Dems Need to Publicly Wash Their Hands of Clinton

[Starpass]

I have fumed for 2 years about how politically ignornant the American people are. I cannot allow myself to fall into the same "sheepdom".

Several days ago I heard one of Dem reps speak on the House floor. He talked about how the people in his district and his state were tremedously behind the war in Iraq and President Bush. BUT, that things changed drastically over the last couple weeks because he said they are wild about being lied to, about being lied to on such an important subject, and sick about the fact that Bush would manipulate intelligence info to further political goals. And then, as we have yelled about for a good day now, came Clinton's remarks in Larry King. BUT, now I ask you to add one other thing to that:

On the same show months ago, during the top of Bush's popularity, Clinton supported a repeal of the amendment limiting presidential terms to two---but pointed out that he didn't want it to be retro to include him. Now, folks, just put those two things together and tell me who the hell the Clintons are working for??

His latest message on King was not for DLC people....they, too, are at Bush's throat on these lies. Hell, even many repukes are at his throat. Bill is doing this for one person: Bush. And he knew damn well what he was doing. Bill and Hillary would like to be back into power to help lead the likes of us to the slaughter by those we have been opposing. Better to be lead there by your head "sheep", than keep resisting because you outright recognize the wolfs and coyotes. Even Donna Brazil had to tell us today that "Bill was dead wrong". He's more than "wrong"--oppps an itty bitty mistake by him-----he's in bed with the crime family.

[mmm]

1. i fear that i must agree

amazing

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Correction: BILL IS DOING THIS FOR ONE PERSON ..BILL

While I don't think he was a bad president and I have good and bad things to say about him, he is in it for him. If anything is done peripherally for Bush, it is only to the degree that it serves HIM.

[Starpass]

4. nothingshocks---define "good" for Bill

In other words am I to believe that he's doing this to either put himself on center stage or perhaps cover up some boo-boo's he made regarding Saddam, etc. that might come out???? OR is the "good for Bill" like in money, promises, all sorts of goodies (relief of law debt), etc. In other words, just a 'poor' boy doing what he can in Amureka to become one of the rich elite---and maybe some promises of power??????

[Imalittleteapot]

15. My first reaction was that his statement was to

"perhaps cover up some boo-boo's he made regarding Saddam", to quote you Starpass. I also thought that it may be some crazy move to get on the good side of the right for Hillary's future. Whatever, I'm not going to bash him or further speculate, except to say that he was wrong. :shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Bill is doing this for several reasons

One: Hillary will eventually run. To say anything else calls her vote into question.

Two: To justify his own actions regarding Iraq which were also ineffectual. It was under his administration that UNSCOM was PULLED out and Saddam hedged due to the infestation by the CIA which one preesumes he allowed.

Three: Face it, he had a little fib while in office too. If he says Bush lied, he brings his own lies back up for them. If he says, the president should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should move on, he points out what he feels should have happened with him (not that I disagree in his case since it was extracurricular activities that were admittedly consensual on BOTH parties' behalf, nlike Bush's lie which has claimed close to.... 8000 lives now?)

[Trek234]

61. Wow 3 selfish reasons to screw the party and help Bush

I'm sure democrats will just TOTALLY forgive this sh*t after we have Bush for another FOUR YEARS so Hillary can run in 2008. Yes, a lot of democrats will be verrryyy pleased about that.

Two and three are basically the same. Yes Clinton could have (and did) screw up in office. The fact is, however, he is not on trial is he? NO ONE of even the slightest importance is taling about Clintons sex acts or if he screwed up in Iraq. He could have easily kept his mouth shut for the good of the party and the nation. Hell, he could have said this a year from now and still covered reasons two and three that you present.

[caledesi]

9. Agree. Clinton is always 3 steps ahead of everyone

that's why the repugs hated him. It will all come out just why he made those comments.

[red_house]

23. Something about the timing, too.

I think that in matters of national security, the reluctance of a former president to be openly critical of even his political rival has to be tempered and cautious....Bill Clinton chose to give the benefit of the doubt to Bush on the Niger story because the possibility remains that he himself will be brought in to account for his handling of national and foreign security lapses during his term....Considering this approach on purely defensive terms, it makes sense....The personal benefit gained here is something that he could claim is also a benefit "to the party"....This is an arguable position and this thread is as good as any other to hash it out.

It's the "MOVE ON" aspect of his statement that leaves us guessing as to where the line should be drawn, or wether there's a line at all....Does it end, in Clinton's mind, on the bogus african uranium story or does this transcend a larger, far-reaching attitude towards national security and information gathering techniques in general?....I think Clinton's take on the 9/11 report will clue us in to which position he'll adopt....I think it's too early to tell.

Wether he's being coy or genuine on this issue also raises the issue about Hillary, herself....I saw yet another poll on MSNBC today that had Lieberman (:scared:) leading among CURRENT contenders, but throw Hillary into the mix, and it's a WASH....She leads Lieberman by nearly 30 points and you can bet that Bill is privvy to these recurring "what if" scenarios....No question here as to Bill's "DLC or Bust" approach to where the party should claim its ground.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Yes well IMHO he moved on from Iran Contra a bit too quick or we

wouldn't be here today. SO what the Bushies threatened him. WHere's the courage of a Dwight Eisenhower or a John Kennedy that they all fall over trying to compare themselves to?

