in 2003, I was pretty soured on Bill Clinton....

[Wetzelbill]

I looked back, was thinking about NAFTA, his bombings in Iraq, Welfare reform etc. Clinton was - and is - no liberal, no matter how much the Right tries to portray himself as one. He was always too cozy with big business for my tastes. However, he is an articulate, intelligent man, and in retrospect, I felt he maybe did a lot of talking on minority issues and so on, but not enough doing.

However, as I've watched this current administration go from Godawful to The Worst You Could Concievably Imagine, I have started to appreciate Bill Clinton a lot more. This guy had his faults, of course, not the least of which is his inexcusable moral failings to his marriage and family, but he at least had an idea of what the right thing to do was. He ran the economy well, created record amounts of jobs, had a fair tax plan, and straightened out the deficit. Not to mention that at the time BC left office, the United States was respected and loved worldwide, more so than it had ever been. Bill Clinton, at the end of his term, was the most respected leader and prominent statesman in the world. Other current world leaders tried to emulate him. Other countries elected leaders in his mold. That will never happen with Bush. Other countries in the world are elected the polar opposite of Bush, look at Spain or the countries in Central and South America, for example.

Bill Clinton wasn't perfect. Nobody is. But he was a good president. One of the best ever. And, if that means we just haven't had all that many good presidents than, I guess that is something our country has to work on. However, after these last 6 years of hell, I would be glad to have another president like Bill Clinton. Certainly I would prefer someone more in tune with my ideology, no doubt about that. I would love to have a Feingold-type for our president. But I have gotten to appreciate Big Dawg and I admire him now, just as much as I ever have.

[tech3149]

1. Like I tell the Rwr's Bill Clinton was

the best republican president we ever had. Well not really, but in my adult lifetime. But he really screwed the pooch not investigating Iran-Contra and not vetoing the 96 Telecommunications Act. Baaaad Bill

[Wetzelbill]

3. I know it's things like that

that can be infuriating. I mean, BC is supposed to be one of the good guys, you know? Granted he's light years better than Reagan and the Bushes, but still, you hit it right on with the Telecommunications Act. You just want to say "Why Bill?" when you see and hear of things like that. :) I don't event think that is all that high of a standard to hold someone to. :) Don't even get me started on the not investigating Iran-Contra. :)

[tech3149]

6. even good people can get bad advice

I heard some members of congress sold him on the TCA and the had financial stakes, he trusted them and didn't do the normal research.
Iran-Contra will take another 25 yrs to find out for sure what happened. I probably won't be around to find out.

[wyldwolf]

19. why would you tell them something so untrue?

[AusGail]

2. Wouldn't he make a fantastic Secretary of State

[Wetzelbill]

4. or UN Sec-General

Bill Clinton's greatest gift is he can charm a snake -although oddly enough not Tom Delay. Even Newt Gingrich confessed to getting weak around BC. That guy's personality and charisma alone would go a long way in diplomacy. :)

[tsuki]

10. Clinton and Newt were friendly. And DeLay was going after Newt's

job. When the DeLay revolt to unseat Newt failed and his co-conspirators ratted him out, DeLay carried a grudge against all Newt's friends.

[wyldwolf]

20. my favorite Clinton/Gingrich story...

Newt was at the White House early on and he and Clinton were on the porch discussing politics and what not. Clinton looked at Newt and said, barely above a whisper, something along the lines of, "no matter how many times you try to take me down, I'll be right back up again. Bank on it."

[Captain Hilts]

31. Sec. Gen, Mayor of NYC or Commissioner of baseball.

Wouldn't the last one piss off W....

[987654321]

5. I also didn't agree with him on some important things.

I am a liberal, and some of Clinton's choices I didn't approve of. However, as a President, he was effective even under the constant vicious attacks he had to endure. I mean seriously, this guy was being treated like crap by so many right wingers every day of his Presidency. Still he did his job, and even though I hated NAFTA and a few of the other things he had done, still I trusted that he actually did care about our country. He certainly didn't set out to screw people like Bush and his band of bandits have. (Monica Lewinsky joke may be placed here)

And you are absolutely right about the respect he got from leaders all over the world. Most of them trusted him implicitly. It will be a long time before other nations trust us like that again thanks to GW. The biggest thing to me is that I believe that he actually did care and wanted to make things better for everyone. I don't think Bush really cares about our country, I really don't.

