Why is Bill Clinton not blamed for 2000 loss?

[kcjohn1]

Am constantly hearing about how Nader, Progressives are to blame for 2000 loss and subsequent Bush years that brought in right wing politics and Iraq war.

How about Bill? If he kept his dick in his pants and didn't abuse his power to take advantage of intern, and lie to the American people, he would have being able to campaign for Gore. If Gore wins Arkansas, he is president.

Amazing he is able to blame young voters for 2010, but I never heard an apology for 2000.

[grasswire]

1. doncha know?

The Clintons are always the VICTIMS, never at fault themselves.

[Bread and Circus]

47. They are the richest, most powerful victims I have ever seen.

[Kalidurga]

2. I totally blame Bill

I got to hear all kinds of people saying that they really couldn't trust a Democrat in charge after Bill. Mostly because he was impeached and Democrats refused to convict.

I heard it from both conservative leaning people and liberal leaning people. Of course this was back when my kids were still under my roof so I wasn't running around just jabbering with people these were coworkers, friends, family so not a huge sample size.

[Firebrand Gary]

3. Nader and people like Susan Sarandon who supported him.

[TM99]

8. Perfect example of blame anyone

but those actually involved with losing the elections from Clinton to Gore to Democrats voting for Bush, etc.

Way to go. Want to punch me? I am a hippie who voted Green in 2000.

[Firebrand Gary]

11. No, I don't do violence, I loath it.

George W Bush did enough violence for everyone I believe. Seeing that you did not vote for the democrat in 2000, I suspect you're happy with your decision? I know Samuel Alito and John Roberts are.

[TM99]

13. So do it.

Too bad Clinton and Gore didn't get Gore elected or at least more than enough votes to not have it stolen.

Why would I be happy? I voted for the anti-war progressive. He lost. I am an actual leftist progressive.

[Firebrand Gary]

15. We're all progressives.

Your words: "I am a hippie who voted Green in 2000."

In retrospect, I wonder if you regretted that vote? Al Gore, the man who would win a Nobel Prize in his efforts to protect the climate. Your protest vote did not help the green movement, it nearly killed it.

[Armstead]

31. Gore advanced the environment much more than he would have as president

And yes you are hippie bashing.

[That Guy 888]

33. I wonder if Gore regretted choosing Joe Lieberman for VP?

Do you think that Gore and the Dems that didn't hear evidence of election fraud that disenfranchised more Democratic votes than Nader received regretted their lack of action a spine when 9/11 happened?

Do you think Gore regrets losing his home state of Tennessee?

I regret belonging to a party that refuses to fight for us, and then blames liberals when they lose, and that needs to change.

[karynnj]

50. Unless Gore writes a tell all book - that would be intensely painful to write, no one will know

As to election fraud, many articles in the early 2000s spoke of how in ALL elections, there likely was a loss of votes in areas of low privilege.

But in Florida, the Democratic party had a heads up when a party worker in one county found her husband's name on the list to delete because he was a felon. He wasn't and that county did question Katherine Harris' felon list created by a company out of Texas. What is sad is that this did not become a Florida wide issue and it did not become an issue raised before the election by Gore. (I have no idea if the county Democratic party even passed what they found to the Gore campaign.)

Unlike other means of suppressing the vote - the butterfly ballot etc - this was known before the election and it should have been addressed - especially because Harris was a key aide to the Governor - the brother of the Republican candidate.

As to Tennessee, it was his home state, but he had not been Senator for 8 years and the state had moved to the right. No one questioned that in a landslide, Obama lost Tennessee. In fact, it was ONLY because it was Gore that he came anywhere near close. NH was closer and with a better VP he might have won that state -- which he lost by fewer than the number of Nader voters.

As to fighting for the election, he did what anyone in his place would have done. When Florida was given to Gore by all the networks, he conceded because the numbers weren't there. When the numbers began to change, he "un"conceded. He then fought until the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush.