[Terwilliger]

26. I think he's acting on Hillary's behalf

she's the future of the DLC trust

[red_house]

31. There's the "thing".

Hillary is fully aware of her standing in the party and having a husband/ex-president championing the DLC line gives her an advantage that the current contenders can't match....On the one hand, it definitely looks like a self-serving exercise. But on the other, the Clinton's are flexing their political capital which most here would agree has been EARNED.

[Terwilliger]

46. to what end?

why is he undercutting the thrust towards discrediting Bush? Is he too worried about American credibility? Does he have his own problems to worry about if Bush gets carted before a panel? Does Clinton really work for the DLC?

I would have to say yes to the last one, but I want to know why he did it.

[KoKo]

88. I've begun to believe (dragging and kicking myself) that DLC was complicit

in much of the "evils" we are discovering about our political system today. I can't believe how naive I was before the 2000 selection. In the last two years I've come to believe that the DLC'ers were responsible for the Stock Market Bubble, the SEC revisions which caused it (Lieberman and Dodd who were responsible for relaxed restrictions in 93/94) and for the propping up of the Saudi's (who knows what all evil lies with what was left over from Reagan/Popp) and the turn of the Democratic Party away from the "Party of the People and the Little Guy" to the party supporting the rich and greedy.

I'm being simplistic, but I think many other DU'ers started where I did and now have come to the conclusion that our Dems were not what we thought and a big "House cleaning...and Senate cleaning" is in order.

No one was a bigger supporter of Bill Clinton than myself.........but my faith has been chipped away at by distance and the events which have unfolded.

We have much work to do........we can't depend on any of our former Democratic idols to do it for us. They are either part of the problem or silent enablers.

We need to support those who have supported us......the few in the House and Senate.....and make sure they are rewarded. Throw out the rest of them. What have they done for us? Starting with Daschle/Reid.

[FreedomReload]

3. Stop the Clinton Bashing

We have had enough of this shit. Move your ass to Free Republic if you need to vent.

[Lars39]

5. AFAIK, Clinton's feet haven't been dipped in gold. Why is he off limits?

[sangha]

73. "off limits"?

I'd say the idea that Clinton is part of BFEE is more "Outer Limits" than "off limits"

[Lars39]

74. He's not immune to criticism or speculation. Charisma only goes so far.

[sangha]

75. missing the point.

.

[Lars39]

No. My initial post was to the "go to FreeRepublic" poster.

Whether Clinton has this or that agenda, is open to debate. He's not off limits for any speculation or concern AFAIAC.

[Starpass]

6. I'm so sorry

I will remember to be a good "sheeple"---don't ask, don't tell, don't think and above all promote Bill........and Bill is BRINGING DOWN OUR CANDIDATES. To make all the progess we did in a few weeks and then have him do this. And every, every political program I've watched has used it one way or the other to fuck our candidates. No, I won't let it go. It's another issue Dems need to deal with or this bozo is going to wipe out a lot of Dems. It's time for him to retire and cease and resist helping Bush.....or go join Free Repuke himself!!!!!

[Starpass]

7. Let me note one other thing

Hillary got a real boost with her book AND he just washed that all away with a lot of Dems. Now they don't trust her, either. Way to go Bill. Keep the dog on a tighter chain, Hillary.

[CWebster]

63. "...and Bill is BRINGING DOWN OUR CANDIDATES."

Actually, he is providing cover for the pro-war candidates now trapped in a corner(including his wife, who has increased her political capital and face time with a tell-all book, while the declared candidates are fighting for exposure. Selfish and self-serving? You bet your ass).

[Q]

24. I'm not sure it's up to 'freedom reload' to determine which people...

...have the right to post here.

- Besides...your advice is way off track: FReepVille is where they're not allowed to offer any kind of criticism of republican icons and figureheads....especially about GWB*.

- Wouldn't we be JUST LIKE THEM if we censored criticism of Clinton?

[Kahuna]

30. HUH???? Starpass hardly belongs at freerepublic.

Let's get that straight at the onset. Maybe you should hang around a bit longer before you start to attack people you don't know anything about. At least get to know their track record before you go into attack mode.

[juajen]

51. Excuse me,

We elected him, we defended him. WE CAN BASH HIM. I don't like his remark, would like an explanation. I don't like any defense of * by a dem, whoever it is. IMHO, * is indefensible.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Iverson]

80. two wrongs ...

n/t

[wuushew]

8. Carter must run for second term in 2004!

Jimmy Carter's opposition to the war combined with his unachieved goals of energy conservation make him the logical party figure-head for the future.

[judgegina]

13. No, no, no.

n/t

[twilight]

10. I was just thinking about all of this

I hate to say it but I must agree with you.

I was never a great fan of Clinton's although I did vote for him once.

I was disgusted by the way he managed to unravel welfare and throw people out on the streets the way he did.

It happened to a friend of mine that has five kids and a dead wife and all of a sudden he was having to go to college to learn a new job or something - tough luck kids. Sad situation really.

