Thanks Bill Clinton, thanks a lot

[dsc]

While I am glad he is recovering nicely, my blood could just boil right now.

Dean recounts that one of the people Clinton called was a Dean supporter who described how the former president said that Dean "had forfeited his right to run for president." That was because, Dean writes, he had signed a law creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and Clinton believed Dean couldn't be elected as a result.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040909/APA/409091059

Of all the ever loving nerve. This man, who wrecked his presidency while sailing the USS Lewinski, has the unmitigated gall to claim that Dean has forfeited his right to run. Clinton could support whomever he wants and oppose whomever he wants. But to do this behind the scene crap, and to dis LGBT people, people who stood by his side during the Lewinski scandal, is outrageous.

I suspected something like this had happened. Now that I know that supporting our rights helped do Dean in, I am just speechless. Why would LGBT voters consider the likes of Nader, Clinton gave us one very good reason. The LGBT community has been one of the Democrats, and one of Clinton's most loyal groups of voters. More loyal than pro choicers, more loyal than Hispanics, and more loyal than Jews. Yet he wouldn't have dared do that to any of them. I am so glad to see that loyalty pays so well. It warms the cockels of my heart.

[PittLib]

1. I don't think that was intended as his personal opinion ...

just that the American public was likely to harp on that point and do significant damage.

[bushwakker]

2. the voters did dean in

it wasn't close.

[Southsideirish]

5. The DNC and DLC and their cohorts in the media "did him in".

They were terrified he was going to "un-seat" them in their reign over the Democratic Party.

[Droopy]

9. That doesn't make any sense

what's there to reign over when your not in power? If they do somehow hold power over the Democratic party, why wouldn't they go with the person who is most likely to return them to power? Your suggesting that they somehow froze Dean out in favor of Kerry and that Dean would make a better candidate than Kerry. I think the people chose Kerry. For what reason I don't know, he wasn't my candidate, but he's the guy and I don't think the DLC and the DNC had anything to do with it.

[lancdem]

11. Right

Of course Dean bears no responsibility for the fact he didn't win the nomination. It's someone else's fault. :eyes:

BTW, I like Dean a lot and would've happily supported him as the nominee. I'm just tired of people blaming his failure to win the nomination on some sort of conspiracy that has no basis in reality.

[Skip Intro]

15. Endless replay's of "the scream" had nothing to do with it

Nope, nothing.

And the media were also fair to Gore. That sigh deserved to be the top headline of the debates.

They wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

:eyes:

[sleepyhead]

88. a belated amen. n/t

[sangh0]

155. Sequencing error!!

"The scream" came AFTER Dean lost in Iowa. I doubt it had anything to do with Dean's loss in Iowa.

[LittleClarkie]

169. I was never sure how Dean was the frontrunner

before any votes had been cast.

The polls said so, I believe. Guess the polls can be wrong.

The Republicans WANTED Dean to run. They drooled at the thought.

Kerry is the only one of the group who had a chance to take on Bush.

I wish we'd stop eating our own and focus on the campaign like we wanted to win it or something.

"No thanks. I'm full."

[Eloriel]

90. Careful there. A lot of the dirty tricks and shenanigans against

Dean are well-documented. Like the Gephardt/Kerry/Unions/Toricelli nexus on the ad comparing Dean to Osama bin Laden. But there was much more that went on as well. Vilsack had a LOT to do with how things played out in Iowa, as did the Shaheen machine in New Hampshire.

No one here who supported Dean thinks he and his campaign were perfect OR blameless. But I think most of us who were paying attention (including to the blog where a lot of the caucus dirty tricks were reported by bloggers who were on the ground) are VERY clear that Dean didn't "lose" all on his own. In fact, most of us believe very strongly that he wouldn't have lost Iowa, which is precisely why he had to be stopped.

[Cheswick2.0]

99. The "conspiracy" against him is well documented

Don't even bother going there.

[Skip Intro]

13. The media blatantly, and with clear malice ambushed and throttled Dean

The same media that screwed Gore in 2000 and abandoned all integrity in kneeling before the bush regime's march toward an unjustified massacre of an invasion in Iraq.

