Whether you support Obama or Hillary, lets agree to one thing: LAY OFF BILL CLINTON!!!

[DiamondJay]

In response to the horrendous freeper post who said Bill should have capitulated to Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, and Loot Gingrich, I have decided to stand up for the best president with the most substantial record since FDR. Why does one have to trash BILL Clinton to like Obama?

POINT NUMBER ONE(1):Bill Clinton SAVED our party. Let us not forget our electoral vote average from 1972 to 1988. We got in 72,76,80,84,88 respectively: 17+297+49+13+111 out of 2690 total EVs in those 5 years. 97.4 was the Dem presidential electoral vote average before Bill Clinton came on the scene. And it would be 47.5 without 76, which we would have never won without Watergate. We were still the soft on crime welfare party, especially during the Reagan Revolution. After Clinton, in 2000 and 2004, we got respectively 266+251 out of 1076 EVs in both years, our EV average was 258.5 electoral votes. THATS a huge difference. And thats with a fradulent stat, cuz if we had been rightfully rewarded florida, Gore would have had 291, bringing us up to 271, the WINNING NUMBER!!! we actually get close, or in Gore's case WIN elections. Before Bill Clinton going back to the late 60's, we would NEVER win states like California, NJ, CT, ME, NH, WI, IL and others. If it weren't for Clinton, we'd still get killed for being "soft on crime" and for welfare to everyone. Without him, what Democratic presidency could we point to and tell people why to vote for Dems? Carter? I think people don't like 20% interest and US hostages in Iran, or malaise either.
(BTW: Oh, and perot helping Clinton is a pure MYTH. Read the results of 96 and the exit polls of 96 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html Clinton STILL RUINS DOLE without Perot, and can see the results in red states too, and clinton won and still wins in most of the states he won. Same for 92 http://www.observer.com/2007/not-spoiler-not-ross-perot?page=0%2C1 Without Clinton, we woulda had over 20 years GOP Rule, with Quayle topping off after Bush I's last term. Use ur sense too, Perot was prochoice, and progay, obvi not all of his vote was from true Bushies. Clinton also lead in 92 when Perot was gone in that summer, with a majority and at times by many double digit points.)

POINT NUMBER TWO(2):To all who blame him for losing Congress, you are sorely misguided. We lost Congress because it was long coming to us after the Reagan Revolution. The Dems had been in power from the 50s, and from the 70s to the 90's in name only for the most part, and it was easy then to paint them as the "corrupt" establishment for bullshit scandals. Also, because during conservativism's rise in the late 70s to the Reagan 80's, the south left the Dems economic populism to the GOPs newfound race baiting strategy, as they resented the Dems on racial issues like welfare and crime. That cost many southern dems to lose seats because their constituents saw what their party was about when they saw a dem president, as they had become repubs only voting dems back because they knew them. Most dems in congress during the 80s were conservative boll weevils who got reagans tax cuts for ultra rich people thru, along with everything else of his. But notice how now, after realizing how much they liked Clinton and dems, true REAL dems are coming to washington, replacing a few boll weevils. ALSO, don't forget the HUGE VAST RIGHTWING MEDIA CONSPIRACY. In 94, Whitewater was everywhere. That prob kinda hurt us.

POINT NUMBER THREE(3): Sure he did NAFTA, but HE WAS BY FAR THE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN DECADES. Family Leave Act of 93, Tax Hike on the Rich and Budget Balancing Act of 93, Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, black income increased by 8000, median income increased not just for the rich, but for the middle class as well, and race relations healed better during him than Reagan and Bush. Also, HE TRIED to get gays to openly serve. It was because of POLITICS, not convictions he could not get that done. Face it, this is a game, and you can't win all you want. He truly believed in it, or why would he have waged such a losing battle so early in his presidency. He HAD to do welfare reform, as he PROMISED in 92 to end welfare as we knew it, to save the Democratic Party. But with the economy, he deserves ALL credit for balancing the budget. The GOP "spending cuts" were nowhere close to how much Clinton reigned in by raising taxes on those who gained bigtime from Reagan and Bush. yes the defense budget went down, but was coming down since 85 under both Reagan and Bush as well.

POINT NUMBER FOUR(4): He was the most honest president since Kennedy and Carter: Which is the worst lie? LBJ: Tonkin Gulf, Nixon: Watergate, Ford pardoning a criminal who sabotaged his political enemies, Reagan who gave Iran, our worst enemy weapons for hostages and lied about it, Bush Sr:Pardoning those involved AND "no new taxes", Bush II: EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN, or "Slick" Willie: getting steam off a tough job. he never lied, a BJ is not sex, and even if it was, it should not have been impeachment or even under other, as the post this thread responds to would have had. he also was the most moral, and cutting taxes for ultra wealthy people and supporting wars in Latin America are much more immoral than adultery. He is a moral and honorable person, at least by politician standards. HE IS A POLITICIAN, HE WILL NOT BE UP FRONT ABOUT EVERYTHING, but has been MUCH more so than most other Presidents and ALL Republicans.

The fact is he is the best recent president we had. There were no 9/11s during his term, and he didn't need to scare us with such to keep us safe. If Bush had stayed on his path, 9/11 would never have happened. He did NOT cost Al Gore in 2000 by staying in as president. Had he left, Gore would have been in Ford's position, taking the place of a "disgraced" president, and Bush would have actually WON the 2000 election. We needed to be moderate in the 90s. People were not going all out liberal after the Reagan Revolution, which credit to Obama, DID happen in a big fucking way. Also, we NEED big money donors to get us off the ground, as the GOP used to have a monopoly on the upper class. But Clinton got us to be more than the party of "poor people" But thanks to him we are actually viable as presidency is concerned. We were called "irrelevant" in 1988. But now we compete for the presidency. Is he perfect, or ideal? HELL NO! But he is the best Dem president we have to point to. So whether you support Obama or Hillary, NO BASHING BILL CLINTON. PLEASE.

BTW I AM NOT DEFENDING THE DLC. THEIR TIME IS OVER, BUT THEY WERE ONCE NEEDED WHEN WE WERE WELFARE IN SOFT ON CRIME. I AGREE THEY ARE OVER BUT WE SHOULD STILL PRAISE THE LAST GOOD DEM PRESIDENT, TO POINT TO SOMETHING. THIS IS IN NO WAY SAYING HE IS PERFECT OR WAS PERFECT. WAS NAFTA RIGHT? NO? WAS HE GOD? NO, BUT HIS TENURE IS STILL THE LAST GOOD DEM PRESIDENCY. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO POINT TO A PRESIDENCY. if not the man

[Radical Activist]

1. No. He wrecked the party and has no legacy that lasted beyond two years after he left office.

You know how Clinton was able to pass so many conservative measures like media consolidation and welfare reform? Blind party loyalty. It happened because Democrats didn't challenge a moderate President of their own party when he betrayed progressives who voted for him. I'm not going to make that mistake again and I'm not going to make the mistake of supporting another Clinton who will betray us.