It was when Clinton did this that I decided he was not a man of integrity. I really did not care about Monica, etc.

As far as his wife goes - it was just said on the news that if SHE ran against * she'd get 49% - * - 50% - a statistical 'dead heat'.

What has our Nation become? We have been bought and sold by these SOB politicans and we have gained nothing in return but carnage and gruesome pictures on television for the children to view.

Makes me :puke: - the whole thing.

:kick:

[dflprincess]

21. I agree

I voted for Clinton twice. But he was never liberal enough for me.

I did not like in his first campaign when he went back to Arksansas so he'd be in the state for the highly publicized execution of a mentally impaired man (shades of Bush*). I thought he was using this guy to prove he was tough on crime.

I did not like what he did to welfare and I really hated NAFTA.

The personal stuff I figured was Hillary's problem and none of my business.

[OrdinaryTa]

11. No, He's Playing the Carom

Sometimes an outfield will move in on a fly ball and let it hit the wall behind him so he can field it on a bounce. That's a difficult skill to learn because of the risk that the ball may turn out to have been catchable. Then the outfielder looks like a fool. However, cleverly executed, the play is a winner. The fielder catches the runner off base for an out.

Clinton has a shrewd sense of political momentum. It won't hurt to appear magnanimous and statesmanlike over one issue, especially if that issue isn't going away. Clinton has taken anti-Clintonism out of the Niger uranium issue, which he recognizes as a pivot point. Nobody can accuse Clinton of vindictiveness or spite here; the worst that can happen is that some Democrats may think he's gone over to the Dark Side.

I hesitate to question Clinton's loyalty or his political judgement. He knows how to measure issues and how they'll play out. If he's telling Americans to cut Bush some slack, I don't take it at face value. Ask again in six months if this was the "betrayal" that people saw it as when it happened. Clinton has earned the right to take positions counter to our expectations.

[gulliver]

42. I tend to agree with that.

Clinton is shrewd politically. He knows Bush is in a very tight spot.

This will confound the Clinton haters, as you point out. I didn't see many Republicans taking advantage of Clinton's words yesterday or today. They don't want to use him for defense; they need to attack him.

[juajen]

53. You're probably right

But that remark did upset me. We have a momentum going here and I just don't want it interrupted. I love the Clintons (hated NAFTA also) for the most part even though I am more liberal personally. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and see where he's going with this. As we all know, he thinks circles around *. Thanks for bringing my anger point down a little. BTW, even though help from him is probably appreciated by Hillary, I don't think she needs him that much to maintain her own credibility. However, we all know she has been walking on eggshells to maintain her focus on issues important to her NY constituents and her future in politics. It's a tough row to hoe.

[CWebster]

64. "Clinton has a shrewd sense of political momentum."

LOl! Yeah, he really pulled a quick one over them when they crucified him over a blue dress.

Please don't delude yourself, it is like seeing imperial magnitude in Smirk's arrogant swagger and dim-witted monosyllabic phrases.

[Cheswick2.0]

66. Yes I think you are right..... or

he may have just made a statement I disagree with. Jeesh, you'd think he just shot Ghandi or something.

He is just one person, it really isn't nessesary to love him or hate him, there is a middle ground.

I think you may be on to something.

[newsguyatl]

12. sadly, i agree

we must 'move on' and search for a new leader... clinton, with his statements, is no longer MY leader...

i've lost a ton of respect... :-(

[papau]

14. Clinton did a great job - was great for Country and Democratic Party

IMHO.

But vent on, flame on, if that floats your boat.

[LynneSin]

16. Al Gore tried that in 2000

Barely brought Bill out to campaign for him, someone who could bring out voters that barely get their butts out to vote in the first place.

Although half the problem was the issues with the rigged elections in Florida; the other reason Al lost was because he chose to ignore his best campaigner - Bill Clinton.

America does not hate Bill Clinton, to think we must wash our hands of him means we're buying that crap that a small group of very vocal idiots spew on a daily basis.

[twilight]

19. yep as Bill HIMSELF said ...

it's time to MOVE ON eh?

:kick:

[knowledgeispower]

27. I disagree

Gore washing his hands of Clinton was THE BEST thing he did in the whole campaign. If he had come across as "Clinton's guy" he would have ACTUALLY, FOR REAL lost the election. People don't want to think that a guy gets to be President for eight years AND THEN pick his predecessor.

[Pastiche423]

17. Let me preface this

by saying I was never a Clinton junkie. I believe he did many positives things for our country while he was president. But, IMHO, he did many things that made me take pause.

As to his interview w/LK, he spoke self centeredly. Whether it was to help Hillery or to soften his own war decisions, it stills comes out the same way - self gain.

To the people that say he has a political strategy to help the Dems, I call bullshit. The same people said the very same thing about Daschle last fall. And guess what? It was bullshit then too.

The one thing more than any other that made me sit up straight about Bill Clinton, was when I found out he attended a Bliderberger(sp) meeting. :wtf:

I do not trust him now. At all.

[Tinoire]

Pastiche- why does that upset YOU? It concerns me very mucjh also

but I am interested in hearing your perspective. Most dismiss, or aren't even aware of the danger posed there so my ears perk up when someone of your political astuteness says that.