[Wetzelbill]

8. yes, I always felt he cared too

Bush seems oblivious. I don't think he cares one way or another, because I just don't think he knows much about anything. Tough to understand life when you've been incurious and born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

[Auntie Bush]

16. Truer words were never spoken

"I don't think Bush really cares about our country,"

He only cares about big money for himself and his personal and corporate friends. If they will profit, big time, then he's all for it. Especially if they helped get him elected! His whole aim as president was to LOOT our treasure. America is just a big piggy bank for him to break...It's his personal giant Humpty Dumpty.

[Erika]

7. Bill Clinton acknowledged the concerns of American workers

W disses them as harmful to the economy, and they should be grateful for table scraps according to W.

He utterly loathes the working class. He never honors them.

[OwnedByFerrets]

9. I loved BC's presidency...

even though there were a few things I wish he had handled differently. I really had a problem with the way Waco was handled. We really dont have a presidency now...we have a corporate warmonger who doesnt give a damn about America or its future.
On a side note, I was watching Revenge of the Sith tonite and there were/are so many things to compare between the creation of the Empire by Palpatine and the attempted creation of a Fascist society by B*sh and his cronies. One part was particular chilling. When Palpatine said " We will destroy everything to create peace"(paraphrasing, since I cant find the exact quote), I immediately saw * on the screen.

[primative1]

27. Umm ..

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/article/id=341

[Captain Hilts]

36. You know [Ed] Gillespie is a REPUBLICAN outfit, right? nt

[primative1]

40. Not sure who he is ...

But he paints a pretty grim picture of record keeping going back to the 80s.
Odd thing is .. the data in here mirrors what I have been seeing a whole lot better than the numbers that have been printed in the MSM.
Sometimes you're gut instinct is right ... heck, its right most of the time.

[EST]

11. While I mostly agree with you, in spirit, I must quibble you

one quibble. How the hell are his "moral failings" inexcusable?
I was not at Bill and hillary's wedding, and I doubt that you were, either, so I have absolutely no idea what they promised each other. For all you and I know, their vows, if any, may very well have specifically excluded any mention of marital fidelity, and Hillary made public statements, on more than one occasion, that Bill was a "hard dog to keep on the porch."
Furthermore, anyone who is as naturally charming and empathetic as Bill Clinton and John F Kennedy have a simply enormous number of women, of all sorts, who would throw themselves at their feet, willingly and enthusiastically. The pressures to indulge in a little private dalliance are beyond imagining for most of us "average" types.
Their private sexual proclivities are of no one else's business, until the power mad pukes managed to send in a ringer who would not deign to wash the jism stains out of a dress and kept the soiled prize hanging around for three years, so that they could stir up the sex crazed hypocrites in yet another attempt to destroy America.

Jesus, himself said the only valid reason for anyone to get a divorce was sexual betrayal and, even then, it had validity only because the hard heartedness of the sexual hypocrites of his own time precluded forgiveness.

In short, sharp, reasonably attractive, understanding people of whatever sex can get laid by almost anybody, under the right circumstances, and it's easy to be the master of circumstance.

As a former entertainer, I know whereof I speak.

In my opinion, Clinton's sexual peccadilloes are the most easily excusable and forgivable of his shortcomings as a human and a political leader.

[Wetzelbill]

12. I looked back at what I said in the op

I get where you're coming from. I shouldn't necessarily say they are inexcusable or unforgivable. Tney can be forgiving, I do not think that cheating on your wife, when it hurts yourself, her and your child is something that is condonable. Clinton got axed by a bunch of hypocrites, no doubt. But, I don't believe it was a moral thing to cheat on his wife, whether it was easy for him to get laid or not. I have, as a former athlete, been in some situations where attractive women - better than any of his affairs I can say that - tried to sleep with me. It wasn't easy to say no, as I certainly don't get it offered as much as BC has I'm sure, but I was able to step away from that stuff. So I don't buy the argument that being able to sleep with whomever you want makes it somehow excusable to cheat on your wife and hurt your family.

[EST]

13. Thank you for engaging in a bit of repartee without it's

becoming too personal or antagonistic--this is so valuable.
I would like to point out that I would not and did not argue that any sort of behavior should be condoned simply because it is convenient or available.
Morals and ethics are squishy things, at best, and I, personally, see "ethics" as a more universal standard set, while "morals" are more in the eye of the beholder.
That said, I also find his behavior to be reprehensible, repugnant, nasty, poorly conceived, out and out stupid, but, it should be a matter subject to my own judgementalism only as it affects me or others I hold dear.

