in his favor because he was so under attack.

[karynnj]

72. You don't have to go back to the the Civil War,

we were at least as divided in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

[Gman]

75. Yeah, true

I had a fist fight with my dad in 1973 over my Impeach Nixon bumper sticker and parking my pickup in the driveway. Pretty tough fight at the time. He was an ex-marine WWII vet. He was at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and all the other major S Pacific battles. I had hair down past my shoulders, I hated the president and he had previously found a baggie of pot that fell out of my truck. I was pretty much his worst nightmare.

[Uben]

18. You are soooo wrong!

Republicans controlled congress during the impeachment proceedings and Clinton stayed in office. ass kicked

Republicans spent 50 million on Whitewater and found nothing. ass kicked

Ater that, they had to steal the 2000 election to take office. as kicked

Hillary became a senator. ass kicked

Bill Cllinton is more liked than Bush by a landslide.. ass kicked

Hillary out polls every republican. ass kicked

You can frame anything to look unfavorable, that's what the republicans are good at. Trying to divide the democrats will not win your candidate the nomination. Instead of tearing a fellow democrat down, try heralding the positive aspects of your candidate to boost his favorability. You are doing exactly what republicans want you to do.

I don't bash democrat candidates, I'll leave that to the republicans.

If you feel that is the only way you can elevate your candidate, what does that say for your candidate?

Yeah, not much, huh?

I believe in party unity. We can choose a candidate for president without stabbing each other in the back!

Be part of the solution.

[Dawgs]

21. So. It is only about the Clintons to you?

I thought we were fighting for Democrats and the country.

[Uben]

29. No, it's not about the Clintons for me

..but it is obvious it is for you. You are the one ripping a democrat, not me. I have no idea who you support, and frankly, I don't give a damn. It is my belief that it is much more constructive to convey your candidates positive aspects rather than trying to tear down another's. If you somehow think it makes your candidate look better, think again. If you want to debate issues, let's go, but if all you want to do is trash another democrat, go find another ear! This one aint listening!

[Dawgs]

33. Where am I ripping or tearing down a Democrat?

I'm legitimately concerned that Hillary will have a hard time winning next year. I'm concerned that her Presidency will divide the country at a time when we are gaining momentum. I don't hate Hillary. I will vote for her.

I'm just concerned.

[Uben]

35. Are you that blind

Try posts #10, 11, and twelve. Look, whoever you support for our nominee, god bless you. I think your willingness to vote for the nominee is admirable. If your candidate wins the nomination, I will vote for that person, as well!

Hey man! That feels a lot better, don't you agree? I'd rather see a deaf and dumb, Middle-eastern pygmy monkey-beater win the presidency before another republican. ( no offense to all the deaf and dumb middle-easterm pygmy monkey-beaters out there!)

[Dawgs]

38. A Hillary supporter calling me blind - hah!!

My response in post #11 was referencing the poster's remarks, not the Clintons.

My response in post #10 was attacking the right, not the Clintons. I don't blame the Clintons for what the right has done. I blame the right.

[zalinda]

20. Because the media keeps telling us

that they've been kicking repub butt for years. The media wants Clinton to win, period. They made a great deal of money while the Clintons were in the White House, maybe that's what they are lusting after. They have been throwing her in our faces for over a year. I'm about to put her on "ignore", until I have to deal with her.

zalinda

[Mass]

24. The Clintons are about themselves, not the Democrats. Have you not yet understood that?

It is not about kicking the GOP's ass. It is about helping Democrats throughout the country and they have been sorely useless.

[Dawgs]

27. I agree with you. Unfortunately, many others don't. I started this to remind them.

[sniffa]

32. you're just a hater

why do you fear a strong woman?

[cleveramerican]

28. You can't separate Clinton from Lewinsky

without Monica the general feeling about the Clintons would be very different.

[wyldwolf]

34. Ready for the smack down?

1) The Democrats dominated both houses of Congress from 1954 to 1994(two years after Bill Clinton was elected).

FALSE: The Democrat's hold on both Houses began crumbling in the late 1960s. The Democrats lost 5 seats in 1968, 12 seats in 1972, 15 seats in 1978, 35 seats in 1980. In 1980, the Democrats also lost the Senate for six years. The Democratic party again lost 16 seats in 1984, and 9 seats in 1992.

The Democrats picked up seats in other years during this stretch, but their performance hardly qualifies as "dominating." They benefitted most in 974 because of Watergate.