Thanks

[Pastiche423]

55. About the Bilderberger meeting?

Having read for a couple of decades (way before the internet) about the Bilderbergers, CFR, NWO et al, it made me believe that Clinton did not have the integrity, nor was as altruistic as I once thought he was. I was very disappointed.

This may sound a little tinfoil hat, but I really believe there are groups of people that actually control the world's finances. The Bilderbergers are one of those groups.

Once I learned he had attended one of the meetings, it made some of his political decisions make more sense to me, i.e. NAFTA, Welfare Reform.

I could be totally off in left field.

But I don't think so.

[Tinoire]

58. Are you familiar w/ Tatyana Koryagina? Russian economic scientist?

((verbatim repost of something I posted about an hour ago))

This came to mind because of something that jogged my mind in another thread... There was another scientist (Economic Scientist) who warned of shadow politics and groups.

The Russians ever warned about 9-11... when, less than 2 months before 9-11, Dr. Tatyana Koryagina (senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom)), warned the Russian Duma to cash out all their dollars immediately. "The main theme of the Duma hearings was the rapidly approaching economic crash of the United States." A google on Tatyana Koryagina (double alt spelling Tatiana Korjagina) still brings up some info.

----
Tatyana Koryagina made a statement at the end of hearings – as a Russian expert in the shadow economy, shadow politics and conspirology.

She is a senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom). The main theme of the Duma hearings was the rapidly approaching economic crash of the United States. (FYI- kooks do not brief the Russian DUMA!)


-----

Excerpt w/ partial interview:

The hearings focused on preparing recommendations for President Putin as to what Russia should to do to soften the consequences of this coming catastrophe.

Pravda also detailed its own interview with Dr. Koryagina.

Here is an excerpt:

Pravda: All the participants at the hearings stated that America is a huge financial pyramid which will crash soon. Still, it is hard to understand how this could happen in the first and richest country of the world – without a war, without missile or bomb strikes?

Koryagina: Besides bombs and missiles, there are other kinds of weaponry, much more destructive ones. ...

Pravda: Well, economic theory. But how it is possible for you to give an exact date – August 19?

Koryagina: The U.S. is engaged in a mortal economic game. The known history of civilization is merely the visible part of the iceberg. There is a shadow economy, shadow politics and also a shadow history, known to conspirologists. There are forces acting in the world, unstoppable for countries and even continents.

Pravda: Just these forces intend to smash America on August 19?

Koryagina: There are international "super-state" and "super-government" groups. In accordance with tradition, the mystical and religious components play extremely important roles in human history. One must take into account the shadow economy, shadow politics and the religious component, while predicting the development of the present financial situation.

Pravda: Still, I don't understand what could be done to this giant country , whose budget is calculated in the trillions of dollars.

Koryagina: It is possible to do anything to the U.S. ... whose total debt has reached $26 trillion. Generally, the Western economy is at the boiling point now. Shadow financial actives of $300 trillion are hanging over the planet. At any moment, they could fall on any stock exchange and cause panic and crash. The recent crisis in Southeast Asia, which touched Russia, was a rehearsal.

Pravda: What is the sense of smashing just America?

Koryagina: The U.S. has been chosen as the object of financial attack because the financial center of the planet is located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic crisis will spread over the planet instantly and will remind us of the blast of a huge nuclear bomb.

<snip>

Koryagina: Recommendations, compiled by the Duma Commission of Economic Politics after the recent Duma hearings, offer instruction on what should be done to escape the consequences of a world crisis inspired by a financial catastrophe in the U.S. This document will be sent – or has already been sent – to President Putin.

Pravda: What should Russian citizens do?

Koryagina: They should start changing their dollars for rubles. President Putin and the Russian Central Bank are already taking the necessary healthy measures. There are high chances that after 19 August the ruble will become a very good currency.

Pravda: Why 19 August, say, and not the 21st?

Koryagina: Some fluctuation in this date is possible. Serious forces are acting against THOSE WHO ARE NOW PREPARING THE ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES . August, with very high probability, will bring the financial catastrophe to the U.S. ... The last 10 days of August have especial importance from a religious-sensible point of view.

<snip>

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/16/103951.shtml (And yes, the original article was carried in Pravda, News max is not the source)

(posted here in the Kelly "Suicide" thread because he mentioned these dark forces also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=23111#33422 )

[Pastiche423]

59. No, I wasn't familiar w/her

Now that I am, I will do some research.

After reading what you posted, it sheds a whole different light on the put options, eh?

Actually, it sheds light on a hell of a lot of things. My brain is shooting off in a myriad of directions now.

So many dots to connect...

Thank you!

[aquart]

20. My hands aren't dirty.

I don't abandon people I have taken the trouble to admire.

But maybe you should have a good wash.