[bellasgrams]

40. Rad. Go ahead and vote for McCain we don't care just get out

of here and go to their board with your friendss

[Radical Activist]

42. We're not down to the unfortunate choice between McCain and Hillary yet.

And if we want to win in November then it won't be a choice between those two.

[DiamondJay]

45. maybe Ché will be a candidate

on the Guevara/Nader ticket. Or I hope thats not how you vote if she does get the nod. I pledge that whoever wins the Dem nod, I will support WHOLEHEARTEDLY unless everyone in the delegation dies except lieberman and he nominates himself.

[Radical Activist]

You know who the best friend of the Green Party is?

Bill Clinton. Every college campus I visited in 2000 had stronger Green Party groups than College Democrats. That's the result of 8 years of the Democratic Party standing for nothing and ignoring young people. Go ahead and vote for another 4 years of Clintonian politics if you want to drive off more people to the Greens.

You have to stand for something more than not being as bad as the Republicans if you want to build a party for the future.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[DiamondJay]

65. hey hey hey nothing wrong with idealism

but there is also something right with realism, and this man obvi wouldn't know it from his left hand.

[Sebass1271]

75. yes

nothing wrong.. with it.. but his form of idealism is not letting this poster see realism. the fact that our party is electable now..

it really infurates me when i see posts like these.. they forget.. now i understand when foreigners call us "americans" brain dead and memory deficit..

[Radical Activist]

82. I saw the reality that the Democratic Party

was very weak on college campuses in the year 2000 and was very concerned about its future. In the long term, Clintonian style politics isn't sustainable.

People are calling me names and saying I'm idealistic but no one is giving a substantive argument to show why I'm wrong.

[Radical Activist]

76. There's nothing politically realistic

about a political strategy that sometimes works in the short term, but in the long term fails to attract new and/or young voters. If it weren't for Bush being so horrible, Bill Clinton's DLC approach would have destroyed the Democratic Party in another 10 years as young people came of age politically and saw nothing in the Democratic Party to vote for.

[Radical Activist]

69. I'm being realistic about what happened politically.

The only thing that saved the Democratic Party, especially among young people, was George Bush because he was so horrible it drove people to the Democratic Party. Before that, Clinton set the party on a downward spiral because he didn't give young people any reason to be Democrats. Nader had support in 2000 because people were sick of a timid Democratic party that didn't express its own ideals.

The Clinton triangulation strategy might get you through the next election. But in the long run it wrecks the party. People want something to be FOR and Obama provides that. Always saying we aren't as bad as the Republicans like the Clintons do only works as a short term strategy.

[Radical Activist]

86. I'm telling you how to keep the Democratic Party strong.

If you think I'm wrong then make an argument instead of calling me names in all caps.

[Sebass1271]

121. You don't try to keep your party

strong by willingly trashing the only democratic president we've had in more 20 years..Yes, he had his flaws, however, his positives were more than the negatives. Can't you just see that our party now is being considered as a party of electable? Our party is respected worldwide. We are now a party of inclusion and fiscally responsible? when was our party considered like this? Remind me of the year and I’ll rest my case with your argument. During JFK? Yes, more than 30 years ago.. How old are you? Maybe you are too young to remember how our party was labeled (and still is by the right wing machinery) before Reagan.

This is not about how aggressive we are, it's about how much diplomacy we can use to bring people to US. The same thing Obama is doing in this campaign. Let me remind you Obama respects Clinton very much. Read it, in his book. I am sure he copied Clinton’s audacity to bring people together and work for a common cuase.

nough said.

[Radical Activist]

129. Blind cult-like obedience to a leader

doesn't help build the party either. No one grows if they refuse to look at their own faults.

Sure, there were some good things about Clinton, but the time for his approach is gone. We don't need Hillary to revive it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

114. the repugs are holding back their volumes of anti Hillary stuff for if she gets the nomination

then it will be on the air 24 7 and it will be nauseating.

Those that didn't get the impeachment and -"gate" experiences are going to find out
why some of us don't want to see the democratic party dragged through that.

[DiamondJay]

119. they've already done that over the last 15 years

its all old news. they were innocent of everything. Ken Starr even said so.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

110. AMEN, thanks to Billary, we lost congress, which means you can't do shi# n/t

[DiamondJay]

118. prove it, that THEY were the reason.

you seem to forget how much the GOP strengthened from Nixon to Reagan to Bush I. this is where Obama is right. Clinton won 92 because he had the charisma to make change the theme and most importantly, was the only one who could get us away from being the soft on crime and welfare party. Jerry Brown and Tom Harkin woulda got killed. not to mention the GOP was steadily gaining in the house since the late 70s under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, got more during Reagan and got the Senate under him. Dems even lost house seats in 92 when Clinton won.

[surfermaw]

168. Bill Clinton in many polls' comes in as one of the top 5 best President

Bill Clinton, is one of the most intelligent presidents of all times, he wanted to be president and sstudies all his life for the job, he read every book on presidents he could get his hands on, he went to college and then to England to study, he then came back as a Prof. in Arkansas, and paid his dues as twice governor of Arkansas....he cleaned up the Bush mess. Remember Bush left him with high unemployment, t17 trillion dollars of debt, but that southern boy didn't back down, he brought with him one of the best cabinets ever , especially Robert Rubin, and it wasn't but a few months until the U.S was thriving under Clinton, he was persecuted by the Republican party I am in my eighties lets say since FDR..and never in my life have I ever seen any president put through what Bill and Hillary hd to take from the repub licans and the right wing media..Take a look at Bill Clinton, I would say what he went through took 20 years off his life he looks like a 75 year old man now. Lighten up folk, You know this is the democrat party. Speaking so badly about William Jefferson Clinton could cost your candidate VOTES BIG VOTES

[Windy]

2. Bill brought us NAFTA. The full ramifications of that were not felt until years later

Like now.... Outsourcing is killing the manufacturing base of this country. All the new jobs being created since NAFTA went into full swing are low paying service industry jobs.

Not to mention the telecommunications bill that brought us Murdock and Fox.

He also signed on to "regime change" in Iraq before leaving office.

Remember all the flack about his comments that he was against the war from the beginning? The flack was deserved.

Take off the blinders.

[DiamondJay]

10. how about the 22 million other jobs?

which were caused to a declining deficit because of him. Alan Greenspan even credits Bill Clinton, as do most credible economists.

[Windy]

27. Oh those tech bubble jobs? Gee how could I forget!

hmmm....I wonder how many of those who got those 22 million jobs transferred to India or decided to withdraw unemployment?

[Dogmudgeon]

123. "Bubble jobs" -- about ONE MILLION

And I had one of them. I put a lot of money away, which I would need, because I'm "uninsurable".

--p!

[Radical Activist]

44. Jobs at Walmart and McDonalds?

That's no replacement for the good paying union jobs that were shipped overseas.

[paulk]

62. you don't think the Reagan/Bush years

had anything to do with that?