As to Lieberman, had Florida been an honest election, Lieberman, who was a rock star to the thousands of Jewish retirees, mostly in Palm Beach county, could have been seen as a brilliant choice giving Florida to Gore. However, this was not an election that needed a desperate choice.

Though hard to imagine now, Lieberman was not seen as the bad choice he is seen as now. It was historic to have a Jewish man on the ticket and Lieberman had the second highest life time record from the LCV (Kerry was highest) in the Senate. He was one of the dozen or so Senators who had gone to hearings on climate change. I think Gore could have done better if he chose a better campaigner, more charismatic excellent debater. It is known that he considered Kerry and Edwards. Kerry would definitely have killed Cheney in a debate and would have led to a win in NH -- which would have been enough even if Florida was stolen as it was.

[That Guy 888]

91. "...he did what anyone would have done" - Anyone? Did bush concede?

"ALL elections, there likely was a loss of votes in areas of low privilege" And our Democratic leaders fight that how? I heard that they don't want acknowledge that any election fraud happens because it would "discourage" voting.

" What is sad is that this did not become a Florida wide issue and it did not become an issue raised before the election by Gore." He knew there was a problem before the votes were certified. He chose not to acknowledge them. from the NY Times January 7, 2001:

Today, for nearly 20 minutes in the cavernous House chamber, a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, joined by a few sympathizers, tried in vain to block the counting of Florida's 25 electoral votes, protesting that black voters had been disenfranchised. Florida's highly contested electoral votes were crucial in Mr. Bush's victory after a prolonged legal and political battle following an inconclusive election.

Federal law requires a member of both the House and the Senate to question a state's electoral votes in writing for a formal objection to be considered. But the House members had no Senate support. So Mr. Gore, who was presiding in his role as Senate president, slammed down the gavel to silence them and rule their objections and parliamentary maneuvers out of order.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/us/over-some-objections-congress-certifies-electoral-vote.html

It would have been unseemly and republicans would have been outraged (they're always "outraged" though) but Gore shouldn't have certified those results. I guarantee that if the position had been reversed, a republican would have grabbed the Presidency. Our Democratic politicians don't like to fight. They have been frightened of anything liberal since they lost to Nixon, and that's left our party in a ideological vacuum. Which is why they've been spinning rightward ever since. Helped along by a media that is afraid of being labeled liberal (it happens anyway) or losing access (which isn't valuable if you never use it). Big business and Big Finance also help push things along with the help of their good friends the DLC.

On Michael Moore's television show TV Nation, he sent a former KGB agent to look for what happened to the Democratic Party. In that segment, he went to a meeting where Clinton's good buddy James Carville who told Democrats that they needed to "sound like republicans" in order to win elections.

There was a study mentioned on Stephanie Miller's show several years ago that showed when stripped of party affiliation, liberal policies were decidedly favored over moderate republican (which the Clintons and DC power structure favor) and conservative policies. It makes me wonder if a majority of our Democratic leaders don't want to fight, or are too lazy to frame their own arguments.

[TM99]

98. Y'all party loyalists

think that every vote NOT for your candidate is a protest vote.

It was not. I voted for the leftist on the ballot who best suited my political positions and policies.

[moriah]

58. Nope, no desire to punch.

A wish that people had decided to get on the IRV bandwagon then so their votes for Nader weren't effectively votes for Bush...

But no, no violence.

[TM99]

100. But you see that is not reality.

A vote for Nader was simply a vote for Nader. We have and continue to have third party candidates on every level for decades. There were leftist ones in 2000 and there were rightist ones as well. Perhaps you have heard of the Libertarian Party?

By this same logic, Democrats who voted for Bush did in fact vote for Bush. Go it?

[artislife]

70. Bill did not help Gore as he should

There are those who think this is true, because they were already eyeing Hillary's future run.

Calculating and untrustworthy.

[Blanks]

77. Gore didn't want his help...

If he'd asked for Bill to campaign for him, it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[Demsrule86]

103. That is not true

Gore did not want Clinton's help...in fact Gore was grilled by Katie Couric as to why he would not accept help.