But they never lost control of the House...

2) From 1994 to 2006, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress; primarily because of their ability to divide the country over Bill Clinton's morality issues.

FALSE: Did you forget, or did you ever know, about the following:

A. Clinton's embrace of liberal issues like gun control, health care, and gay rights between 1992 and 1994?

B. Many years of pent-up popular frustration with a Democratic-controlled Congress, skllfully exploited by the GOP’s dishonest but resolute alliance with the term-limits and balanced-budget movements?

C. Rubbergate?

D. A huge number of Democratic retirements?

E. The racial gerrymandering that guaranteed big southern losses in the House?

F. The first big mobilization of the Christian Right?

G. The culmination of a gradual but steady trend towards realignment of the two parties on roughly ideological lines?

And if "Clinton's morality" was such an issue, why did the Democrats win 8 seats in 1996 and 5 seats in 1998? In '98, Clinton painted Newt Gingrich as a right wing extremist and WON, leading to Newt's retirement.

3) President Bush was able to get close enough in the 2000 election to steal it because morality was made an issue by Bill Clinton's presidency. Al Gore made a decision to not run with Bill Clinton because of how he divided the country.

This is the part where "progressives"* pretend Ralph Nader doesn't exist and that Democrats didn't win seats in '96,'98, and 2000.

And aside from the fact that Al Gore sorta kinda won, you have forgotten that Gore (a) managed to put together a campaign team largely bereft of Clinton ‘96 alumni, and (b) made a decisive if counter-intuitive choice not to run on the record of the Clinton-Gore administration (c) let a Democratic strategist involved in every presidential run since 1972 other than Clinton’s two campaigns run things.

What you've done, Dawgs, is invent a bunch of hooey.

[Dawgs]

37. That's your smack down?

1) The Democrats controlled most of Congress for 40 years. I would consider that dominating.

2) You are generally correct here, but I still contend that Democrats could have taken back Congress or gained more seats if Bill Clinton's "problems" were not an issue.

3) Democrats voted for Nader because many bought into the lies of the right. And, if Bill was such a great President why were people not supporting his VP and instead voting for Nader?

Gore's decision not to use the Clinton Presidency may have been wrong, but it wouldn't have been a decision if the right didn't use the Clinton "morality issues" to divide the country.

[cuke]

41. That's your response?

1) You say absolutely nothing about the steady decline of the dem majority. Nothing! You can't even acknowledge because that would so obviously blow up your claim that the decline was all Clinton's fault

2) You generally agree? You just got done saying that Gore lost, and Congress lost, because of Bill Clinton alone. Now you agre that there were many other reasons, but you still think you were right?

Only on DU.

[wyldwolf]

42. yep, because the facts are clearly against you.

You tried (again) to put the losses on 1994 at Clinton's feet but showed a severe lack of knowledge on the time and events.

1) The Democrats controlled most of Congress for 40 years. I would consider that dominating.

But you didn't say "most of Congress for 40 years."

2) You are generally correct here, but I still contend that Democrats could have taken back Congress or gained more seats if Bill Clinton's "problems" were not an issue.

Of course I'm right, but what do you base this contention on? Stats? Polling? What? You've got nothing but your active imagination. As Clinton's approval ratings clearly showed, the country was not that concerned with his "problems." And if Clinton was so weak, why didn't the GOP win the presidential race in 1996? Instead, Clinton won and he won more house seats. He won more house seats again in 1998. And he won house seats again in 2000.

3) Democrats voted for Nader because many bought into the lies of the right.

No, they bought into the lies of the left - people like Molly Ivans and Michael Moore who said there was no difference between Gore and Nader.

And, if Bill was such a great President why were people not supporting his VP and instead voting for Nader?

Excuse me - Al Gore got the second largest number of votes in history to that point. In October on 2000, Clinton's national approval rating was 58%. Al Gore's problem was in state by state campaigning where he refused to call on Clinton to campaign for him in the states where Clinton’s job ratings ranged from 52% to 58%. These 18 states split, with 11 going to Bush and seven going to Gore. Remember that it would have taken only one of the Bush states to go for Gore to change the results of the 2000 election.

Gore's decision not to use the Clinton Presidency may have been wrong, but it wouldn't have been a decision if the right didn't use the Clinton "morality issues" to divide the country.

Clinton's "morality issues" didn't divide the country. He had a 66% approval rating the day he left office.

You should really quit buying into the left's revisionist history.