At least there WERE jobs under Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

90. Its true that Clinton continued the same neoliberal trade policies

as Reagan and Bush. They all share some of the blame. And a major reason I don't support Hillary is that I think she will continue those same policies.

[Sebass1271]

64. YOUR CHE AND COMMUNISM WILL

GIVE YOU THE JOBS YOU WANT HUH?

HONESTLY, YOU MISSED THE THREAD'S POINT. :puke:

[Radical Activist]

101. YOUR ALL CAPS WILL MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT MORE COMPELLING

:applause:

[Dogmudgeon]

128. Seabass ... chill a little

You're not making a very good impression. Channel the passion!

I'm a Hillary AND Bill supporter. I'm on your side. But you're smashing your keel on the rocks.

--p!

(And welcome to DU!)

[Sebass1271]

138. Maybe...

I am calmer now.. I believe i made my case in a previous post. But thanks for the heads up.

Anyway, I am not a hillary supporter. I admire her strengths, but have not voted for her;-)

[CaptJasHook]

84. Rad, you don't know what you are talking about

Raygun systematically dismantled the unions in the 80's. The union political power was gone and jobs were already shifting overseas. Clinton merely saw the hand-writing on the wall and threw up NAFTA to slow the process down. Politically, the country was already swinging wide to the right and corporatism. NAFTA was then an improvement over the unregulated march of jobs overseas.

I know it may be hard to see. But Clinton, at the time, was doing what he could to stop the tide. Even now, at least there is a body of law and a system of treaties through which labor can make its case. Those didn't exist before. Instead you had rapid growth of off-shore manufacturing that was unregulated.

Sure, a world where NAFTA exists sucks, but why don't you show me a workeable, enforceable, legal remedy, instead of a knee-jerk counter-cultural diatribe.

[Radical Activist]

92. So NAFTA was good for American labor?

That's a new one. If Clinton was slowing the tide then why was there a dramatic increase in factories opening across the border after NAFTA was signed?

NAFTA was written by corporate special interests to fit their agenda. To believe otherwise is naive.

[CaptJasHook]

105. Still don't get it do you?

No NAFTA was not good for unions. No NAFTA wasn't good for manufacturing.

But NAFTA wasn't the cause of either of their decline. A shifting economy, globalization, the increase in instant communication and effective transportation, an industrialized Asia Pacific and Mexico, cheap overseas labor, and a pro-corporate, strengthened Republican party combined to eliminate the old manufacturing union jobs in this country.

To blame one thing NAFTA for all the ills of working class is "naive".

Again, try, just try for a minute to look at NAFTA from a different angle. I am not pro-NAFTA. I'm not even a die-hard Bill Clinton fan. But I do understand his pragmatism. That is the nature of politics in this backward country of ours. And I maintain, that Clinton staunched the bleeding in this country. Just take a second to imagine if Bush Sr. had won in 1992...

[Radical Activist]

109. Globalization isn't a force of nature.

The form it took under the WTO wasn't inevitable. Which brings to mind that Clinton pushed neoliberal trade policies throughout his term and not just with NAFTA.

I have a hard time believing Bush's trade policies would have been significantly different than Clinton's. Of course, there's no way to prove that we would have lost more jobs if Clinton had fought against NAFTA so all you can do is speculate. But we do know that the pace of job loss to other countries rose significantly to Mexico after NAFTA and to other countries with new WTO agreements.

And I do believe its possible to have a trade system that benefits people in all nations involved rather than hurting workers in all nations.

[CaptJasHook]

117. I admire your idealism

In the meantime, I will focus on doing all the little things that I can do. National politics is so infected with money that it will be impossible to affect change at that level. For me, it is what I do at the local level.



I do think the WTO and NAFTA and eventually global corporate control will be tried in my lifetime. It will probably have to come to that before we have enough people pissed off to start a revolution.

[DiamondJay]

153. coudl che bring em back?

[patrick t. cakes]

164. stick to the issue

and utilize spell check.

[DiamondJay]

39. o Bush Sr. brougth it

and negotiated it. Clinton did make a mistake by signing it, but there was prob some political pressure, and our party was not too strong back then. we WERE just out of Reagan/Bush and we needed ability to get Wall Street money to a somewhat noticeable degree

[Radical Activist]

47. Clinton could have killed it.

We had a Democratic Congress.

[CaptJasHook]

88. For a very short 2 years

And the country was already swinging right. The left was in a panic because it had sat on its ass for too long and let the Republicans steal the working class.

[Radical Activist]

97. Including the two years when NAFTA passed.

It was the first thing he did in office before all the progressive things he promised like universal health care and affordable college.

Too bad we didn't have a charismatic President who could lead and reinvigorate the progressive movement instead of giving into the conservative agenda.

[CaptJasHook]

111. Candidates for President have always made promises they couldn't keep

Talk about naive.

The first meeting Clinton with his economic advisors in 1993, they pointed out that the deficit, ballooned out of proportion by Reagan, made it impossible for him to keep his promises of tax cuts.

He then put forth the very controversial Omnibus bill which successfully, eventually turned that deficit into a surplus. Which effectively stole the Republicans mantle of economic superiority. And he did that by taking only the top 2% of the nation (which they never forgave him for).


I hope we have a candidate that will inspire a new progressive movement. But neither of the current candidates will do so. Hillary, because she is not radically progressive. Obama, because he lacks substance and experience.

[Radical Activist]

112. Those advisors also told him

he couldn't afford to enact his program of progressive policies AND balance the budget at the same time. He chose to balance the budget and we never got a progressive agenda passed during the 8 years of his presidency. It took him just a few months to abandon most of what he campaigned on. And where is that balanced budget today? Honestly, I'd like a Democrat with a lasting legacy this time. We don't get a Democratic President that often.

[CaptJasHook]

131. You think progressive policies would have been passed?

Dream on. How old are you? I was active at that time. This country was totally not going in a progressive direction. The ground swell favored the neo-cons, and the House and Senate were corrupt and ineffectual, the Corporate media was in attack mode on the working class. Pass progressive legislation in that environment?

You know what pissed me off about Clinton? The fact that he let his need for a blowjob destroy the momentum of progress. We could have had Gore in 2000 working on climate issues, Reich rebuilding unions, a reinvigorated Congress. But he gave the Rethuglicans an reason to take him down. He knew they were on a witch hunt and had to get his rocks off anyway. That's what pissed me off about Clinton.

With the budget surplus, he or Gore could have delivered on their earlier progressive promises. Then you might have had a Progressive President to be proud of.

But mark my words, neither of the two current candidates will be able to do shit in the next 4 - 8 years. Maybe a feel good pullout of Iraq. But rebuild the middle class, create working class jobs. Good fucking luck. Maybe in 20 years or post revolution

[Sebass1271]

135. YOu know what i dont'

understand, the blue dress.. how can monica saved that dress with the f----ing stain on it and brought to court!.. how many months after? think about it.. Monica also set him up along with the repukes...

and Bill fell for it.. however, my anger is not targeted at him, my anger is still at the repukes.