[astrophuss42]

4. I kinda see your point here

Unfortunately I didn't follow along as well as I should have back then but it seems the affair had an unintended effect on the subsequent election in a few ways.

[Dems to Win]

5. I blamed Bill for not resigning and letting Al Gore take over in 1998

And also for giving the Repubs a club they used to paralyze the government for 2 years and make it tough for Al Gore in 2000.

Bill Clinton's charm and charisma wore out for me many, many years ago. I am adamantly opposed to returning the Sexual Harasser in Chief to the White House in any capacity.

[zappaman]

6. Oh ffs.

[Ken Burch]

7. If Bill hadn't spent the previous eight years demonizing progressives and driving them away

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Nader's 2000 showing would never have happened.

We never needed a nominee who treated labor, POC and the poor as the enemy, OR who dared to join Republicans in sanctimoniously lecturing poor women with kids on "personal responsibility" while he AND those Republicans felt no obligation to display any themselves.

A level of hypocrisy he has never, to this day, apologized for.

[silvershadow]

10. ^All this and more. Al Gore is the one who got the short end of the stick on that deal,

and all because of Clinton's Global Ego.

[Firebrand Gary]

14. Progress does not come overnight and he did give us Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.

Bill Clinton made it to two terms, he obviously did something right seeing that the last time it happened Harry Truman was President.

[Armstead]

34. No he gave us deregulation, privatization, corporate free trade. shattering of safety net...

and a general message that Corporations and Wall St. matter more than average Americans.

A slightly kinder and gentler version of supply side trickle down Alan Greenspan conservatism

[HERVEPA]

36. Truman did not have two full terms and Ike was elected twice. Otherwise accurate.

[GummyBearz]

71. Really? Truman?

Shit, Reagan made it 2 terms just 1 president away from Bill. And what he did right was come into the office right when the tech boom started and people were making millions of dollars for ideas like pets.com... Everyone was super happy with the economy, not because he invented the internet, but because he was there when people started using it.

[Armstead]

32. BINGO!!!!!!!! + 100000000000000

[LostOne4Ever]

9. Bill Clinton left office with a nearly 70% approval rating

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]The fault laid more with Gore, himself, for not embracing one of the most popular presidents in US history.[/font]

[DesertFlower]

17. exactly. nt

[uponit7771]

24. +1

[Gwhittey]

44. Actually Bill did not embrace him

I lived in NY in 2000 and Bill was up in my state stumping for Hillary for Senate most of time. Ex-Prez spending most time on on Senate race and little on Prez is a bad thing.

[Dem2]

51. Al Gore ran away from Bill and lost

I blame Al Gore.

Also it's hilarious that the O/P thinks that we forget these things like we're stupid or something. But of course the whole thing here is to blame everything on the Clinton's. What a bunch of angry bitter people.

[loyalsister]

62. So, Bill Clinton did nothing

that would lead a politician to question whether it would be helpful or harmful to have him there?
Bill Clinton and Ralph Nader both contributed to Fl being close enough to steal.

[Dem2]

64. They proved that Al Gore would have won if he had stuck with Bill

I don't play the revisionist history b******* I was there.

[loyalsister]

89. I think you're missing the point

Proving that Gore's campaign didn't make a decision you believe would have been more effective does not change the fact that it was a debatable question to begin with.

Bill Clinton complicated Gore's campaign strategy unnecessarily. If I remember correctly, it was no coincidence that Joe Leiberman was chosen to be Gore's running mate after having been the first Democrat to criticize Clinton during the impeachment.

Al Gore rolled the dice in a direction different from what you believe was effective, but the fact that it was a crap shoot is all on Bill Clinton.

[Dem2]

99. I get it

All bash the name "Clinton", all the time.

[treestar]

57. This! Exactly!

This is so dumb. Monica was a scandal but people recognized he was a good POTUS.

And it was simply kept secret by the "gentleman's" media before. FDR who is so often praised had affairs. So did JFK.