[Starpass]

22. aquart...I was a Clinton supporter. I thought he was great. I didn't

give a flying fuck about the blow job (the repukes made me mad as hell during it all). I hated the repukes for the way they treated him and the way they treated Hillary. I wasn't niave. I knew he in essence screwed a bunch of people (particularly minorities) when he kissed and coddled them and then pulled the welfare rug out from under them....but, guess what??--I really didn't give a damn (I missed the bleeding heart school of liberal, I guess). It was after he left office that I started to get the creeps about him. I turned my back on many things and said "over reacting". Then came the "repeal the amendment" push and I said "what the hell are you doing"?? And then this. I don't need to take a shower; but Bill does. He isn't coming clean with us or the guys who are out there running for pres and need everything they can get to rid us of this tyrant and his murdering regime.

[aquart]

36. Repeal the amendment?

[aquart]

40. How many people on welfare do you know?

Now or in the past?

As you weep for a system that prevented a mother from taking a part-time job to send her son to camp, something he wanted desperately.

I always love the way the left pretends bigotry is all on the other side. But welfare has always been a great place to park the people you don't want getting uppity. And I do mean park.

Welfare still sucks, don't worry about that. But now it has been forced to make self-supporting self-sufficiency its true goal.

You may continue to believe you're a liberal. My suspicion is you're a bigot with a glossier cover.

[Tinoire]

50. He's right about the point he made

No bonanza for the poor under Clinton. In fact it was the reverse! All right here documented in the

1999 USDA Report on Household Food Security

Despite glowing media reports on our booming economy, as estimated 46 million Americans, nearly 17% of the population, live below the poverty line.

The top 2.7 million people have as much income as the bottom 100 million. In other words, the richest 1 percent of Americans is projected to have as much income as the bottom 38 percent. Wealth is even more concentrated, withthe wealthiest 1 percent of households owning nearly 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80 percent own just 16 percent of the nation's wealth. To further widen this inequality, CEOs of U.S. corporations pocketed 419 times the average wage of a blue collar worker in 1998.

According to the Report on Household Food Security put out by the USDA in 1999, an estimated 36 million Americans in 10.5 million households do not have access to adequate food.

The strong economy, celebrated by administration is not reducing hunger because even though more households are in workforce, their take-home pay is not enough to feed their families. A full-time worker at minimum wage earns $9,512 a year. For a family of four, that puts the family income well below the federal poverty line of $17,072.

A survey of 26 cities released in December 1999 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors shows that hunger and homelessness has grown unabated, despite an expanding national economy. Among 2 key findings of the 1999 Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's cities, demand for emergency food related assistance during 1999 grew at the highest level since 1992 (18 percent over the previous year), and demand for emergency housing related assistance grew at the highest level since 1994. 21 percent of requests for food are estimated to have gone unmet.

The government has responded to this crisis by passing legislation such as welfare reform which has resulted in 11 million families, including 8 million with children, losing their income. This happened when total federal spending for food programs before welfare reform was only 2.5 percent of the federal budget. More than half of the $54 billion in welfare cuts are coming from food stamps that 25 million poor Americans depended upon. Over 80 percent of food stamps go to families with children. This has resulted in increased hunger.

In 1997, Second Harvest, the country's largest chain of food banks provided food for almost 26 million people, nearly 10 percent of America's population. Even then it had to turn away 2.3 million people. To compensate fully for the government cuts, each of the 350,000 churches in the U.S. would have to contribute an additional $150,000 and many churches do not have a budget this big. To make up for the shortfall, the non-profit sector would have to distribute a total of 24.5 billion pounds of food over the next 6 years, four times more then the current distribution and enough to fill 5 million Army National Guard Trucks.

The number of Americans who lack health insurance continues to increase, climbing to 44.3 million in spite of a prosperous economy.

An estimated 7 to 8 million Americans are homeless.

In the Unites States approximately 20.7% of the population age 16 to 65 is functionally illiterate, the majority of whom are low-paid workers such as farm workers, domestic workers and other who labor long hours in low-paying jobs.

http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/a16-mittal.html

[dfong63]

25. maybe he did it for our own good

maybe it's like in the movies, where the handsome rogue has to leave his sweetheart, for her own good, so he puts on a show of behaving like a bastard to her so she'll be able to forget about him and move on. maybe he said this so the clinton-worshippers will hate him and forget about him and be able to move on.

not likely, i know. but it's a theory.

[bunnyhop]

28. Clinton never said that

<<<<, Clinton supported a repeal of the amendment limiting presidential terms to two---but pointed out that he didn't want it to be retro to include him. >>>

What clinton said was that the repeal wouldn't apply to him because amending the constitution takes such a long time. That's BS. It could be done in a year if the public really wanted the change and clinton knows it. He hopes to run again.

[aquart]

38. Amendments are voted on by the STATES. Not the people.

Every single state. Every single statehouse. Clinton was correct. You are not.

And I'm not saying what I think you are to posit this ridiculous paranoid fantasy. What was Clinton supposed to do after he left office, sing you to sleep every night?

You were his supporter? No one needs a friend like that, Brutus.

[bunnyhop]

56. WTF are you talking about???

Everyone knows the states have to ratify the proposed amendment and so what??? That doesn't have to take 15 years. Not by a long shot. Hope you have a better day tomorrow.

[Kahuna]

29. Bill wanted to give cover to the dems who voted...

for the resolution. Four who are running for president, and will go down with bush. And one, Mrs. Clinton, who may decide to run in the future. I ain't saying it's right. I'm just saying that's why Bill said it.