[CaptJasHook]

144. I'm angry too

But Bill deserves his fair share of the blame.

[DiamondJay]

136. cmon it was not clinton's fault

it was the GOP Media and the Gingrich Congress's fault we found about monica. honestly, i think in america we are too morally absolute. If there is one thing a leader should be allowed to do, it is have a personal life only himself, his conscience, and his wife should give a damn about. his philandering should not have mattered to anyone, just about every powerful man on earth does it. I bet all the corporate guys like Mitt Romney has done it, as did Francois Mitterand with his mistress at his funeral and tony blair and all the rest, as did Giuliani, and NEWT GINGRICH, and how could we forget Bob livingston, the man who was supposed to lead the impeachment.. No it is not right, but the media hated clinton then and hates him now, because he is successful at what they WISH they could do without coming from a rich family. He is a regular Horatio Alger tale, and everyone hates it. The media fucked Clinton over, and they fucked gore over by letter reagan bush come in, and pack the court with their nutcase cronies.

[CaptJasHook]

141. Bullshit

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office. Let your wife (or husband) catch you having sex in your office and then tell me he wasn't doing something wrong.

He was the President. He was already under investigation. He is brilliant. He should have known better. Period.

[Radical Activist]

140. The '94 takeover happened

because union workers and many Democrats stayed home on election day. Maybe that wouldn't have happened if Clinton had delivered on more of his promises and given Democrats something to vote for. I think the '94 election is in part a result of the failure of Clintonian politics. Maybe the country wouldn't have gone in such a conservative direction if Clinton had used his incredible charisma to argue for a progressive vision instead of starting out by meeting the Republicans halfway, and then having to compromise even further.

And yes, the other thing that bugs me about Clinton is the two years of everyone's time he waisted with that idiotic personal mistake.

[DiamondJay]

142. how about the GOP lead in the polls the whole year

and the failure of his party to stick with him on healthcare? which they abandoned him. it was a good plan, and probably better than mandates will be. not to mention how the GOP smear machine ruined his healthcare plan with that bullshit commercial.

[CaptJasHook]

145. Jesus, I forgot about the F**in commercial.

Bastards.

[CaptJasHook]

143. Maybe

Fact of the matter is, Dems stayed home, Repugs came out in droves.

I think you are stretching at this point. Clinton couldn't go progressive. The country couldn't afford it. He couldn't afford it politically.

Have you ever really looked at Clinton's policies? He was very liberal, and unsuccessfully pushed a lot of liberal ideas along with his more fiscally conservative economics. I think you are being too harsh on him. Just as some people are speaking to glowingly of him.

Again, about how old are you?

[Radical Activist]

146. Clinton had a progressive populist platform

in '92. It worked.

I'm not allowing you to belittle and diminish my opinions based on my age. I am old enough to remember what happened.

[CaptJasHook]

147. I don't want to belittle you. Don't be paranoid.

I'm only interested because I wanted to know if you had a pulse on the nation at the time. There was a lot of shit going on, from a lot of angles. Obviously, I was in the Northwest, so that influenced my opinions as well.

[Radical Activist]

148. Ok

I've gotten conditioned to condescending comments on this board from Hillary supporters about Barack's naive young supporters. I was in high school and college during the Clinton years.

[CaptJasHook]

150. I'm not a Hillary supporter

I'll vote Dem, but I'm not very excited about either candidate at this point. I'm only 41, but like I said, I was paying a lot of attention in the Clinton years, and though there were and are concerns, things were going in a positive direction. Even when he was saddled with the most brutal, traitorous Congress this country has ever seen.

And who the F*** is calling a 30+ year old a naive young supporter? DU sucks of late.

[Sebass1271]

72. Agree

Our party was in disray. it was an embarrasment to be a Democrat.. We were classified as "the poor" and "soft" "welfare" party..

We are at least now, Thanks to Bill, whether these crazy freepers, lunatics-that sound like communists, more of a viable, responsible, electable party than they want to accept.

[Radical Activist]

124. The Democratic Party is doing better today because of Bush backlash.

Clinton has nothing to do with it. If Clinton's message was so effective then he wouldn't have had a Republican congress for six of his eight years in office. The Clinton approach works in some elections but it isn't sustainable in the long term.

Sure Clinton removed some stigmas about the Democratic Party but he never replaced it with anything. He told people what the party was Not (not soft on crime, not for endless welfare) but he didn't tell us what the party was For. You can't build a party that stands for nothing other than not being as bad as the Republicans. It only works in the short term.

[DiamondJay]

130. he replaced it with balanced budgets and prosperity

a far cry from Jimmy Carter days. But hard to believe, the Dems were MUCH weaker when Reagan and Bush were in office. How do you think they let both of his 81 and 82 tax cuts get thru? At least with Bush after Clinton, they tried to fight it. The Dems are stronger for abortion rights today then when they let Reagan help erode them in the 80s.

[Radical Activist]

134. Carter had decent budgets

compared to Bush and Reagan, his deficits were small.
I won't argue that Democrats allowed themselves to be steamrolled by Reagan too much.

[Adelante]

159. Welcome to DU, Sebass1271

:hi:

You will feel right at home in the New DU!! :freak:

[rodeodance]

51. I wonder if SOME would challenge yourself to go without Clinton bashing for, say 2

days?--Could you do it?

How would you live?
How you respond to posts?
Do you think its possible?

[sjdnb]

125. Many expansions to NAFTA occurred outside of the orignial

legislation - but, of course, no one will bother to actually read the history behind the original legislation and the nuances. Too time consuming and much easier just to use as a hammer to bash BC.

The NAFTA vote was to allow him to build a bi-partisan coalition to pass things he thought would benefit the country. After all, not only did he face Republican opposition, his first year in office, he also had to deal with the so-called "New-Dems" - Dems who would wanted to put forth a more "conservative" face to save their seats. The group originally formed in response to Reagan's crushing the party in the 80's, but held much power as BC ran for, and eventually, took office. Maybe he thought the New Dems would come around, after some successes - they didn't.

Had he been able to more directly control the expansions, I have no doubt, his original intent for the legislation would have been realized. But, it was derailed by circumstance - investigation after investigation - and, an increasingly weak minority legislature who never had his back and a subgroup within the party more interested in retaining as much power as they could vs doing what was right. And, to date, since 2006, as a majority has proven not to have ours either or have gained much backbone of their own.

[HeraldSquare212]

3. Oh, and he lost the Dem majority in the House after 60 years.

Yup, that was great. And DOMA and welfare reform, which he said he opposed but signed anyway. Yup, quite the winner for Dems he was. And there may not have been a 9/11, but there was a bombing of the World Trade Center.

Don't ask/don't tell? that was the Republicans first challenge to him, and he caved, setting the tone for the rest of his administration. A real fighter, he was.

[sidwill]

Don't forget that he okayed the bombing of civilian targets in Serbia

just sayin.

