Quite frankly, I don't like a piece of advice Bill Clinton gave House Dems today.

[madfloridian]

The House Democrats are having a retreat this week-end in Williamsburg. They are having two presidents address their meeting. Bill Clinton today, George Bush tomorrow. As a matter of fact, Nancy Pelosi and George Bush plan a joint press conference tomorrow.

I read this article, and one line jumped out at me more than others. I wanted to scream....HEY we hold the house firmly...act like it.

Here is that sentence...more below.

• Strive for unity on big issues even if your position doesn’t prevail.

Why President Clinton, do we need to strive for unity even though we don't "prevail" when our country is in the hands of a man who does not know what he is doing. Sorry, but we part company on this.

The Democrats' Retreat

The mood is high, but the expectations are high as well,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California emocrat. “Everyone knows that we have the responsibility to get things done now.”
Former President Bill Clinton opened the conference on Thursday night with a speech to 175 members of Congress. Over a dinner of steak, crab cakes and risotto, Mr. Clinton led a give-and-take discussion – heavy on the give, light on the take – about the intersection of politics and policy.

(The meeting was closed to the press, but our sources inside the ballroom say the former president did not dwell upon that other 2008 race, featuring a candidate named Clinton. He did, however, say: Even if I weren’t married to her, I would support her. She is the most extraordinary person I’ve ever met.)

He did, according to those in the room, offer three pieces of advice:
• Strive for unity on big issues even if your position doesn’t prevail.
• Keep a unified front on when to oppose (and how) and when to cooperate (and how).
• If you can’t get a dollar and you can get a dime, take a dime every time. So, for example, make incremental progress if you can.

You know what I thought about when I saw the words "incremental progress" and "united front"? I thought about how many more of our military, how many more Iraqis would die before we finally act like we were elected to do something about Iraq.

And I remembered this article from 2003. I think it may be true. It would not be so bad except for statements like the one above. Sometimes it is time to quit striving for unity and get really really pissed off.

Still Clinton's Show?

[senseandsensibility]

1. Is he talking about unity with Dems or unity

with repugs? The sentence is obscure to me.

[madfloridian]

3. It appears in context to mean unity with the other party.

.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. He Most Definitely Meant Unity With Dems. The Term Unity Would Almost NEVER Be Used To Talk About

bi-partisanship.

It means voting as a bloc whenever possible when trying to pass legislation on a big issue. He is stating to do it even if it means that your different view on the legislation has to be sacrificed for sake of taking one for the team etc.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. "When to oppose and when to cooperate" means with the other side. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. What On Earth Are You Talking About.

His comment about unity had nothing to do with republicans. Jesus.

[madfloridian]

16. The word "oppose" did indicate the other party.

This is the same kind of thing that got us into Iraq in the first place, trying to get along when we were in the right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Do You Even Have Any Idea What You're Talking About? That's Not Even The Part We're Discussing!

:rofl:

Oh lord, this is too damn funny.

[madfloridian]

25. There it comes, the talking down to the idiot activists thingy.

That always happen. I post an intelligent sourced post, and you say no it doesn't mean that...yes, it does. Then next is call us idiots who don't know what we are talking about. It is has been a tactic for so long here.

They are trying to get us not to stand for anything.

And the ones who do this know that there will be no intelligent discussion once you trash a post. People avoid the post, and you think you have succeeded.

But you haven't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. It Was Not An Intelligent Sourced Post. It Is A Post With A Completely Wrong Premise.

And as a democrat, you bet your damn ass I'm gonna defend innocent people from unjustified and inaccurate vicious attack, especially when it's one of our greatest Dems.

FACT: Unity meant with other members of the House.

[madfloridian]

31. So The Nation is no longer considered a good source?

And WM Greider is a suspect reporter? Really?

You guys are amazing.

[mdmc]

56. unity with other members of the house

gop members too... right?

[madfloridian]

15. Yes, the word "oppose" indicates the other side.

I expect a lot of disagreement from many here. I usually get it if I disagree with the Clintons or the DLC. And I often do.

You don't usually "oppose" your own party.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Ummmm No Kidding. But Unity Meant With Our Side. Hellllloooooooo

[madfloridian]

21. No, it meant unity with the other side.

After all Georgy Porgy Bush is speaking to the group tomorrow...and you know how good he is on cooperation and unity. :sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. No, It Didn't, No Matter How Much Your Hatred Of The Clintons Makes You Wish It Had.

[madfloridian]

27. "hatred of the Clintons" is being used as a tactic here. No hate at all.

It is a tactic that is being used to stop any criticism of them no matter how fair.

It's a good tactic, but people are catching on.

I like the Clintons, but I don't like the way they avoid taking stands.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Oh Yeah. That Little Bill Clinton Hit Piece You Posted Was Just By Accident.