[Agschmid]

92. Yup.

[Tommy2Tone]

101. Truth is not what this bunch cares about

Bill Clinton could have won a third term.

[joshcryer]

106. Can't take this site seriously anymore.

[bvf]

12. I've said this from the beginning.

Glad to see it gain some currency.

When well over half the voters consider you dishonest and untrustworthy upon leaving office, you know you've fucked up your party's chances for some time.

Absolutely right: If Clinton had kept his dick under wraps, Bush might not have been able to steal the election.

This needs to be said over and over. I can't even stand the sight of the asshole's face, knowing how much damage he did.

[DesertFlower]

16. gore ran a crappy campaign and didn't seem

to want any help from bill.

[awake]

27. Are you talking about Al or Hillary?

Because both are crappy campaigners are Bill is of little or no help to them.

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Perhaps Gore didn't want any help from Bill

because Bill was already cozying up to the Bushes.

[Onlooker]

18. Probably because Al Gore ran away from Clinton

Al Gore chose not to associate himself too much with Clinton's accomplishments because of the Lewinsky scandal. A lot of people thought it was a bad choice at the time, since the fact is Clinton was very popular despite the Lewinsky scandal. It's worth noting that Clinton's approval rating actually went up during the Lewinsky scandal, so your whole premise strikes me as uninformed. If Gore had run more on Clinton's record or if Nader had urged his supporters in Florida to support Gore, we would not have had the second Bush presidency.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. He was a contributing factor on a anecdotal note

I knew two 'friends, acquaintances, etc''. who voted for Bush because of Clinton's shenanigans and lying who wanted a change of regime and felt Bill tainted the democratic administration too much .
They were both more or less independents. They both admitted later it was a dumb vote but our state went Gore anyway.

But I blame the Supreme Court the most and then Gore for not fighting enough for a just election result.. Gore even said Nader wasn't a factor on his loss so let's not go there.

11% of all Democrats voted for Bush
25% of all Gays/Les voted for Bush
48% of all independents voted for Bush

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/


Now read what Gore said;

Gore blamed Clinton for his defeat in election

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1321720/Gore-blamed-Clinton-for-his-defeat-in-election.html

[eridani]

20. Becauaw Gore won?

Dems were pretty gutless about fighting back on that, though.

[MADem]

21. Al Gore didn't want him campaigning. He made himself available, but AG made the call to not use

him.

Everyone knows this.

[all american girl]

22. Because Gore didn't want him campaigning....

He was extremely popular, but...ask Tad, he might know.

[Arkansas Granny]

23. Despite not keeping it in his pants, Bill's approval ratings were higher when he left office than

when he was first elected.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Maybe Gore should have enlisted Clinton's help for his campaign instead of trying to distance himself.

[corkhead]

25. Yes, Progressives and Nader are to blame for Gore picking Lieberman, not Bill.

[oberliner]

26. Bill Clinton had a high favorability rating in 2000

He would've been happy to campaign for Gore and would have been very helpful. Gore made the decision to keep his distance. He wanted to show he was "his own man". It was a bewildering choice.

[kennetha]

28. But Gore DID win. That election was stolen

[GreatGazoo]

30. perhaps because 1994 was worse

[Sky Masterson]

35. I blame more on Gore.

He created a distance between himself and the Clintons.
Bill wasn't allowed to campaign for him or anything.
Al didn't even win his home state.
Who will be blamed for this loss will be the DNC for propping up Mrs. Bosnian Sniper fire.
It will Be Mrs. Increments bulldozer full of opposition research that exist everywhere on the web that will be dumped on her.
It will be Mrs. Itsmyturns likeability that keep people on their couches and away from the polls.
It will be the Purchased Media pandering to Mrs.Flip-a-coins campaign while ignoring the person people actually want that will keep people at home.
It will be all of these hungry trolls ripping apart every sentence like jackals looking for that one spin-able soundbite in an attempt to makes Mrs.Partoftheproblem digestible.