[Whisp]

11. and called off his guy Suharto... just a little late for a lot of East Timorese. nt

[DiamondJay]

12. how about the lebanon barracks of 83, the kuwaiti embassy

under the reagan and bush admins you seem to be defending right now. there will ALWAYS be attacks off soil we can't stop.

[HeraldSquare212]

17. who's defending reagan and bush? nt

[DiamondJay]

25. you are.

and you are missing the point. He was good on terror, and we need to be able to stand up for a president of our party, even if you don't like him, to show others why the Dems can be trusted with security.

[HeraldSquare212]

32. My opinion is, he was bad on a lot of things.

He's no hero to me.

[milkyway]

56. You can't criticize him for the first attack on the WTC. It was his 38th day in office.

And unlike junior, he didn't try to blame it on his predecessor. Which just reminds me, out of all the million and one things that piece of shit junior has done, that little prick tried to blame Clinton for 9/11 when he had been in office nearly nine months, and he couldn't be bothered to interrupt his month-long vacation on his pig farm even though he was told bin laden determined to strike in u.s.

[DiamondJay]

58. EXACTLY THAT WAS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR

this man is what an obama supporter should be, objective, not bashing clinton, and seeing the truth on stuff like this. He can support whoever he wants, and he's got my respect as long as he doesn't spout Rush Limbaugh/Sean hannity talking points.

[HeraldSquare212]

80. But it is the same excuse Bush used, right?

who's using Rep talking pints?

[DiamondJay]

93. 9 months>30 days

a MUCH longer time for Bush II to get ready for 9/11, as all of his people virtually were in place. Also, the Clinton admin had battled islamofascism and briefed Bush. Clinton had come in after Reagan and Bush, when islamic terror was beginning to sprout more after the cold war, after a lil more than a month. also, clinton found ramzi yousef, bush didn't find Osama

[milkyway]

95. There's a big difference between 38 days and about 250 days. You really think

the Clinton administration is responsible for some dopes going to Rent-a-Wreck in Jersey City, renting a van and filling it with explosives, and driving it into a parking garage below the WTC? That's the fault of the Clinton administration, on their 38th day in office?

And not only did junior have about 250 days in office, but they had repeated hair-on-fire warnings of an impending attack, warnings given directly to him, yet he took no action whatsoever--didn't lift a fucking finger.

[Cha]

4. Fuck bil clinton and the strangulatin'

triangulation he rode in on. Oh, and fuck his lies.

[buff2]

7. And I say fuck all these Clinton hating posts!

:grr: :argh:

[Cha]

170. I say the clintons fucking

earned it.

[mtnsnake]

53. Same to you and the rest of your repukian brethren

[buff2]

5. EXCELLENT THREAD!

Thank you. I agree 100%. :hi: K&R

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. You're bound to get a flock of freepers-in-obama- clothing pecking

your ass. Fuck them, you are right on all counts.

[buff2]

13. I think you summed it all up.........

Freepers. Nuff said. :beer:

[still_one]

31. anyone who critisizes Bill Clinton is a freeper, huh? Read the DU rules /nt

[KittyWampus]

18. spoken like a true cultist. Can't even admit Clinton's fucked up strategy hurt our party

and our country.

But hey! He thought it made HIM look good.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DiamondJay]

33. electoral vote average buddy.

258 after Clinton, 94 before Clinton(from 72-88). Do the math.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

26. who are you to call anyone who critisizes "bill clinton" a freeper?

my heros aren't people who consistently cheat on their wife or their country

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

61. the freeper in democratic clothing was bill clinton

there's a reason people call him the best republican president of the 20th century.

[DiamondJay]

63. people? you mean fringe people

like Ralph Nader.

[Radical Activist]

87. and many democrats.

[DiamondJay]

91. 85% of democrats...DONT think so

as shows the polls. This board is kind of to the left and we are the party activists, but still most of us acknowledge he was the best recent DEMOCRATIC president.

[lligrd]

8. I Voted For Bill But I Thought He Did More For The

Republicans than any of their candidates ever had. I always wondered why they hated him. Now, I am not sure those in power really do.

[lligrd]

9. I Voted For Bill But I Thought He Did More For The

Republicans than any of their candidates ever had. I always wondered why they hated him. Now, I am not sure those in power really do.

[still_one]

14. Tell that to those who sufferred under his welfare reform act

or the deregulation that he helped push. How about the telcommunication act of the 90's, or his wonderful trade agreements which provided the foundation for the outsourcing of our jobs.

and yes, he was a reckless idiot to have SEX with an intern, and then lying under oath about it, instead of refusing to answer the question.

Bill Clinton didn't save our party, Bill Clinton divided our party

[newmajority]

15. I'd much rather leave Bill Clinton to history myself.

But he and his wife are the ones who made HIM a central issue of the 2008 campaign.

[Avalux]

16. No. As long as he interjects himself into this primary, he's fair game.

It has nothing to do with his terms as president and his terms as president to not give him a 'pass' on what comes out of his mouth.

[angie_love]

19. Nope!

I won't do you any favors you asswipe, I read your racist thread about Obama being the first affirmative action president. You're disgusting, low and a disgrace to the party.

[buff2]

30. So.......any criticism of Obama.......

and you're considered a racist? Geesus H. Khrist.Unbelievable. :eyes:

[angie_love]

35. Um did you see his freeper thread? It was appalling.

And no you can criticize Obama and not be a racist, it just so happens that this asshole is one.

[buff2]

38. I didn't see the thread

I probably shouldn't have said anything,having not seen it. Sorry. :hi:

[Kittycat]

68. It's better you didn't

I was so pissed when I alerted, that I actually questioned why I donate to this site. I'm still pissed that the thread is still OPEN.

[ursi]

21. he was an embarassment and some of us remember ...

[Sebass1271]

100. fuck you

what i do remember is how at peace i felt when he was president. How i purchased my first home, graduated from school and made some decent money.
To me teh monica fiasco was a set up from the republicans.. they knew how popular he was.. they wanted to stop al gore from becoming president at no cost.. if you don't see that way, you are not A TRUE DEMOCRAT..
SORRY..

[robbedvoter]

23. I would very much like that. But it won't happen.

[frazzled]

24. If he's going to enter the current campaign fray ...

He has to be talked about--and either criticized if he screws up or lauded if he does well on the campaign trail .

This has nothing to do with his presidency. He's not running for president. Hillary Clinton is. Today, he was smart enough to underscore that by admitting he'd made a mistake by getting into the middle of the campaign and by making it clear that he will have no " shadow cabinet" role that would undercut a strong VP, a Secretary of State, etc.

Repeat: this election has nothing to do with Bill Clinton's presidency. But as the spouse of a candidate he is as much fair game as any other spouse: possibly more so, since, as a former president, he has a much greater bully pulpit, and a much bigger responsibility to party well-being.

[ShortnFiery]

28. No, Bill Clinton and his Mighty SMARMY DLC smear machine are holding OUR PARTY hostage.

I am sick of "all things Clintonian" and hope we can wrest control of OUR Democratic Party from the DLC in the near future.