:rofl:

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Triangulation. I saw that earlier and did not pay it much attention. glad you did

It just did not register at the time as I was just scanning the story and not really reading it. I saw it and whiz!
I am so glad you caught it. It more of the DLC triangulation and be more republican stuff.

[wtmusic]

4. Kind of like Republicans did when they won both houses?

I can just picture Gingrich encouraging Orrin Hatch to "strive for unity on big issues". :rofl:

[madfloridian]

6. And we should know by now that the nicer we try to play...

the nastier they get. It just does not work with this bunch.

[babylonsister]

5. This is the first I've heard about the House Dems and Clinton.

I thought Hillary was out of action because Bill's step dad died, which presupposed Bill would be out of action, too. Guess not, for both of them.
They are great pols, but too slick by half. I long for someone authentic.


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton20080202feb02,0,6147809.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

WASHINGTON -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton, who canceled her trip this weekend to New Hampshire because of the death of her husband's stepfather, has rescheduled her trip to next weekend, Feb. 10-11.

Bill Clinton's stepfather, Richard Kelley, died Wednesday at age 91. The Clintons plan to attend his funeral in Arkansas on Saturday.

more...

[madfloridian]

7. Most interesting.

I had forgotten that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Oh Get A Hold Of Yourself. He Meant 'With Other Democrats'. Jesus Christ LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[madfloridian]

9. No, it means get along with the other side.

Read the article I posted at the end. All 3 pages.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. The Article Was Completely Irrelevant To The OP, An Utter Waste Of Time And A Bill Clinton Hit Piece

And no, it didn't in any way mean to get along with the other side.

The fact that you think that a strong term like 'unity' means 'to get alone with the other side' is quite funny.

[Cameron27]

13. Yep, that's how I'm reading it. n/t

[madfloridian]

20. You need to get a hold, and then read this from the article I posted.

"On the domestic front, Clinton warns Democrats not to go too far with this "corporate accountability" stuff, lest they injure those "entrepreneurial giants" of Silicon Valley who made the 1990s glow with New Economy promise. "We, especially the DLC, ought to be talking about not killing the goose that laid the golden egg." Clinton's prescription: "We've got to be pro-business and pro-accountability." He takes the same evenhanded approach to poverty. His great achievement (the draconian welfare reform) "worked superbly," Clinton allowed. But, hey, maybe not entirely. "We need to ask ourselves, do we need to provide more incentives than we are presently providing to help poor people who fall into the cracks?" Raising the minimum wage is not on his agenda, much less embracing the "living wage" standard. All in all, the Clinton trumpet summons the Democratic Party to stick with his Goldilocks politics--not too hot, not too cold, but just right for Soccer Moms and Office Park Dads."

Ok, there is some good in that appeal to the right philosophy. But not much. It is hurting the party. We are in a war we can't get out of, and about to head into another one.

It is time to stop playing both sides on everything.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. God You're Silly. That Is Nothing More Than An Unrelated Snip From A Clinton Hit Piece.

It has NOTHING to do with the original context of the OP, nor does it any way declare ANYTHING like unity.

The fact is you hate the Clintons. We get it. But the OP is nothing less than completely deceitful. I'm laughing my ass off that you actually believe that by unity he meant with republicans. :rofl:

[madfloridian]

30. Can you think of other adjectives to humiliate? That is the tactic.

I knew when I mentioned his name, there would be people calling names and making fun.

But please be creative with your adjectives.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Oh Spare Me The Drama. You Post A Clinton Hit Piece Rooted In Total Inaccuracy Of Premise.

When called out on it, you continue to put forth the false attack on him without stopping for a second to let the logic sink in and acknowledge that you were wrong.

Nothing I respect less than people who refuse to think after being given insight and are too weak to admit they're wrong.

[madfloridian]

34. Please continue.

It is by a man I respect, and though I don't always agree with The Nation...I think they did well on this.

But go ahead.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Stop Blaming The Nation. They Had Nothing To Do With Your OP And It's Wrong Premise.

Stop deflecting.

My issue is with a completely deceitful and inaccurate premise in the OP that attacks Bill Clinton by twisting his words in a laughable way to mean something he didn't, just for sake of you making a point that doesn't exist.

Unity = With the rest of the House DEMOCRATS. Please let that sink in for a bit.

[mdmc]

58. So was welfare reform a success for the poor, or a gimmick?

I like Carter more then Clinton, myself. I think WI Welfare Reform was a perfect model, and that it got triangulated into a corporate wet dream. Do you agree, or disagree?

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. He obviously means Republicans and corporate lobbyists. "Take a dime every time"

The Clintons are finally verbalizing their political cowardice. Big mistake.

[Union Thug]

22. Sorry, but I'm from the no compromise camp. Unity means nothing and undermines...

the basic adversarial relationship that keeps ideas flowing and in motion. Furthermore, 'unity' in this sense translates into throwing the working person under the bus every time.