These same low-life scum took a non-event and slandered Dean with it, and in the process, decided for us that Dean would not go any further. (this time, anyway)

Olberman, maybe. Rather, finally. The rest of the unAmerican whores can go to effin' hell as far as I'm concerned.

[Satchel]

67. I agree

I think Dean would have been much better than Kerry. I personally think Republicans had something to do with it. I think Dean was more electable than Kerry and it scared Republicans. Dean was at least distinguishable from Bush.

[liberal_in_GA]

97. I can think of, oh, at least five hundred ways

Kerry is distinguishable from Shrubby.

[tedzbear]

132. I can only think of two.

Supreme Court nominees and the environment.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. I won't speak about the media, but Dean did call the DLC Republicans

In my opinion, they mutually attacked each other. Granted, I think that the Osama ad should've been used against Bush and not Dean.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. the DLC might as well be republicans

some one had to say it.

[Red State Rebel]

110. I think you are correct....

I know this is a touchy subject and people don't want to hear "Dean" unless it's about how he's on the campaign trail for Kerry, but I still have strong opinions/feelings about the whole Dean thing.

He had the passion and desire to push this election and I for one am seeing more and more "buyers remorse" about Kerry getting the nod. The baggage he came with is costing us and could cost us to the point of losing the election.

[truthspeaker]

120. He was also right on Iraq. I think mainstream Dems were scared.

Many Dems were falling for Bushco's bluff. They were afraid opposition to the Iraq war would make Dems look weak on terrorism. And I think people were reluctant to believe Bush would really lie so blatantly to take us to an unnecessary war.

I also think many Dems judged, wrongly IMO, that Dean's support for civil unions in Vermont would hurt them. Frankly I don't think swing voters would have cared, especially now that the GOP has shown its true gay-hating colors.

That said, I'm not convinced Clinton actually said what he is alleged to have said in the OP. Keep in mind the civil unions bill Dean signed was mandated by the Vermont Supreme Court. Civil unions was not an issue Dean pushed in Vermont, it was an issue that was pushed on him.

[tedzbear]

130. I am very suspicious of our primary election system.

Why is Iowa and New Hampshire always the first 2 states to initiate the primary momentum? Why not California or New York? Maybe because they are more liberal than Iowa and New Hampshire and that's why the ruling elite of both parties avoid them.

It was in Iowa that Dean instantly fell from grace. If it had been California voters instead of Iowa that fall would not have happened (with the unfair media "howling" coverage).

[Red State Rebel]

143. I think the Primary system is hopelessly broken....

To make it fair, they should draw lots for which Primaries happen when. It should also be shortened. The amount of money spent on this craziness is obscene and I see no reason why it takes such a long process.

[Southsideirish]

3. Adore Howard Dean - loathe Clinton. Always did, always will.

Polar opposites - Howard Dean, a straight forward man of courage and integrity. What you see is what, he wouldn't know how to be duplicitous.

[blm]

4. Clinton was talking American politics, not his own personal feelings.

You think Dean wasn't thinking politics when he signed the bill behind closed doors? Or when he said something about being personally uncomfortable with homosexual unions at the time?

Dean is well aware about his own use of politics and I highly doubt he believes Clinton was just out to knock him down personally.

[dsc]

7. He could have signed it on Mars for all I care

but yes I will concede that politics was involved in his choice. But he also, against mainstream political advice, took responsibility for the legislation in his reelection campaign. BTW partial birth abortion is every bit as unpopular, as is getting blowjobs from underlings. Clearly Clinton decided to defend the one and do the other.

[Rose Siding]

14. He was thinking governing when he signed the bill in private

not politics. Read his public statement from that day and you'd know it was sensitivity to respecting his whole constituency that motivated him.

As to Clinton's lack of support for equality, if little is expected of the people, that's exactly what will be attained.

[Eloriel]

91. Thank you. I'm sick of that signing being mischaracterized.

I do realize it's a fine point that Dean detractors don't WANT to understand and get right, but still, it bears repeating over and over again to stand up to the ugly lies about him.