[rodeodance]

34. whow--just imagine if a few pledged for one week not to hit on Bill. Think anyone can?

[mitchum]

155. And just imagine if that narcissist could stay out of the public arena for one week...

think he can?

[ProSense]

36. Do you mean

Polarizing Bill Clinton or triangulating Bill Clinton?

[Sebass1271]

37. what a great POST!!

AGREE WITH YOU IN EVERYTHING. Bill Clinton has been the best we've had. We wouldn't be the viable democratic party we are TODAY, if it wasn't for him. We wouldn't be challenging the repubks on fiscal positions, if it wasn't b/c of him.

BACK OFF OF BILL. HE and al Gore both HAD vISION, including the ones we so much enjoy today. The internet.. That they invented, but they pushed for it..

BRAVO ON YOUR POST... I'LL BOOKMARK THIS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.. :applause:

[thevoiceofreason]

41. Bullshit

He's injecting himself into everything now -- he is fair game for discussion.

[DiamondJay]

43. but not his presidency

talk about him personally if u must, but NOT HIS PRESIDENCY. WE need something to point to as why a dem is worthy of the oval office, and he is the closest thing.

[thevoiceofreason]

52. I'm good with that

I just love to focus on him saying "It's all about her, but let's talk about me for a while." What a goober.

I am not a fan of his presidnency, but in fairness, he is not running.

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. i know, people laying on him was what got us into trouble in the first place

i mean.....er...

:hide:

[zulchzulu]

48. Whatever, dude

Sure, he did NAFTA....

:rofl:


Don't get me started. Bill Clinton was RADIOACTIVE in 2000.

[JimGinPA]

66. Clinton Galvanized The Repulican Party...

like no one since Reagan. He brought us right wing radio & 8 years of BushCo. He single-handedly brought the Democratic Party down and now he's supposed to be off limits?

I think not.

[DiamondJay]

70. maybe because he was their first real threat in almost 20 years

lets see, since Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Mike Dudkakis, who all got reamed for their elections, they were afraid of bill. that is not such a bad thing, because he kept them from actually stealing the deed to the white house. they hate him more because we now average 258 electoral votes as opposed to 50.

[Sebass1271]

104. yeap

they still hate him with passion, their hatred has transferred to Hillary.. the only the could get him and stop a future al gore presidency was with Monica.. even with the freaking Monica scandal he still was a popular, and al gore won.. even with the scandal.. they had to resource to the supreme court to freaking win..

Don't talk to me about embarrassment Bill was and Is the best we've had.

[mitchum]

157. Why? They were afraid he wouldn't carry their water quickly enough?

His record reveals that their fears were unfounded.

[mtnsnake]

49. Hear hear!!

Long live Bill, and may there be many more just like him :smoke:

[Obamaniac]

50. No way!

He's behaved like a jerk!

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

54. Bill, Hillary, and the DLC brought this party back from the brink of oblivion.

For that they deserve applause.

[ShortnFiery]

71. WTF!?! Bill and Hill brought us the DLC which took *our* party to the corporate leaning right.

That was NO damn favor. Or do you forget NEWT in 1994 and his "Contract with America."

The Clintons and their DLC Slime machine may not only TRASH our party but also are in the process BREAKING down our entire political campaign system (along with their buds in Roves RNC). :thumbsdown:

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

77. In defense of corporations, I know people with AIDS who depend on these big

conglomorates for new treatments. They owe their life to these big bad corporations.

With that out of the way, the DLC is looking for a third way as opposed to the so-called "purity" of 527's like MoveOn. We need to bring this country together, not further splinter it. DLC is doing that (the bringing it together part).

[ShortnFiery]

85. Don't go there. "In defense of corporations" NO, corporations prevent GENERIC drugs that can treat

AIDS. NO, this is bullshit.

We are already serving "our corporate masters" today, don't make us LOVE them too. :puke: :thumbsdown:

[DiamondJay]

99. thats too far

as pro Bill Clinton as I am, I still the DLC has it wrong a the approach. They are the reason Dems voted yes on Iraq, and ruined themselves in 04, and would hurt Hillary if nominated this year. They were right for the 90's when we needed to recover from being soft on crime and welfare. But we do not need them now telling us to let FISA tap our phones, and continue to support the war in Iraq. The DLC WAS the third way, and is now the third rail.

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

102. Disagree. The DLC did not hold a gun to Bush's head and say invade Iraq and tap the phones.

They had no hand in that evil.

[DiamondJay]

103. they DID tell dems it was expedient to vote for it

and they did support it. they went on the bad logic that voting against it would hurt like voting against Desert Storm. and that kept kerry from seeking reelection this year in 2008.

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

115. I don't recall reading that in the "Press" section of their web page.

I am unfamiliar with your supposition.

[DiamondJay]

127. but back in 02

they were also yapping how Iraq was some huge threat. They thought moderatism could always work. it was only appropriate for the 90's for things like welfare and crime, and they overstepped their bounds on this. They also stopped Kerry from going all out on Bush, and they also helped keep lieberman in his seat in 06. they shoulda thrown his ass out the door. now he could help John InSane get elected. hes the same shithead who criticized clinton over monica.

[DiamondJay]

113. or we could still be the soft on crime party and welfare party

who gets 48 EVs in elections on average. the DLC did not give ur gingrich. The Reagan Revolution did.

[newmajority]

89. Hey look everybody! It's "Al From Democrat", back with a new alias!

Are you gonna be "Will Marshall Democrat" next time, or is that too much of a stretch, even for you?

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

94. Is that a Democrat from Alabama?

??

[newmajority]

106. No, Al's not a Democrat at all. Neither was John Breaux.

But you already knew that.

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

108. Excuse me, but Senator Breaux most certainly is a Democrat.

Wiki is your friend...

[newmajority]

116. Oh, I know what he called himself

I also know how he voted. Actually Landrieu's just about as bad.

[JohnBreauxDemocrat]

120. What is bad about Mrs. Landrieu

She caucuses with the Democrats and votes Yea on many important issues. So she's not a purist...big deal, she realizes her situation.

[Auntie Bush]

55. Great post! I agree 100%.

I've been horrified to see how many on this site hated Bill. I always loved him and thought most all Dems did too. I really wasn't into politics much and just assumed all Dems lived Bill too. What a shock it has been to see all the anti-Bill posts and feelings here. I truly am shocked.

[rodeodance]

57. HOW WOULD THE B. CLINTON HATERS EXIST? WHAT WOULD THEY

WRITE ABOUT.

THEY CAN NOT GIVE HIM UP EVEN FOR A FEW DAYS. THE KILL BILL IS IN THIER BLOOD, IT IS A PART OF WHO THEY ARE!

[ShortnFiery]

60. So, if you type in all capitals, does that mean you are a little miffed?!?

:evilgrin:

[paulk]

67. the responses on this thread illustrate why no one out in the

real world takes DU seriously anymore. If they ever did.

We may as well just provide a direct link to Free Republic and be done with it.