[Union Thug]

24. self delete - dupe

[madfloridian]

33. It's amazing.

I post a thought-provoking article about advice I don't like our Dems getting...when we need to stand firm and get tough.

And it gets hit so hard that no one will chance posting in it. That's how you do it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. No, You Posted An Inaccurate And Unjustified Attack On Bill Clinton, And Now Refuse To Acknowledge

your error.

And why you keep making the OP about some obscure link you included at the bottom is perplexing. Your OP stands on its own, and it is flawed and inaccurate. You attacked Bill Clinton for saying something he didn't say, but that you have grossly misread the context of. After being made aware to it, instead of doing the right thing and correcting your premise as to not deceive other DU'ers who know better, you instead keep repeating the attack on him as if it were accurate.

So please, spare me the victim garbage.

[madfloridian]

38. No, I am right. He is urging unity above taking a firm stand.

And right now that is the wrong thing to do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Sorry, But As Passionately As You Want To Convince Yourself Of That, You Are Completely Incorrect.

Unity is NEVER a word you're going to hear just thrown around in advice sessions when dealing with opposing political parties. Ain't gonna happen. Ain't used that way. Ain't gonna be used that way. It is unbelievably absurd to keep pushing the ridiculous notion that it would be.

Hit pause for a second. Take a step back from your position and view it objectively. Let it sink in. If you opened your mind, for just a second, you would see that Unity, when used within partisan groupings, is ALWAYS about team unity.

Do you think for a second that ANY politician would EVER think that unity, meaning EVERYONE in agreement within BOTH parties, could EVER occur on ANY issue?

Just pause for a second. Take a breath. Think. It will occur to you that unity does not mean bi-partisanship. Being bi-partisan is of far less specificity than a strong term like unity. Unity means one. Talking as one. Voting as one. Standing united, as one. You think he thinks for a second that is something that can be achieved? All Dems, all repubs, united? :rofl:

[Union Thug]

37. self delete

[madfloridian]

39. Here's how it is.....I made a good clear thoughtful post

MindCrime has fixed it so no one else can take part without fear of being attacked.

So I will let him carry on his conversation alone.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Maybe You Shouldn't Have Posted A Bill Clinton Hit Piece That Was Inaccurate In Premise.

Don't blame me. You aren't a victim. You posted an attack on a great democrat that was completely unjustified and inaccurate. If you thought you could just post it and only get replies that aligned with your misconception and walked in lockstep with ya, then you were surely mistaken.

The fact is you have had many opportunity to correct the premise. You haven't. As long as you keep putting it forward as fact, I will keep responding in defense of an innocent Democrat getting unfairly attacked. Don't blame me for that. Blame your refusal to understand the context of his words.

Accuracy matters. Facts matter.

[madfloridian]

42. My last word....the article was correct. Good author, good magazine.

You are using tactics to bully.

You are very good at it.

My whole post was credible. You think if you keep saying it is wrong, it might just go away.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. I'm Talking About Your OP Not An Obscure Link On The Bottom. And No, The OP Wasn't Credible, Sorry.

Why do you think almost nobody has posted in here? You honestly think it's because of me? There was plenty of time for others to have responded before our subthreads got so long. They didn't. Wanna know why? Cause they know the OP is of false premise and they know I've already done a good enough job setting the record straight and injecting the truth.

[madfloridian]

44. I learned that the NYT blog and The Nation are not credible sources.

Most interesting. It's amazing what one learns here.

[Syrinx]

45. it's clear from what you posted that he was talking about party unity.

[madfloridian]

46. Then we should prevail on the issues we want as Democrats.

We have good control of the House, we don't need to cooperate too much with the other side to get things done.

If we have unity, we should not have to spend too much time with the George.

How do you explain the when to oppose and when not to?

We have to oppose them if we get things done.

It is not obvious, and it is not clear. It is too much like the way we acted when we gave Bush permission to go to war.

[Syrinx]

48. I admit I haven't read the articles

I have only read the excerpts that you posted.

Bill said "Strive for unity on big issues even if your position doesn’t prevail."

He's saying, it seems to me, that Democrats need to strive for party unity. If an individual Democrat favors a different position than the majority of Democrats, and it is clear that the individual isn't going to get her or his way, then they should take one for the team, instead of publically dividing the party. I'm not sure I agree with this, but he definitely isn't saying to strive for unity with the Republicans. At least that's the way I read it.

[Kingshakabobo]

49. I agree. The OP is taking quotes out of context.

"Unity", when used in front of your own party, in a closed forum, means just that - not "bi-partisanship.".......especially when he says "Keep a unified front on when to oppose." Who are you going to oppose? The opposition.....by maintaining unity.