I see Secretary Pander talking tough,looking tough,and acting tough taunting the tiger on the other side of the fence but when you open the fence her words will turn into desperation, and she will blame those who didn't vote for it.
No matter who wins or loses, If she is the Nominee, if she somehow wins,we will have a Neocon in the whitehouse.

[NCTraveler]

38. Not only should he not be blamed.

Gore should have asked him to be front and center in his campaign. I believe not doing so was a mistake.

[sufrommich]

39. Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings in modern

history at 66% approval:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-Bill-Clinton.aspx



The only people obsessing over his dick were republicans,then and now.

[One of the 99]

40. I blame Bush for stealing the election.

But Nader deserves a share of the responsibility for enabling the steal.

[beachbum bob]

41. bill clinton didn't run gore's 2000 campaign and if bill were allowed to run for 3rd term

he would have won in a landslide....I know nader voters hate hearing how their intransigence support of nader in the face of an extremely close election gave america GWB/Cheney....and 8 years of disaster but that is a FACT....the extremist of the left could care less for the well being of america over their own self-seving needs...

[Vinca]

42. The 2000 loss wouldn't have been a loss if all the votes had been counted.

[egalitegirl]

52. To be honest, the machine counted all votes

All votes were not counted in the hand recounting stage but had been counted in the machine counting stage.

One reason I would be uncomfortable with counting and recounting until Al Gore won is that he too would have been accused to stealing the election and we would have to live with that accusation.

I am also no supporter of his cap and trade scheme which is nothing but Bush 41's "free market solution." I do not agree with anything that helps Wall Street profit. Gore is also responsible for coming up with the idea of faith based charities.

[djean111]

55. I think not bombing Iraq trumps all of the things you would have been "uncomfortable" with.

Here in Florida, too, I saw pictures of grinning troopers standing beside crates of mailed-in ballots, next to the canals they would be throwing them into. Pictures, of course, are long gone.

Also believe Gore would not have just ignored the 9/11 intelligence.

Lots of death and destruction, because Bush was installed. Still going on.

[egalitegirl]

59. I agree but...

I totally agree that not bombing Iraq would trump everything as I am against wars but I do not believe that Iraq would not have been bombed under Al Gore. The establishments of the two parties are in it together. The anti-war politicians are Bernie Sanders, Denis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.

It is not as though Republicans oppose the Syria and Libya wars of Hillary Clinton. They only say that for effect, but had the Republicans been in power, they would have done the exact same thing. This is because both answer to the same masters and execute the same plan while in power. Remember Madeleine Albright's comment about dead children in Iraq? The one on the price being worth it? That is what we are up against.

Have you also wondered why Obamacare is identical to Romneycare which is about creating profits for the insurance industry?

If we fall for the claim that Democratic Party leadership consists of peace loving people who stand up for us and against corporations, we all lose.

[djean111]

60. About this -

Have you also wondered why Obamacare is identical to Romneycare which is about creating profits for the insurance industry?

No, because, from the day I learned that Rick Warren was giving the convocation, and then saw who Obama appointed to his administration - I knew that Obama was just a cleverly presented corporatist. Looking back, I guess that he was the lesser of two evils in the primaries and in the GE. And I supported Hillary. Have done my due diligence since then, though.

[Uncle Joe]

43. I've always thought the Clinton's undermined Al, Bill knew he was lying about

Lewinsky when he asked Gore to stand on the White House Lawn with him during the height of the impeachment crisis.

He had no business dragging Al into his shit.

Hillary went to Gore's fundraiser in California to raise money for her first Senate run in blue state New York.

Those are just a couple of examples.

If you want an in-depth analysis of how the Clintons put their own ambitions and self centered desires over doing what they could to promote Gore for the good of the nation, here is a nice piece by Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/11/clinton200711

It has always been about them.


Thanks for the thread, kcjohn.

[brooklynite]

45. Clinton ended his Presidency incredibly popular

Gore ran a mediocre campaign and lost 10 States won in 1996. Winning ANY ONE of them would have made Florida irrelevant.