[DiamondJay]

73. we need some discipline

and the GOP has that in spades. some of the people here would be saying Roosevelt was to conservative if he were around today.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Yes Karl Rove has some news reels of "DISCIPLINE" but they're hard to understand

because the narration is in GERMAN! :P

[ShortnFiery]

74. So tell me paulk, what's your excuse for "slumming with us?"

:evilgrin:

[paulk]

98. there are a few people on this site whose opinions

I respect and look forward to reading.

You're not one of them.

[ShortnFiery]

107. Too funny, you trash an ENTIRE message board, then reverse yourself to say "a few"

are somewhat acceptable human beings. Hey now, why don't you just take your buds away from this God Forsaken "HORRIBLE" Place then? I promise not to miss you. :-) :hi:

[paulk]

156. LOL

you spend your time on this board trashing Democrats and the Democratic Party. I think you're nothing but a goddam troll.

[rodeodance]

78. yeah. i am seriously wondering of exiting

[mtnsnake]

83. Amen to that, paulk

[Exultant Democracy]

79. He isn't at fault for 94 I agree, but he didn't save the Dem party

at most he gave the democratic party a chance to be saved but it didn't turn out that way. In fact in the end I feel like the people who were in charge of the democratic party at the time had no clue what to do and Bill never showed them the leader ship that they needed if they were going to save themselves.

On the balance I agree with most of what you have said but I do think that there is a principled case to be made against how Clinton has behaved during this campaign.

[CaptJasHook]

96. I agree with you on that one!

"On the balance I agree with most of what you have said but I do think that there is a principled case to be made against how Clinton has behaved during this campaign."

[Unbowed]

122. Bill's a big boy.

He can dish it out and he can take it. Don't worry about that cat, he always lands on his feet.

[Jed Dilligan]

126. I disagree with the Clintons on basic philosophy of governance

No spin on his presidency can change that.

[grantcart]

132. You have not responded to the one issue that our party overlooks but

that hurt us the most and that is the Lewinsky scandal.

And I do not care that he had an affair. I do not care that he lied about it.


What is really a major problem is that he would initiate such a careless action after a special prosecuter had established a full blown witch hunt with 200 attorneys and investigators looking at every nanosecond of his life in a building that cannot keep a secret.

democratic presidents always hope that their most progressive legislation comes in the second term. bill clinton held all of those possibilities hostage by an act outlandish narcisstic weakness. He let us down and the country. He was ignorant of what was happening in Washington and walked into a trap in the middle of hunting season.

Don't hate the guy for it but when factoring his legacy this will be a major factor. It was a sophmoric Gary Hart type of mistake.

[DiamondJay]

137. i think its actually rather forgotten

and sometimes i forgot they impeached him over it. He should have been more careful, but the media had no right to give the anti-clintonites political capital to even think of impeachment, they wanted back for watergate, and by even giving credence to the lewinsky thing we give the cons what they want. It was newt gringrich's narcissm and jealousy that clinton had more of a positive impact that led to him to help get bill

[grantcart]

152. my point is that just because the democrats do not bring it up

in the primary doesn't mean that the republicans have forgotten about it. Everything will be brought up, not by McCain, but by the 527's. Tens of millions of dollars spent on dragging up all of these issues instead of talking about our future.

And the media has every right. Its called the first ammendment. They have every right to make fools out of themselves or to exploit it for short term financial gain. It just idiotic for us as a party to make it so easy and inviting for them.

[Eurobabe]

133. When Bill stops acting like that nutbag

Cheney, I'll lay off. Something bizarre has happened to him since he had his heart attack. WJC is a curmudgeon these days.

Thankfully Hillary had the sense to put him on a short leash!!

Clinton was a good president, but there are alot of things I don't like about him personally. His attitude of entitlemment lately, being one of them.

[Political Heretic]

139. That's some pretty stunning revisionist history.

Bill Clinton was a "successful" president. That doesn't make him a good president.

Hopefully any Democrat who held the office for eight years would be able to generate a list of positive things he or she got done. So spare me the cut and past of "Clinton Accomplishments," that originally came from the Clinton White House as political talking points, and was later scattered around the internet.

Instead, let's focus on some key realities. The first of which is that the end of Clinton's Presidency saw the radical shift to Republicans all over the country. We lost congress. We lost a majority of governorships.

The second of which is that the things Clinton did that were wrong are so huge that they should (and do) overshadow everything else. Bill Clinton ran for President by saying, "I am a pro-business pragmatist." And he lived up to his word. There's not a single time in his eight-year presidency where he once stood up to the interest of big business.

Clinton was completely committed to deregulation straight out of the staunch-conservative Milton Friedman-esque playbook. His deregulation of telecommunication has been a disaster for consumers and opened the door to many of the problems that we are experiencing today. Of course, it was great for big business. His deregulation of banking is playing out right now, and has been another disaster for consumers. His green-lighting of media consolidation opened the door for the break-neck speed downward spiral of anything remotely resembling an independent fourth estate. Internationally, his support of corporate globalization economic neo-liberalism on steroids helped escalate mass injustices, poverty and human rights atrocity around the globe.

Clinton's 1998 Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act is quite possibly the single most unforgivable presidential act of the last fifty years. As a social worker, I have some expertise about this. Clinton ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC) - ended a program that has lasted over sixty years and for the first time ever, fundamentally changed the entire basic philosophy of America and how we treat our citizens.

This wasn't about moving people to work. And the myth of the "welfare queen" is straight from the Ronald Regan playbook. It was about capitulating to the right. Clinton stated with pride, "today we have ended welfare as we know it." I'm sorry, but that's not something to be proud of unless your a mind-numb conservative jackass. ADFC was replaced with TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Want to know how it works in my state?

-- IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AT ALL YOU MUST BE AT 32% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL - the federal poverty level four a family of four is 1,767 per month! 32% of that is $565 a month.

-- It is only available to "needy" families that include children. If you a single and in need, screw you - go starve. If you are married and in need by have no children - screw you - go sleep under a bridge.

-- It pays $309 per month regardless of household size. If you are a family of four, that's $309 for a month.

-- It requires participants to work immediately and is immediately suspended if for any reason you can't work. There are multiple restrictions on work and the demand that persons work immediately in order to receive assistance without funding for job training or placement means that most people try to hang on to a minimum wage job which doesn't get them out of poverty.

-- Has a 24-month lifetime limit, no exceptions.

That isn't in keeping with the principles of the Democratic Party no matter how you slice it, and it was a disgraceful act by Bill Clinton to support, sign and then celebrate it.

I could go on, but no one would read that much anyway.

[jillan]

149. Thank god! There ARE still sane people on DU.

With all of his faults, Bill Clinton was the best President we had over the last 25 years.

[Sanctified]

151. I will lay off Bill when he lays off Obama. n/t

[mitchum]

154. FUCK BILL CLINTON...I despise that tool more than I do his wife

[Deja Q]

158. Back when offshoring was in its infancy... times have changed.

[kcdoug1]

160. we must never forget

The most important thing Bill and Hillary left us, which was....G.W. Bush!