[Syrinx]

50. "Who are you going to oppose? The opposition.....by maintaining unity"

Very well put. :thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

47. if this is true, then throw the Big dawg from the train

"On the other hand, most Dems seem to have internalized Clinton's conservative economic doctrine as party gospel--fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the first principle of governing, and managing the economy for growth is ceded to the Federal Reserve. This doctrine conveniently has wide appeal among the major contributors from business and finance, but it doesn't promise much for the folks who vote."

[gaspee]

51. Wow

I used to think Du'ers were smarter than the average bear. Not so much after this hillarious display of a lack of fundamental reading compreshension skills.

It's *almost* funny.

"Unity" when talking to one group means with each other. Period.

Still kinda funny, the righteous indignation.

And I'll take incremental increases over no increases every time. It softens 'em up for the next blow, first of all, and second of all, there's less backlash. meaning less three forward, two back. it's more like 1/2 forward, 0 back, well, you get my point.

Of course, I'd like Western European style socialism tomorrow, so I can't even believe I'm defending clinton, who I adore on a personal level and really don't like on a policy level.

In fact, the best I can say about him on a policy level is the old tried and true 'he's the best republican president we've ever had."

But come on, how stupid do you have to be to think "unity" = "compromise"?

[blm]

52. From your bottom link - just what we suspected and why Terry Mac and Carville

were not effective in their jobs for the party during that time period., and why Clinton players such as Carville and Grunwald held their tongues since July 2003 to protect WH during the campaign and let Joe Wilson be smeared as a liar in the mainstream media the entire time - even as BOTH knew that WH outed Plame.

They never wanted ANY Dem to win in 2004.

Greider talking about the network Clintons built and maintained in 2003 article:

A darker scenario was suggested by a Democratic lobbyist who described "Team Clinton" scurrying around Washington, setting up independent money pots and "issue" fronts to pre-empt other voices and to define the broad agenda for 2004 in Clinton's New Democrat terms. The ultimate objective, in this scenario, is to prepare the ground for Senator Hillary Clinton's eventual run for the presidency (when Mr. Bill might return to the White House as First Spouse). This insider chatter sounds melodramatic and way ahead of the story, but it's not exactly paranoid fantasy. The Clinton circle is busy building things.

[Alamom]

53. Good to see "Big Dawg's" intent clarified. Party unity IS the greatest advice

he could give and particularly now. Debate is great behind closed doors, but not something we need in the presence of repukes or media. Everyone should be heard, but sort out the problems in private and then,


Keep a unified front on when to oppose (and how) and when to cooperate (and how).


Makes sense.

[Vinca]

54. If he means unity with the other party, I say baloney.

That's why the election went overwhelmingly Democratic. People don't like what Republicans stand for.

[mdmc]

55. 8 years of 42 = same as 41 = triangulator

Free trade
drug war
welfare's destruction (or taking tommy Thompson's great WI welfare plan, gutting it, and forcing it on the nation)

[JNelson6563]

57. This from the man who

apparently didn't think the fairness doctrine was important enough to reinstate and who turned a blind eye to Limbaugh and the other hate-mongers. Look at what happened there.

For a genius sometimes Bill is a fucking idiot.

Julie

[bigtree]

59. in regards to Iraq

I always think of the soldiers who would be taken out of harm's way as a result of a compromise. Tinkering with soldiers' lives doesn't always just come from the opposition. Who is willing to say that a compromise which promises to end the occupation and begins to bring our soldiers home would not be acceptable because some 'principle' or position wasn't addressed in that piece of legislation or legislative effort? Can our soldiers afford to wait for republicans to bend to every one of our demands?

Moreover, any bill on Iraq which carries only Democratic votes is vulnerable to a certain filibuster or presidential veto. Passing a partisan bill on Iraq- even if every member we have in our party voted together - would likely amount to nothing more than a protest vote in the end. And, it may only deepen the obstruction if the debate manages to become a defense of president and party with conservatives and moderate republicans alike playing to their base. Can the soldiers afford that type of gridlock?

Our political system was designed to be a system of compromise. That's what voters expect these legislators to do. If they can avoid and ignore the posturing and positioning there will emerge a fat number of republicans who will cause the ground to crack from the Capitol to the White House as they issue their historic rebuke to a two-term president who presumes he's at war by offering their support to sense of the Congress resolutions; then forward to binding ones as Bush resists, as we all expect him to.

I'm not surprised by the frustration, but I've been straining my voice to explain to my friends who are sure that the nation is broken, that the political process in Washington is a deliberative one. That's all well and good for a nation whose needs out stretch its short attention span. We need to watch and encourage the process , and support our leaders when we we can, and as often as we can. They don't have the numbers to dictate anything legislatively with regard to Iraq. Our soldiers lives depend on their ability to form coalitions which will begin to end the occupation and bring them home.