[Dawgs]

46. You are wrong, as usual. You tell me I'm not using facts, yet everything you use is opinion.

Wow!!

[wyldwolf]

50. wrong again... Dawgs. The following are not opinions

FACT: The Democrat's hold on both Houses began crumbling in the late 1960s. The Democrats lost 5 seats in 1968, 12 seats in 1972, 15 seats in 1978, 35 seats in 1980. In 1980, the Democrats also lost the Senate for six years. The Democratic party again lost 16 seats in 1984, and 9 seats in 1992.

FACT: Clinton's embraced liberal issues like gun control, health care, and gay rights between 1992 and 1994

FACT: The public's distrust of the government reached a peak in the early 90s.

FACT: Rubbergate did happen and it did bring the Dem's congressional approval even lower.

FACT: There were a huge number of Dem retirements in 1994.

FACT: There was widespread racial gerrymandering in the south in the early 90s.

FACT: 1994 was the first big mobilization of the Christian Right.

FACT: the Democrats won 8 seats in 1996 and 5 seats in 1998.

FACT: In '98, Clinton painted Newt Gingrich as a right wing extremist and WON, leading to Newt's retirement.

FACT: Al Gore managed to put together a campaign team largely bereft of Clinton ‘96 alumni, and (b) made a decisive if counter-intuitive choice not to run on the record of the Clinton-Gore administration (c) let a Democratic strategist involved in every presidential run since 1972 other than Clinton’s two campaigns run things.

[BootinUp]

62. This is a pretty accurate description

of what happened. I didn't say it was perfect and I do not intend to check all the facts as presented, but its a hell of lot closer than the OP which is the lamest of charges made by the far left against Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. You Really Should Do Your Homework

"1) The Democrats dominated both houses of Congress from 1954 to 1994(two years after Bill Clinton was elected)."

Nope- The Rethuglicans captured the Senate in 1980...

The Rethuglicans did such a great job of kicking Bill Clinton's ass they made him one of the highest ranking presidents ever:


"Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. "


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm

And they also made him as popular as Bush* is unpopular:



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

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

[John Q. Citizen]

40. I agree with your analysis. However, you have made one mistake. The Dems

controlled the Senate from 1998 until 2004.

[wyldwolf]

43. there's more wrong with his analysis than that

[John Q. Citizen]

45. I agree with his analysis. the Clintons have been wonderful for the Republicans and

for a long time.

Bill's decision to not further investigate and prosecute crimes against the constitution committed in the Iran/contra incident allowed the criminals to remain on the streets, regroup and come back and pilliage America, for just one example.

There are many more examples, but I thought I'd at least include one example instead of just making a statement with absolutly nothing to back it up.

[wyldwolf]

51. umm...

Bill's decision to not further investigate and prosecute crimes against the constitution committed in the Iran/contra incident

Which crimes?

[John Q. Citizen]

54. Did you read Bill's book? He talks about his decision to just let it go in there.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0511-29.htm

I'm not sure how familiar your are with what happened in Iran/Contra. It's quite long, complex and detailed and without wanting to start from scratch so to speak, I suggest you google it to get up to speed.

The short answer is it was a plot to use arms running and drug smuggling to finance a shadow governemnt for profit (here in the US) to achieve administration goals outlawed by congress.

[wyldwolf]

55. yes.

The Dems had hearings. Weren't there investigations then?

Pardons.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Read the link I provided. It answers your questions.

[wyldwolf]

63. It doesn't

It certainly takes a leftward spin. Calling The New Republic "Neocon" is comical.

But I asked - were there not investigations leading to the Iran/Contra hearings? And were people found guilty? And were people pardoned?

Robert Parry, and those who gravitate to his theories, have always struck me as not being accepting of reality. Parry builds his case with vague "in effect" quotes and hearsay.

Pardons cannot be overturned by new presidents. Democrats investigated Iran/Contra while Clinton was still Gov. of Arkansas.

[wyldwolf]

61. .

replied to wrong post.

[wyldwolf]

44. Why do some "progressives" think the Clinton's HAVEN'T been kicking Republican butt for years?

Why do some "progressives" think the Clinton's HAVEN'T been kicking Republican butt for years?

I saw an interview with Newt Gingrich in the late 90s and he told about an early meeting he had with President Clinton. The two had dinner together in the White House early in 1995 and afterwards they sat together on the balcony and cordially discussed politics. Gingrich made some reference to blocking Clinton's agenda. At one point Clinton leaned into Gingrich with a dire warning to the effect of "no matter how many times I get knocked down, I always get back up."