My own opinion is, too bad for Hillary and the rest of the boobs who voted for the resolution. They deserve to lose their presidential aspirations if bush goes down. That vote is one of the most dispicable votes I can remember in my lifetime. Anyone who voted for it showed that they lacked backbone. I want a successor to bush who has backbone. Go Graham/Clark! :bounce:

[Ress1]

32. Yes,

let us continue to divide.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

33. I love Bill but . . . he broke my heart.

Shoulda kept his mouth shut.

[Pepperbelly]

35. Clearly, the Democrats do not agree on your suggested course of ...

action.

I, for one, think you are exactly wrong in your conclusions as well as your ideation regarding his motivations.

If you really think that your political judgement is better than Clinton's, then be my guest but I will bet on him, his understanding of the electorate, his understanding of strategy and his understanding of the timing.

I do not think that anyone knows more clearly what the gops are and how vicious they are and I suspect that no one has as much reason to despise them as he and to assert based on nothing more than your suspicions that he is in bed with the BFEE, is the height of folly and hubris. Truthfully, I think his political judgement is the best in the country and perhaps the best in history.

[ArkDem]

72. Well he was astute enough to remain in office but the republicans

made huge inroads nationally. Taking both the house and senate. We lost:
- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures
In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.
While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.
In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.

[Pepperbelly]

85. You assume causality where ...

you have no evidence of it. By that I mean, the Democratic Party was in AWFUL shape in the 1980s. The problems experienced in the 1990s could well have been merely the continuation of the curve of deterioration that was evident in earlier elections.

In fact, if you want a little reality check, in 1998, againt the grain of history, Clinton's party picked up significant seats in the 1998 election, historically the very worst election for a two term incumbent.

[ArkDem]

86. If you will look at the composition of congress

link that I am providing, you will see that the democrats picked up 3 whole seats in 1998 after losing 54 in 1994. Not what I would call significant. In any event, we have been the miniority party ever since.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

[wontmoveon]

37. With friends like the folks here, who need Republicans?

You folks are really sorry. It takes very little for you to kill your own. That's what the Republicans
have over Dems...loyalty.

[aquart]

39. Honestly. A disgusting display of hysteria.

Over nothing. Zero. Nothing.

This crowd is two minutes away from grabbing a rope and lynching the man.

A good and decent man who never broke no matter how bad it got. Who always got up and did a long hard day's work. For the money? He's paying off the debts now. For the respect? From who? This bunch of .....Roman senators?

What's he doing wrong, folks? Making money? What a sin! Staying out of the presidential election because no one will see the candidates if he's in the room?

He's not attacking George. Got it. When has he EVER attacked anyone? They were nailing him to a fucking cross and he never condemned them. Why would his character change?

Maybe he should submit all his remarks to this mob so he won't ever offend them again. Would that make this crowd of ...I don't even know the word for this kind of herd insanity...happy?

He gave us his lifeblood for eight years. He never quit. He owes us nothing. I'm not ashamed to be one of the remaining few who knows that I owe him.

[juajen]

54. I know I owe him

But, I am an American and I can comment on something he said without lynching him. I disagree with some of the dem candidates, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to support them when I need to. I've been known to criticize my husband of many years, but that doesn't mean I'm going to divorce him; IMHO, dissent improves debate. He could have some very interesting reasons or not. Either way, I will still love Hill and Bill.

[Terwilliger]

48. Republicans have lemming-like followers

if Democrats didn't question everything their leaders did, I would say they were Republicans.

Bill Clinton is acting in his own interest...not the interests of the Democratic party, nor in the interests of the peopl of the United States. He said what he said for his own personal gain. He's a Republican.

[ilpostino]

41. Somerby's take

In the Daily Howler he's railing against the media's fascination with what he calls Perfect Storms--meaning stories that fit their tightest, most convenient boilerplate, and he sees the 16 words story as a perfect example of this--saving the media from digging in and doing work on the bigger, more important story. In this context, he says the following:

Uranium-from-Africa? The item was chosen for its high drama; it has those entertaining crudely forged documents (although no one seems to be asking who forged them), and it has that stirring honest ambassador. And Niger was chosen for its murk—the story is driven by several conflations in which the press corps has taken delight. Here at THE HOWLER, ... we’d like to see a real probe of these matters. But if we let the press corps play with the facts, and if we let them dawdle on that side road, we’ll never see a real investigation. Clinton had it right on Larry King Live—this Niger matter is just no big deal. An American president cites British intelligence, and that is supposed to be a Big Scandal? But then, Perfect Storms are built on spin—and they allow a lazy press to ignore “much larger patterns.”

[Snellius]

71. It's not Clinton but the illusions about him that must go.

Clinton has always been Clinton. He's a DLC Democrat -- and closer to DINOs like Zell Miller than many would like to admit. What's always been odd about Clinton is that everyone knew very well who he was and what he was like from the start, vanity, charm, conceit, sleaze and corporate connections and all. But his wonderful charisma was able to convince many he was what they wanted him to be -- good or bad. He's still the greatest living leader today. But Clinton's Clinton and there's no need for hoping that he's another JFK or that the Democratic messiah has returned.