[A Little Weird]

46. He should share the blame as far as I'm concerned

That was the first election I was old enough to vote. I had grown up in a republican home but had already rejected the republican party for myself. But democrats seemed just as corrupt. I remember how disgusted I was with the whole "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" quote. Both parties seemed the same to me.

Today, we have a pro-war front-runner that supports fracking, private prisons, "free" trade, expanding H1-Bs, keeping single payer off the table, etc, etc. It seems only a handful of social issues separate the parties yet again. The oligarchs get what they want either way and the peons can fight it out over abortion. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[tritsofme]

48. Clinton had a 60% approval rating and Gore essentially banned him from the campaign trail

for the majority of the contest. Stupid stupid stupid.

[yardwork]

49. I said that at the time. Stupid move on Gore's part.

Possibly motivated by Tipper.

[emulatorloo]

54. Huge mistake, IMHO

[emulatorloo]

53. Clinton had a very high approval rating in 2000, despite DU revisionist history

Gore ran away from Clinton and wouldn't let Clinton campaign for him.

[reddread]

56. I think I know

The relentless NADER DID IT was intended to allay discussion and
provide plausible cover to what actually happened.

I think it was also Clinton directed for their own purposes.
Blaming Clinton was the rarest of remarks.
mind you, I hold Clinton harmless for Gore's victory.

[Jim Lane]

61. Why do Nader's defenders not recognize that an event can have more than one cause?

The 2000 election has been subjected to extensive post-mortems (a metaphor that's gruesomely appropriate to the Americans and Iraqis who died). I think each of the following statements is true:

* If Bill Clinton had not exploited an intern and then lied about it, Gore would have become President, as you point out.
* If Katharine Harris had not illegally purged thousands of Florida voters, Gore would have become President.
* If the confusing butterfly ballot had not been employed, or if Florida Democrats had appreciated the problem and made a major push to educate voters about how to vote, Gore would have become President.
* If Gore had possessed clairvoyance about the Election Day results, and had early on decided to completely abandon Florida and redirect all that money and campaign time to New Hampshire, he would have become President.
* Alternatively, if he had done the exact opposite, and abandoned New Hampshire in favor of Florida, he would have built a cheatproof margin there and would have become President.
* If SCOTUS had ruled honestly, Gore would have become President.

People here love to dump on Lieberman but he did help Gore with some constituencies, including Jews in Florida. In early 2000 Florida was assumed to be safely Republican. I suspect that Lieberman helped change that. A Gore-Kerry ticket might have legitimately lost Florida by thousands of votes, even without any Republican theft; but then again, Kerry's over-the-border strength might have delivered New Hampshire. My list excludes Lieberman because I've included only factors that I think are clear.

But there's at least one more factor that's pretty clear:

* If Nader, like Bernie Sanders this year, had chosen to run in the Democratic primaries instead of in the general election, then Gore would have become President.

Blaming Bill Clinton's conduct in office doesn't excuse Harris's voter purge. Blaming the butterfly ballot doesn't excuse the SCOTUS decision. Nobody ever defends Harris or SCOTUS by pointing to other factors. That illogical argument is invoked only to defend St. Ralph.

[JoePhilly]

63. I'm amused by how many liberals are suddenly obsessed with Bill's dick.

If Bill campaigned for Gore, he'd have won. Gore did not accept Bill's support.

That, plus Nader, plus Florida.

But please ... give Bill's dick a rest already.

[kcjohn1]

72. Why did gore not want bill to campaign for him?

[JoePhilly]

75. Because he was a dope.

Bill was incredibly popular.

Gore was too full of himself.

[Lil Missy]

65. Bill's almighty and powerful penis lives on!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. because he was popular and Gore intentionally ran away from him

also, he was not the candidate. Gore was. Nader was. Clinton was not.

[The Second Stone]

67. because Ralph Nader spoiled two states

outright and Al Gore kept Clinton at a distance. I blame you more than Bill Clinton.