We people are judgment machines, injecting our own values into our estimation of others' behavior, usually finding them wanting, while rarely subjecting ourselves to as rigorous a set of standards. We know the extenuating circumstances when we violate our own rules of conduct, but aren't as forgiving in holding the examining glass up against others.
The only reason his private conduct became something we even know about, set alone form an opinion about is that those even more reprehensible than he made it a cause celebre...
In sum, it is no business of mine to evaluate his private behavior. The real "sin," if there is one, comes from the fixed gaze of an unimaginative public, allowing itself to be distracted by the sparkly light of vile "wedge issue" peddlers, while allowing the far greater horror of the destruction of the really important structures that protect and fulfill us all. The monster is fixing to eat us and the republican puppet masters are putting on a magic show.
What fools we humans be!
Thanks again.

[Wetzelbill]

39. nah hell

it doesn't need to get all ugly. We really aren't all that far off on our opinions. I always find that some of the biggest fights occur around here when people basically agree but they get all made over something relatively small and it escalates. You make some good points, and I see them as such, you know? The philosopher, John Stuart Mill believed strongly in open debate, both right and wrong, because he felt this debate would inevitably lead to truth. So even if an argument is wrong, it may hold some type of truth to it which adds to the debate. So I try to look at this stuff and think that whether you or I are wrong or right at least we are getting somewhere. Sooner or later we'll find our way to the truth etc. :)

[cantstandbush]

14. America, in general, has a problem with SEX!!

And Republicans certainly don't enjoy it!

[EST]

18. I think I can shed a little light on the fundy republican

fear of sex and..it...is...fear.

If you will indulge me, I will give a bit of personal history that may enlighten.
I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist ultra conservative household that placed undaunted faith in the efficacy of corporal punishment.
I was often hit with any handy tool, limited to avoiding broken bones or death for the subject.
Often the punishments were staged: we were ordered to go to the woods and bring back our own weapons for this torture--good, quality tools, nothing rotten or soft-- otherwise those sub quality whips would be used until they were trashed and we would then be sent back to the woods to obtain the adequate weapons and those would be used until they were reduced to bits and pieces.

Often these punishments would go on and on, until the punisher could no longer raise an arm to deliver another lick. Many times, with or without the hammering, threats would be delivered, with upraised, shaking fist, of, "I'm gonna beat you within an inch of your life," or, "I'm gonna murder you in cold blood!" There were never conversations, only lectures, and any thing about sex was avoided or put off "'till you're old enough." Sex was, if not dirty, at least not mentionable in polite company and regarded as something pretty bad--although privately daydreamed about and looked forward to with eager anticipation.

This vignette is not meant to elicit sympathy, fifty years too late for that, but to establish my bona fides.

This all engendered fear and fear engenders loathing and powerful defensiveness. Out of that mess grew automatic, instantaneous denial of any responsibility and any retrenchment or change of story meant loss of credibility (flip-flopping, anyone) and even more punishment,
For me, since every question was a challenge or threat, that fear became lying, automatic lying about almost everything, even when the truth would have been more useful an there was no good reason, on reflection, to lie.

Strangely, this produced a conservative, fairly fundamentalist adult, sure in the way of the world and the training of the people therein, but with a growing horrible suspicion of the other worldliness of it all.
Until about age thirty, a huge part of my life became intensely enmeshed in retraining myself toward reality and an automatic condemnation of those around me for their falsehoods and sexual freedoms.

Luckily, I was successful to a degree, although I can easily see how that fear and loathing, with a background of desperation, could have continued as a paradigm and become, if possible, even more entrenched. I can, very easily, envision myself in a position of influence and a an absolute conviction of my own essential "rightness."

I apologize, abjectly, if it looks like I'm trying to high jack this thread: it is not my intention to do so.

My point is--repukes, especially fundies, in positions of power or not, are VICTIMS!
They are victims, as surely as a rat with a big ol' steel trap biting on his belly, and victims create more victims. This is as ingrained a pattern in the human psyche as is eating and excreting. Absent powerful enlightenment, these victims haven't a chance at becoming Jesus humans.

A variation of this pattern applies to views of homosexuality as well, but that deserves a whole 'nother thread of its own. Maybe I should start one.

[napi21]

22. A lot of what you say was stated in the book "Bush on the Couch".

How Barbara was consistantly criticized by her mother, and she never learned how to express love to her children. George H & Barbara were extremely secretive with their feelings, and would never let their children see them express sadness or fear, thus those children never learned how to do those things.