[kentuck]

43. I don't think we should wash our hands of Clinton...

But we should stop the idolizing...it is so ...Republican.
We should use Clinton's record and beat the Repubs over the head with it at every opportunity. But we really do need to move into the future..

[robbedvoter]

44. Ja, mein fuhrer, if you and Donna Brazil say so, I vill comply

what Donna Brazile wants? If Rove's little friend didn't like it, now I am sure The Big Dog inflicted some damage to bushco that I'll find out later. Thanks for confirming my instinct. Who the f* are you to tell Dems what to do? I believe each of them should pursue his/her course of action - and we'll vote for the one that represents us. That's the way we do it in the Democratic party - sorry to disappoint ya.

[DemLikr]

45. This is a typically self-destructive directive from a DU "purist."

Throughout all of history, an irrational insistence upon an unachievable "perfection" has been the enemy of the good.

I disagree with Bill on this one too...but so what? The general direction he takes is a 180 degree turn from the Shrub's stumbling path of idiocy.

It would be wise for the Dem party to focus on what unites us. It is far stronger and more important that what divides us.

Something tells me this isn't your first bone to pick against Bill, eh?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Arwennick]

52. It may sound dumb to Ya'll

I'm just an old redneck and I can decode what ol Billy J is trying to tell ya.

Iff'n ya beat the dog(Niger) to much he won't hunt(Election04)

The objectives of trying to "Beat the Bushes" won't be won by focusing on the Niger thing.That will not resonate to the average 6 pack Joe voter who decides elections.Billy J knows ya got to lie every now and then,and he knows the voters know it.He's telling ya to move on to the thing that will beat the berries off the Bushes.

Its the Economy Stupid.
Are ya better off with a six pack now when ya had the whole case in the 90's under a dem with a little Horse sense.

[BurtWorm]

60. You're pretty damn smart

in my opinion.

[MoonRiver]

57. Yes! Even though Clinton was horribly persecuted, he has abandoned

the Dem base. I wish him well, but I also hope he lets the new voice of the Democratic Party speak for the vast majority of its members. In other words, STFU.

[dray178355]

62. My take on The Big Dog's comment...

delurking....

#1 FWIW...he's right about moving on as in Sommerby's post about it being trivial. There is a pattern here and this is just the beginning of the "credibility" meme.

#2 and more important, as someone posted earlier....the VRWC can't use his comments to do damage to the other Dems. He's being kinda' unselfish here, in that he knows the bozos will use anything he says against the party. Think about this, Annthrax was on MSNBC the other night defending *shit by quoting The Big Dog. It's really kind of hilarious. He's neutralized that aspect of their defense. He's actually a very good quarterback. Pay attention. This is just the first few minutes of the first quarter of the big game.

[Cheswick2.0]

65. congratulations on doing the republicans job for them today

I am really disapointed at several of the responses here today.
Clinton is neither serving himself or the BFEE. He is doing what he thinks is best for the country as he always does. I don't have to agree with him, and I don't, on every move he ever made. However I know that a man who could stand up to the Bushes during the Nineties,(and make no mistake, the attacks on Clinton came from one place and that is the BFEE, trying to get back in power to invade the ME and destroy the social system)would never enable them.

Furthermore the bullshit that Clinton does everything with an eye to getting Hillary in the whitehouse is right out of the RNC talking points. I am ashamed that some people on the left are dumb enough to buy it.

Do some of you have any idea how solidarity works? You don't have to love Clinton, but understand he is the only non Repuke Pres we have had in the last 23 years. Clinton is not the leader of the party, he is allowed to day and do what he thinks best and we are allowed to think he is wrong, but don't be freaking SCABS.

[CWebster]

67. Actually, it comes from an article in the "Nation"

"Still Clinton's Show?

...In the vacuum before the party's nominee is chosen next year, Clinton's footprints are all around--coaching presidential wannabes, offering broad policy prescriptions and encouraging his former White House lieutenants to do the same. Some of them are trying to create new campaign vehicles that will help the minority party get out the anti-Bush message and, not coincidentally, defend the Clinton orthodoxy. 'Bill is desperate to establish himself as the strategy guy for the Democratic Party, the guy who shapes the message,' said one hostile Democrat. The message, as Clinton reassured loyal fans at the Democratic Leadership Council, is: 'We don't have to be more liberal, but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way.'

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."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217&s=greider&c=1

[jonnyblitz]

68. Clinton does what's best for Clinton.

:thumbsdown:

[LiberalLibra]

69. Obviously some need redial history, reading comprehension, and......

...coaching in what sonsitutes reality. There are two issues here that need looked at


#1) If anyone can read Clinton remarks for themselves and still think he was doing Bush any favors then they are is desperate need of remedial reading comprehension classes. True, Clinton was being diplomatic and tactful with his comments but he still managed to rip Bush a new one.

#2) The idea of repealing the 2 term limit for Presidents was brought up by REAGAN and has been brought back to the forefront periodically since. Reagan wanted to repeal the limitation for his own purposes but at least Clinton made it plain he wasn't suggesting it for himself but rather for future Presidents. Clinton believed that the American people had the brains to apply any limitations that were needed with their votes. Considering the large number of questions concerning the 2000 and 2002 elections, I am not sure I agree that Americans can apply those limitations any longer whether they want to or not.