[tedzbear]

135. Clinton caved in politically with his "don't ask, don't tell" compromise.

Remember? He started the ball rolling with his electioneering promises to the glbt block and then shrugged and walked away when the heat was on, leaving the glbt block twisting in the wind.

I have no fondness for Mr. Clinton. He betrayed us.

[Droopy]

6. It sounds as if Clinton is anti-gay

But maybe he just thought Dean was unelectable because his stance on gay issues was too progressive for many in the voting public to handle. "Forfeited his right to run for president" is an ugly phrase. It will be interesting if Clinton has anything to say about that whether it be denying it or giving further explanation.

[AngryLizard]

50. Pick up Clinton's book and skip ahead to the years he was Governor

And he'll tell you all about the politics of perception. That being, politics IS perception.

"The Scream" as the hallmark of Dean's campaign was highly unfair, but I think it solidified in many people's minds why they didn't want to vote for him anyway. Or rather, why they didn't think he would beat George Bush. I mean, Democrats in the primaries went out and DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM. It wasn't a trick. The republicans didn't do it. WE did it.

Plus, I think Dean's doing a lot more of us where he is. That whole thing a couple of months ago when they raised the terror threat level becauase of 3-year old evidence, and Dean was all, "uh, I think this might be political" was priceless.

I shall now take a deep breath while the Deaniacs (and I used to be one, by the way) jump all over my head.

[Droopy]

56. I'm with you

I was a Dean supporter before I decided to go with Kucinich. I think Dean would have made a good prez, but that's just not the way the voters decided to go. Let me stress- the voters decided to go. Not some conspiracy with the DLC.

[madfloridian]

166. Not jump on you.

I think he is freer to speak now. He is not leaving the scene, that is for sure.

That was his political debut...more to come.

[FredScuttle]

8. Yes, let's nitpick and take a dump on Clinton

cause, you know, he's had such an easy week and all.

[dsc]

10. I don't consider appeals to bigotry to be nit picking

and as to timing, had Clinton had the guts to do this in the open, then I would have been discussing this in January. It is hardly my fault this came to light now and not in January.

[Pepperbelly]

28. Clinton has a right to politic if he wants and ...

pushing his candidate is just that.

The bottom line? Fewer people pulled the trigger for Dean than for Kerry or Edwards. And hell, I like Howard Dean a lot. All this outrage is absurd IMO.

People seem to be just looking for shit to be outraged over. I don't understand it. Who gives a shit anyway if someone is outraged? Generally, I mock outrage because it is almost always anchored in self-righteousness.

[dsc]

30. He blatently appealed to bigotry

What he did to Dean is only different in degree to the Willie Horton ad or the Helms ad against Gandt (sp). His tactics worked, so did Helms' and Bush's. That doesn't make them right, just sucessful.

[Pepperbelly]

32. I read the linked article and did not come away with the same concluision.

His opinion re: civil unions in Vermont and the effect they would have politically, both from an electoral and a governmental perspective, did not seem anything like Willie Horton or any other smear tactics. I do not think that the metaphor fits at all. No ad buys, no cheap shot commercial, no widespread smears, none of those things.

[dsc]

33. He directly called Iowa voters

I think that is every bit as bad. Partial birth abortion polls worse than civil unions as does not supporting the death penalty, yet Clinton didn't mention those or a host of other unpopular stances. Saying a person HAS FORFEITED the right to run for office FOR GIVING A LOYAL GROUP OF SUPPORTERS their civil rights is both dumb and bigotted.

[Pepperbelly]

37. I reread the paragraph in question because I did not recall it saying that

he called voters. And it didn't. What it said was that he called "Democrats" without specifying any further. Apparently you took that to mean voters while I took it to mean party functionaries.

[scaredamurikan]

12. I thought a lot of LGBTers voted Republican last time?

Over taxes

[dsc]

16. 25% of LGBT voters went for Bush

while 33% of pro choicers did, and around the same number of Hispanics. My source is the NYT and CNN exit polling from 2000, which I have posted here on many occasions. I had to restore my computer since then so I would have to google just like you.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

26. You're welcome

and we won't. I would bet Kerry gets around 90% of the LGBT vote with around 5% each for Nader or Green and Bush.