Was this an opening salvo in the coming Clinton wars with Republicans? No, just a continuation, because the Clintons had been kicking Republican ass for several decades, going back to Hillary's public rebuke of a Republican senator in a graduation speech which won her notice in Life magazine as a voice for her generation.

In Arkansas the Clintons constantly foiled the GOP. Nationally, the Bush I camp is rumored to have asked Clinton not to run in 1992. Why? Did they fear he'd win?

After a long predicted political realignment occurred in 1994, along with several other factors that led to the loss of Congress, Democrats won seats in 1996, 1998, and 2000. In '98, Clinton painted Gingrich as an extremist, shifting the blame of the GOP's 13 seat loss over the last two cycles to him, contributing to his resignation.

Clinton won the impeachment battle and was given an approval rating by the American people of 72%. Lots of back story in that one involving James Carville, Dan Moldea, and Larry Flynt.

Clinton shut down the government over the GOP's attempts to cut medicare. The blame was placed solely on the GOP by the public.

The Clinton's have outmaneuvered the GOP for decades. The GOP knows this which is why they hate the Clintons. The only ones who don't know this are some "progressives."*

[John Q. Citizen]

59. I see you buy into the "authorized" "official" biography. One has to wonder though,

why Bill Clinton won't open his presidential papers up to researchers. It's like he's got something to hide.

If you were to use the same kind of "authorized" "official" biography of bush, one would suppose that bush was a successful business man, TANG Veteran with an honorable discharge, a great and hardworking Governor of Texas, and a good family man who only entered politics to continue the long family tradition of selfless public service.

Most progressives are aware that both bios are so much crapola, put out so that naive and distracted voters will feel good about supporting the candidate.

However, the true unauthorized histories are neither so simplistic or flattering.

[wyldwolf]

65. Which events previously listed by me are you saying never happened?

Each thing I listed can be found independently via a Google search.

why Bill Clinton won't open his presidential papers up to researchers. It's like he's got something to hide.

Why do you think Bill Clinton won't open his presidential papers to researchers?

[John Q. Citizen]

66. I can find everything in the bush authorized official biography in a google search.

Does that make it so? Does google somehow give it weight?

I think Clinton won't allow access to his presidential papers because he wants to control the myth.

[wyldwolf]

67. Which events previously listed by me are you saying never happened?

..and why, again, are you saying Clinton won't allow access to his papers?

[John Q. Citizen]

68. Straw man- i never said the events you listed never happened, although i'd

say that claiming the public solely blamed the Repos for the shut down of congress is naive.

It would imply that not a single member of the public blamed the shut down in congress on Clinton.
That would be incorrect.

But I digress.

I'm growing weary of attempting to argue facts with a true believer. I'm becoming aware that facts don't matter to you as much as you expressing your hero worship does. It's not just boring me, it's pointless.

Good luck, and may you always hold your faith close.

[wyldwolf]

69. uh, no it isn't a strawman. I listed event, you said I was "buying into" something.

Now tell me what the implication there is?

And you're talking about facts? What facts have you presented?

[BootinUp]

64. yep. n/t

[freestyle]

47. They have, at great cost to the Democratic Party.

On a personal level, Bill and Hillary Clinton are proven winners. The Clinton presidency was a disaster for the Democratic party. I'm not sure the same thing thing would happen with a Hillary presidency, because this is a different time. Hopefully, everyone is approaching this with eyes wide open and knowledge that whoever the nominee is will have to be kept honest. Having said all that, I have not forgottent the betrayals of the Clinton years, and I am not setting myself up for that again.

[LanternWaste]

52. It was a little bit like this....

It always seemed a little bit like this when I lived through his most excellent administration...


http://www.toonsart.com/aspx/dbImage.aspx?blobId=543

[denem]

58. Bill C;linton (if premitted) woould have won the 2000 election.

The Gore campaign made many mistakes, which the Clinton's would have expertly avoided. Hillary's war room will be even tighter this time round. Tell me, did Hillary win New York in her second term in the face of relentless attacks?

[incapsulated]

70. Because they do

They win and win and the repukes whine and kick and scream and impeach and investigate and then they win again.

Why do you think they hate them so fucking much?

[chubby190]

73. I think

both parties need to stop focusing on what is good for the party. Start doing their damn jobs. Who cares if someone's a republican or democrat? Last time I checked both approval ratings were miserably low.