I agree with you for the most part. People are very much a product of their parents and their early life experiences.

[Doctor_J]

15. He cares about people

throughhout all the rest of the side show, the common theme running through his presidency was that he did things to help the epople, to the best of his ability at the time.

That's the main contrast between him and *, who is mean, stupid, ignorant, and downright evil.

[Toots]

17. Clinton was the best Republican President since Eisenhower.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

21. Clinton was not a Republican president in any fashion

That's a line from Mike Malloy, a non-Democrat.

[Captain Hilts]

32. BC understood the structural obstacles to success in our society.

Republicans don't 'get' that.

[IndyOp]

23. The Telecomm Act he signed lead to the downfall of his Presidency -

and to the 'media hell' we've experienced since.

Sheldron Drobny was on Ring of Fire this weekend and attributed Bill's signing to the fact that the Democratic Party is still, in some important ways, a strict hierarchy and some very powerful, very wealthy Dems have BIG interest in Telecomm businesses. THEY convinced him to sign. Which is just another episode in "Why I Hate Entrenched Political Party Operatives" AND why we so *desperately* need Howard Dean in DC (and must support him!).

Also - I dearly want Bill to admit that 100,000's of Iraqi's died during his watch - mostly the sick, elderly, and children.

UN (US/UK) SANCTIONS: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
August 1990 - March 2003

The United Nations Security Council has maintained comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq since August 6, 1990. The international community increasingly views the sanctions as illegitimate and punitive, because of well-documented humanitarian suffering in Iraq and widespread doubts about the sanctions’ effectiveness and their legal basis under international humanitarian and human rights law. (2)

It is now clear that comprehensive economic sanctions in Iraq have hurt large numbers of innocent civilians not only by limiting the availability of food and medicines, but also by disrupting the whole economy, impoverishing Iraqi citizens and depriving them of essential income, and reducing the national capacity of water treatment, electrical systems and other infrastructure critical for health and life. People in Iraq have died in large numbers. The extent of death, suffering and hardship may have been greater than during the armed hostilities, especially for civilians, as we shall see in more detail below. Comprehensive sanctions in Iraq, then, are not benign, non-violent or ethical. (2)

A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. (1)

Over a period of about five years, serving an Iraqi population of 23 million, the program has delivered roughly $200 worth of goods per capita per year, including oil spare parts and other goods not directly consumed by the population. Allowing for domestic production outside the Oil-for-Food program and for smuggling, the result still appears to leave Iraqi citizens an exceedingly low per capita income which may be at or below the $1 per day World Bank threshold of absolute poverty. (2)

The measurement of deaths rests on the concept of “excess” mortality – those deaths that exceed the mortality rate in the previous, pre-sanctions period or that exceed a projection of the earlier trend towards further gains. (2)

All of these excess deaths should not be ascribed to sanctions. Some may be due to a variety of other causes. But all major studies make it clear that sanctions have been the primary cause, because of the sanctions’ impact on food, medical care, water, and other health-related factors. (2)

Prof. Richard Garfield of Columbia University carried out a separate and well-regarded study of excess mortality in Iraq. Garfield considered the same age group and the same time period as the UNICEF study. He minimized reliance on official Iraqi statistics by using many different statistical sources, including independent surveys in Iraq and inferences from comparative public health data from other countries. Garfield concluded that there had been a minimum of 100,000 excess deaths and that the more likely number was 227,000. He compared this estimate to a maximum estimate of 66,663 civilian and military deaths during the Gulf War. Garfield now thinks the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. (2)

There are no reliable estimates of the total number of excess deaths in Iraq beyond the under-five population. Even with conservative assumptions, though, the total of all excess deaths must be far above 400,000. (2)

In the face of such powerful evidence, the US and UK governments have sometimes practiced bold denial. Brian Wilson, Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office told a BBC interviewer on February 26, 2001 “There is no evidence that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people.” When denial has proved impossible, officials have occasionally fallen back on astonishingly callous affirmations. In a famous interview with Madeleine Albright, then US representative at the United Nations, Leslie Stahl of the television show 60 Minutes said: “We have heard that half a million children have died . . . is the price worth it? Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” (2)

(1) Sanctions Against Iraq
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

(2) Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

More about US Foreign Policy and Over 1,000,000 Deaths in Iraq Over the Past 15 Years <http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndyOp/4>

[gully]

24. The sanctions were in place before Clinton took the oath of office.

Clinton maintains that the Saddam was responsible for the deaths of vulnerable peoples in Iraq b/c he looted the UN program. Not sure if Clinton was right or wrong, but I believe that HE believes that to be true.