[DiamondJay]

167. yea cuz they appointed Thomas, OConnor, Scalia, Rehnquist and Kennedy

righttt. and cuz 4 more years of Bush Sr. would have better, followed by James Danforth Quayle from 1997-2005, after which we would have had..

[Quixote1818]

161. He was the best Republican president we have ever had! nt

[tokenlib]

162. NO, Bill and Hill are a team...

..and most of us know it. If people like the Clintons and their policies they can support Hillary. If they don't like their policies, they can oppose them. But Bill will be the BIG DOG in the room, even if he is in the backgound.

[Thrill]

163. NO. Maybe if he stayed out of it

People would

[mod mom]

165. SINCE THE CLINTON LOANED THEMSELVES $5 MILL & WON'T RELEASE FINANCIALS....

Then we need to look at just who the Clinton's have received their money:

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 31, 2008
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

-snip

snip

"Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent."

"Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy."

-snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

DID YOU GET THAT? CLINTON SUPPORTS THE NOTORIOUS TYRANT KAZAKH LEADER WHO ALL BUT QUASHED POLITICAL DISSENT TO HEAF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT MONITORS ELECTIONS 7 SUPPORTS DEMOCRACY!

LAY OFF BILL CLINTON-SORRY NO CAN DO!

[mod mom]

166. Under Clinton "White House Had Ended System of Checking Foreign Guests"

White House Had Ended System of Checking Foreign Guests

By TIM WEINER
Published: February 3, 1997

Ten years ago the Reagan White House adopted a rule about foreign businessmen, lobbyists and consultants who wanted to get in to see the President without the blessing of their embassies: they shouldn't.

But President Clinton's aides did not follow that rule. In their eagerness to raise campaign money, they invited friends of the President's fund-raisers -- including China's biggest arms merchant, favor-seeking Indonesian businessmen, a reputed Russian mobster and other dubiously credentialed dealmakers -- to meet with Mr. Clinton. Nor did the White House check the suitability of Americans invited by the Democratic National Committee to meet the President, allowing, among others, a twice-convicted felon to sip coffee with Mr. Clinton.

-snip

And that is why nobody on the White House political team saw fit to ask the National Security Council staff a year ago about a man named Wang Jun, who showed up on a guest list for a White House coffee with the President. The question of exactly how Mr. Wang got into the White House has a simple answer: ''Nobody ever asked anybody,'' a National Security Council official said.

So, at the behest of a tireless political fund-raiser from Arkansas, Charlie Yah Lin Trie, Mr. Clinton wound up sipping coffee with Mr. Wang, who runs the Chinese Government's weapons manufacturing and procuring agency, which is involved in secret arms deals around the world. These coffees for fund-raisers and donors began as a way to raise morale among party loyalists after the Democrats' disastrous showing in the 1994 election. By 1995, they became a way to reward big donors and prospect for new ones, according to Democratic fund-raisers.

-snip

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2DC103DF930A35751C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


A federal grand jury has indicted 14 people and a Georgia company in a scheme to smuggle several million dollars worth of automatic weapons into the United States from China. The indictment came after federal agents smashed an arms smuggling ring that they said involved two government-run Chinese munitions firms. The following press release and affidavit outline the building of the government's case.

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney
Northern District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 23, 1996

MASSIVE SEIZURE OF NEW AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
ILLEGALLY SMUGGLED BY PRC WEAPONS PRODUCERS

SAN FRANCISCO - Michael J. Yamaguchi, United States Attorney
for the Northern District of California; Rollin B. Klink, Special
Agent in Charge, United States Customs Service, San Francisco; and
Paul Snabel, Special Agent in Charge, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, announced today the largest seizure of fully
operational automatic weapons in the history of U. S. law
enforcement. The weapons were illegally smuggled into the United
States from the People's Republic of China (PRC) during the course
of a federal investigation of an alleged arms trafficking conspiracy
involving Chinese nationals, Chinese resident aliens, and U. S.
citizens, a number of whom represented PRC owned and controlled
munitions manufacturing facilities. The illegal importation of the
weapons into the United States is in violation of the Presidential
Embargo on the importation of weapons and munitions designated on
the United States Munitions List, and U. S. law regarding the
importation, possession, and sale of illegal weapons.

On March 18, 1996, agents of the United States Customs Service
and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms seized 2000 AK-47
type fully automatic 7.62mm machine guns. These are military
assault weapons commonly used by the military around the world.
The weapons, which had both Chinese (Norinco) and Korean
markings, had been smuggled into the United States in a container on
board the COSCO ship, Empress Phoenix. Included with the
weapons were approximately 4000 30-40 round ammunition
magazines. It is estimated that the weapons had a street value of more
than four million dollars.

The seizure of the weapons was the culmination of a sixteen month
investigation of high ranking officials, based in both the United
States and the PRC, of POLYTECH and NORINCO, PRC
controlled munitions manufacturing corporations. Hammond KU,
age 49, a Taiwanese resident alien, residing in Soquel, California,
first came under suspicion when information was developed that he
had several thousand Chinese manufactured weapons, in crate.
labelled POLYTECH and NORINCO, stored in his warehouse in
Soquel, California. KU paid federal agent-, acting in an undercover
capacity, to illegally import into the United States, more than 20,000
AK 47 rifle bipods.

-snip
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/misc/smuggle.html


New York Times, May 17, 1998



How Chinese Won Rights to Launch Satellites for U.S.

(BY JEFF GERTH AND DAVID E. SANGER)
On Oct. 9, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher ended a lengthy debate within the Clinton Administration by initialing a classified order that preserved the State Department's sharp limits on China's ability to launch American-made satellites aboard Chinese rockets.

Both American industry and state-owned Chinese companies had been lobbying for years to get the satellites off what is known as the `munitions list,' the inventory of America's most sensitive military and intelligence-gathering technology. But Mr. Christopher sided with the Defense Department, the intelligence agencies and some of his own advisers, who noted that commercial satellites held technological secrets that could jeopardize `significant military and intelligence interests.'

There was one more reason not to ease the controls, they wrote in a classified memorandum. Doing so would `raise suspicions that we are trying to evade China sanctions' imposed when the country was caught shipping weapons technology abroad--which is what happened in 1991 and 1993 for missile sales to Pakistan.

-snip

Other powerful Chinese state enterprises also had multibillion-dollar stakes in getting access to American satellites. Among them was the China International Trade and Investment Corporation, whose chairman, Wang Jun, gained unwanted attention in the United States last year when it was revealed that he attended one of Mr. Clinton's campaign coffee meetings in the White House. The day of Mr. Wang's visit, Mr. Clinton, in what Mr. Rubin said was a coincidence, signed waivers allowing the Chinese to launch four American satellites--though they were unrelated to the business interests of China International Trade.

-snip

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/1998/h980618-prc5.htm

[alteredstate]

169. I'll lay off Bill when he stops running for President n/t