[kcjohn1]

73. Would Gore have more voters if Bill was not morally corrupt?

[The Second Stone]

74. Would Sanders pull out if he was not morally corrupt and

a narcissist? Personally I find the bros yelling corruption at everyone and failing to understand that the person with the most votes wins to be a complete lack of self insight.

Yeah, Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. Grown ups dealt with that 20 years ago. Right wing haters are nuts about it to this day.

Half of all married people have cheated. And when they cheated, it was with someone else. Not all humans are monogamous, and it takes a very, very, very right wing bro to be bitter about somebody else having cheated in a marriage that isn't theirs 20 years later.

[kcjohn1]

83. Why change the topic?

This was about Bill role in 2000 election. He loves to blame the voters, but when is he going to take responsibility? I'm not even talking about his policies that have hurt the Democrat brand.

BTW My issue has nothing to do with him cheating on his wife. I could care less about that. How can anyone think its ok for someone in position of power (literally the most powerful position in the world) to take advantage of one of their subordinates? This just makes me sick. It aint even like he was humping someone in position of power, but an intern that is half his age.

You may overlook this, but in my world a person like this morally bankrupt and should not be holding any public office.

[The Second Stone]

86. Yes, in your world. It's a fantasy world

especially when you claim it isn't about cheating on his wife. The Free Republic is just a fine site for people with your "opinions". I think you will find that Bill Clinton's morals stack up quite favorably to anyone in your "world". He's no better or worse than any other run of the mill sinner. Your high horse stinks.

[kcjohn1]

88. So in your world the following are the same

1) Me having an affair with colleague or friend

2) Me (boss) having an affair with an intern (supervisory context)

If you think those two are the same thing, why do you think majority of work places have code of conduct, and require in the case of 2) to report that relationship (most actually discourage or outright ban this)?

It is amazing how people will turn blind eye to HORRIBLE things just to defend the Clintons.

[LiberalFighter]

68. Gore campaigned against or ran away from Bill Clinton AND

he selected Joe LIEberman as his VP nominee.

[JI7]

69. Because Clinton didn't say there was no difference between Gore and Bush

[Hoyt]

76. There are plenty of people to blame. But fact is, without Nader, there would have been

enough votes to put Gore over top in Florida.

[basselope]

82. You presume all Nader votes = Gore.

The silly assumption Clinton people are making about Bernie voters.

[Hoyt]

84. Well, that's true. I think a number of Sanders's supporters might go to Trump.

[basselope]

87. Yep... I know it for a fact.

[tritsofme]

93. No, but it is not illogical to presume that if Nader did not appear on the ballot

The split of those nearly 100k voters between Gore/Bush/Not voting would have favored Gore enough on net to handily see him over the final reported margin of some 500 votes.

[basselope]

94. It actually IS illogical to presume that.

Since it has been completely and utterly debunked.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

[pnwmom]

96. Nader got 95k votes. The election was decided by less than 1K. We didn't need ALL Nader's votes. n/t

[basselope]

97. Exit polls showed he took more votes from Bush than Gore.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

[MattP]

78. LBC

Let's blame Clinton, yes for everything

[cloudythescribbler]

79. Blame in general flows to where it serves power elite agenda(s)

Look, there were lots of reasons for Gore's defeat in 2000. Actually Monicagate does not in my arrogant opinion genuinely figure as central, just as Nader doesn't legitimately either.

Throughout the lead-up to the election, the signs were rampant that putting in W, by the narrowest of margins possible if need be (or simply Supreme Court fiat as it turned out) was on the agenda or "in the cards". When W was asked a simple question of who four heads of state were, including India and Pakistan, he could only name the head of state of Taiwan (ROC) who he had met. Throughout the society and to the astroturf roots this lack of knowledge was dismissed, some suggesting that JFK might not have been able to answer a similar question in 1959-60. Then there was the MSM celebrating his supposedly wonderful personality, at least relative to Gore, as 'perceived' by the public, ie as propagandized by a justifying-the-lying MSM -- this smarmy, deeply cynical and uncaring, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, entitled son of a president someone people would just love to have a beer with? It was about as plausible as Howard Dean's supposed "scream" or the flipflop tag pasted on Kerry and hardly resisted by him for months and months. Then, eg, on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" he briefly endorsed Gore, then, w/o explanation (perhaps responding to invisible pressure w/in the network?) he shifted to Nader, referring repeatedly to 'Bore' v 'Gush'. These are just a few indicators of which way the winds were blowing. And blaming the Left is just icing on the cake