[IndyOp]

25. Of course economic sanctions were put in place by Bush I --

via the UN. During the Clinton reign, many countries backed out when they saw the devastating effects that economic sanctions - but the US did not. The links in my post above give perspective on what the other countries thought about the killing US/UN sanctions. The other countries that had initially agreed to impose them tried desperately to get the US to allow them to be lifted, but the US would not allow it.

Two UN leaders of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program said that Iraqis ran the program as efficiently as possible, Hussein had *nothing* to do with how it was run, and the problem was lack of $$$$ and rules of the sanctions that caused death.

Clinton lied when he said that the suffering of Iraqi's was due to Hussein spending money on 'palaces' - a $100 million palace would provide $4 of food per person - that doesn't last for 8 years.

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. Mt Rushmore material. Republicans - I mean, lawfully-

elected Presidents (more or less) - "heads carved on cherry pips", as a critic once described Jane Austen's precious flibberty-gibbets.

I don't know, with the rabid dogs his Republican enemies were/are (though currently sedated), whether he could have done better, and managed to avoid being assassinated. As it was, it was just attempted character assassination. Some of the best political and most socially-responsible leaders have been womanisers. In the UK, Lloyd George was an example, though cynicism got to him eventually.
Sure it's anything but admirable, particularly in a married man, but it has zilch to with a man's worth as a politician. Though I can see how one might think otherwise in principle, in practice history shows it's not the case. And as is well-known, it was one weakness in an otherwise extraordinarily empathetic, kind, charismatic character.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Clinton had a liberal agenda for the first two years of his presidency.

It nearly cost him his second term. He was going against the tide, so the lesson here is, if you want to push a liberal agenda, you first have to win over the mainstream.

[mapatriot]

29. Time to share Clinton..

with the world. We need him badly at the UN. Time for Kofi to retire and put Clinton in as Secretary General. And time for us to all get behind Gore for President. He CAN win this time around!

[TwentyFive]

35. Yes! Clinton and Gore are visionaries!

The 3 biggest issues facing the world are
1. Global Warming
2. AIDS
3. Terrorism/Religious Fundamentalists

Both Clinton and Gore are visionaries and are working hard to solve these threats to humanity. Clinton has done more for AIDS than any other public official (see http://www.clintonfoundation.org) and Gore has his GW movie coming out.

These guys are DOING THINGS NOW, yet they don't hold offices or anything.

Certainly, it makes sense to give them positions of power. If people are smart enough to let them lead.....generations will look back and see them as heros in the mold of Washington, Lincoln and Franklin.

[Wetzelbill]

37. I guarantee you when Bush is out of office

he will not do the things that BC or Gore are doing. Or the stuff Jimmy Carter has. Or what John Edwards is doing now. Those guys are good people. Bush's supposed faith and compassion is one of the biggest shams ever. He's about as much a compassionate man of faith as he is an actual cowboy.

[Kurovski]

30. K&R

We agree on many points about the Big Dog.

Say, if this thing doesn't work out between Dean and me, 'ya wanna get together? :evilgrin: ;-)

[Wetzelbill]

34. unfortunately I have the flaw of being straight

:)

[Kurovski]

41. I'll pray for you...

you poor little dear. :-) :hi:

[Guaranteed]

33. 1993 to 2000 was downright boring. And it was GOOD.

I remember telling one of my buddies in college that we needed some kind of crisis to bring us together, things were so boring.

I had no idea what I was asking for.

[Wetzelbill]

38. Clinton did so many good things

that alot of activist stuff fell on deaf ears, you know? Peace and prosperity is a good thing, no doubt. I remember Michael Moore once said that he was doing a lot of the same stuff he is now during the Clinton years, fighting for certain causes (remember "The Awful Truth") but everything was going so well for most of America that his messages didn't resonate so much. Now that Bush is around MM has had the Iraq War, 9/11, voter fraud, and immense socioeconomic turmoil to deal with. It's an interesting time for sure, not too pretty to live in though. Comparing Bush and Clinton is sort of like reading those old Highlight children's books with Goofus and Gallant, haha. Goofus will not share with other children and is punished, Gallant shares with others and is rewarded. :)