[bushisanidiot]

70. Big Dog Is Just Playing Rope A Dope With ... the Dope

We know President Clinton can run circles around AWOL intellectually, he's not going to voluntarily give AWOL the upper hand. Give the Big Dog some credit.. he's just giving the IDIOT in chief enough rope to hang himself with.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

76. He gave Bush some credibility.

Unforgivable but I still love Bill.

[LiberalLibra]

77. Am glad you still like Clinton but read post #69 maybe it will help

........

[NicRic]

79. Best President in my life time !

I have a potrait of him and Al Gore on my wall. I was not to happy about some of what he said the other day on Larry King. Iam a little confused as to why he is so nice to the same people that for eight years and counting have done everything they could to make his job as President harder. Even though he came through for our country,got our economy back on track ,created millions of jobs. His list of sucesses goes on and on .He paid his dues and worked tirelessly for the American people as President, I admire him and wish he was still our Pres ! President Clinton was the most open minded and intelligent President we have had for decades ! I look at the whole picture not just a comment here or there. What we need to do is publicly denounce bush and the people around him , for their outrages behavior and erasing all of the advances made under Clinton !

[whoYaCallinAlib]

81. Amen.

I agree.

[MadHound]

82. Clinton may not be in bed with the Bushies,

But he is certainly in bed with the same corporate masters who pull Bush's strings.

I've never been a big fan of Clinton. I couldn't give a damn about his affair with Monica, but I always have found him to be a man of style over substance. And unfortunatlely when he did come out with substance, it was on an issue that seemed to come right out of the big business/Republican handbook(NAFTA, welfare reform, Telecomm Act, etc.). His economic policies favored corporate and financial interests while the working class and poor continued to suffer, during a "booming economy" at that(one that if you looked at closely was more due to the emergence of high tech rather than economic policies). While the corporations and wealthy flourished, the working families saw their real world wages along with their standard of living drop. We saw the widespread emergence of the working poor. Quite frankly I think that if Clinton had run thirty years ago he would have done it on the Republican ticket.

As far as his remarks go, it just shows that he is still on a short leash controlled by his corporate masters. The same ones that control Bush also. Honestly we could do well without Clinton and his DLC/Third Way ilk. With a few more "Democrats" like him in power, well hell, we might as well adapt the elephant as our mascot too.

[ilpostino]

83. Let's see...

how Clinton handles questions about the classified part of the 9/11 report. Could be telling. If he takes a "time to move on" stance there, then I'd say we have a real big problem with the boy (hmm...a Bush/Clinton axis to protect both their asses?) If he makes the right call to get this stuff out, then we'll know we were wrong to doubt his intentions.

[opihimoimoi]

84. All this discourse distracts from the main event: Getting an incompetent

President out from the Oval Office before more damage is done.

Already we are seeing some signs Bushes own Party is jumping ship.

The guy appears to be toast.

Come, we find the voters to do the job of cleaning House.

[robcon]

87. I agree. Clinton was the best president since JFK.

He is a national treasure: wise, well-spoken and well-regarded throughout the world.

[cap]

89. bill is setting up GW....

Bill knows GW has lied all over the place...

Seemingly excusing GW for telling some lies restates in a "nice way" that GW has lied and reminds people that Bill's own fibs were no big deal...

Ya know, I made a few "bad calls" over Lewinsky and GW has made a few bad calls over Iraq. So...every President is entitled to a few "bad calls". Right?

This is going to remind people that Bill got impeached and disbarred over Lewinsky and GW is getting away scott free. There are a whole lot of people who are furious that "Clinton lied" and don't like seeing their President lying. A lot of people want their President to live up to some minimal moral standard. This puts them on the spot.

Don't worry... there is so much shiiite in this Administration that looking like you REALLY DON'T want an investigation but GEEZE...after excusing SOOOOOO MUCH, you really do have to go out and convict the rascals makes you look much better and helps avoid the blacklash that Kenneth Star fell prey to.

Patience my pretties.... Boil.... Boil.... Toil and Trouble.

[MODemocrat]

90. While reading the posts on this forum, I thought it was for freepers

Excuse me while I return to a forum that supports one of our democratic candidates. This infighting is a turnoff for me, but surely is making the freepers happy.

[JeffR]

91. Imagine Republicans

Taking the same post-regnum attitude to Ronald Reagan that so many Democrats take with Bill Clinton...

I'm not saying we should advocate putting Clinton's face on Mt. Rushmore. But it's a tacit acknowledgement of Clinton's importance even to start a thread like this. Centrist or no, this man was the most successful Democratic president since FDR. As if further proof of that were needed, take a look at all the rightwing talking heads. Have you seen a discussion about W's failings or "accomplishments" where the first person to drag Clinton into the conversation isn't a Republican?

BTW, my politics are about as far to the left as one can go without falling off the spectrum, and I nurse a few grudges about Clinton's policies to this day. But the man bestrode American politics like a colossus. Why wash your hands of the biggest winner the party has produced in the last half century?