Now, we see gearing up to somehow blame Bernie's supporters (those who opt not to support Hillary at least in swing states, if she is the nominee) if Hillary is defeated. Oddly, not only on DU (which can get very bitter during primary season, especially it seemed to me in the 07-8 cycle, on the part of Hillary supporters) but also a chorus of Hillary surrogates, like the completely Democratic-establishment-coopted Howard Dean, condescendingly calling on Bernie to 'tone it down' and at least implying he should quit soon, something I at least totally oppose, with the only predictable result not of helping Hillary or influencing Bernie or his supporters favorably, but alienating as many Bernie supporters as possible from supporting Hillary in the general if she's nominated. You already hear about the blame-game starting, as a potentiality.

In general, the idea of blaming ANY kind of progressive left impulse in US politics is a perennial staple and the heart of US power and ideology. That's why of course Bill Clinton and other roots (like the ones I've outlined, having to do with 'getting with the program') are completely swept aside: they don't "serve" elite purposes and interests.

[Frances]

80. Because Bill Clinton would have won a third term if a third term had been allowed

No question Bill Clinton would have defeated W

[Codeine]

81. Because we won. nt

[BillZBubb]

85. There was a lot of blame to go around. Clinton is high on the list of culprits.

Ultimately, though, Gore must bear the most responsibility. As for Nader, he's a convenient excuse for those who wanted to gloss over the real, serious problems with that campaign.

[beedle]

90. eaiser to blame blame people for participating in democracy

than it is to blame heroes who participate in abuse of power, sexism, adultery, and indiscriminate murder (Al Shifa Pharmaceutical plant bombing as a distraction away from personal 'indiscretions' and revenge fantasies.)

[pnwmom]

95. Bill was highly popular then. Impeachment had only improved his numbers. Gore probably

made a mistake when he decided no to use him.

[Demsrule86]

102. Nader ran a independent campaign

Had he not do so, George Bush would never have been president...now Gore may not have been a perfect candidate but he sure as hell was better than Bush. And stop bashing Bill who was a good president for his time...he saved us from eight more years of the GOP.

[Gothmog]

104. Sanders and Nader have a great deal in common-tweedle dee and tweedle dum

The efforts to excuse Nader for his arrogance and stupidity is sad. Sanders and the traitor Nader share a love of stating that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and have even used the same sad terminology. Sanders first used the same terminology of stating that there are no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican party when he ran as a spoiler for governor. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Hillary Clinton is not the first progressive Democratic woman to be challenged by Bernie Sanders. He ran against me in 1986 when I was running for my second term as governor of Vermont. At that time he had little affinity for the Democratic Party. When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying: “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”[/div
After Sanders used this termination, Nader joined in first http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/

Again and again throughout the campaign, Nader implied that he thought Bush and Gore equally objectionable. "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies," Nader said in a news conference in September 2000.

"The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," he told supporters in California a month later.

"It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote," Nader said in Philadelphia four days before the election, repeating a favorite refrain of his. "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity."

Nader also failed to challenge Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week when Donaldson said, "You don't think it matters. You've said it doesn't matter to you who is the president of the United States, Bush or Gore."

Nader replied, "Because it's the permanent corporate government that's running the show here ... you can see they're morphing more and more on more and more issues into one corporate party."

Please do not let Nader escape blame for his role in 2000

[jeff47]

105. Because that narrative does not serve the wealthy.

"Those stupid liberals and Nader voters" does.