[npincus]

18. I don't want to sound disloyal to Kerry but...

if Dean were our nominee, I believe he'd be kicking Bush's ass all over the map now.

[LizW]

19. You're not allowed to say that here

sarcasm/

[PittLib]

20. Seriously?!

How do you figure that?

[LisaL]

24. Nope, Dean would be smeared non-stop.

If he saved someone from chocking, chocking victims for truth would be coming out saying Dean tried to kill them by chocking. LOL.
Come on, isn't it rather obvious that Dean is looking good because he is not being smeared right now because he isn't running for President?

[redstateblues]

60. Sorry-I think they'd be kicking his ass right now

[truthspeaker]

122. I disagree. The only area where Dean is stronger than Kerry is Iraq

[abrock]

21. For fucks sake, give Clinton a little credit.

He was not saying personally he was against Dean ever becoming elected, he was saying, in his professional (and probably RIGHT) opinion, that Dean has likely screwed his chances because of his past actions in dealing with the gay rights issue.

Who knows. A lot could change in the next few decades.

[dsc]

27. LGBT marriage

is around as popular as partial birth abortion and Clinton had no problem going to the mat for partial birth abortion. Civil Unions are actually considerably more popular than partial birth abortion. He used what he could to defeat Dean. And he didn't even have the guts to do so publicly. He gets little credit from me for that behavior.

[REP]

68. Marriage Isn't An Issue of Life/Health

No one ever died or suffered great bodily harm because they couldn't have a safe, legal marriage procedure. The same cannot be said of intact dilation and extraction (IDX) abortion, where the life and health of women is at stake. Gay marriage is a serious civil rights issue, but reproductive rights are even more fundamental; those of bodily autonomy, health and life.

I was a Dean supporter, and though I agree with his signing of the civil unions bill, I can see how it would be a liability in a national election.

[dsc]

74. Flat out false

There have been numerous cases of people with AIDS who died while uninsured but in relationships with insured people. Those people are dead as a direct result of not being able to marry. In addition there have been several cases of people sent back to countries very unfriendly to LGBT people who were in relationships. Those people were severely imperilled by not being able to marry.

[wyldwolf]

36. for sure... but Dean supporter like to lash out

... for their guy's failings... so let them vent.

[mitchum]

22. Are you going to demand that he apologize to you?

[dsc]

25. He owes all LGBT voters (90% of whom voted for him in 92)

an apology. Try to imagine if he had called Sharpton voters and said Sharpton had forfeited his right to run for President since America isn't ready for an African American President. You can't because no one would ever dare do such a thing.

[jonnyblitz]

23. He ran ads on right wing fundie radio bragging that he

signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was running the second time for president. Like that was gonna make the fundies vote for him instead of Dole. :eyes:

[peacetalksforall]

29. I agree with others...and suggest you find out more - people pay to

listen to his analysis - what he said might have been words of analysis. Get the context. Wait to seethe until you find out that he manipulated something.

[dsc]

31. He was calling voters in Iowa

not campaign consultants or candidates. And again, partial birth abortion is less popular than civil unions yet he had no problem with that.

[wyldwolf]

35. Clinton was already elected when that issue was before him

[dsc]

41. Actually I am pretty sure it came up before his reelection

but in any case, I fail to see the relevence to his conduct now. If an issue that polls in the low 40% causes one to forfeit his right to run for President, then one which polls at 33% should too.

[wyldwolf]

42. but he was already the president

...but like I said before, in many people minds, civil unions and gay marriage are not that different.

Now we can both find polls to say what we want.

For example:

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

Legal
Marriage 28%

Civil Unions 29%

No Legal
Recognition 40%

[dsc]

46. You might want to take a logic course

Since one can presume that most, if not all, of the marriage supporters would also support civil unions that puts legal recognition of gay relationships at 57% and non recognition at 40%. For the innumerate, that means recognition of gay relation ships is actually the popular position unlike letting employees blow you and partial birth abortion.

[wyldwolf]

49. I think the lapse in logic is yours

In post #31, you said:

And again, partial birth abortion is less popular than civil unions yet he had no problem with that.

The difference here clearly is that Clinton was already elected to the office of the presidency and he wasn't running on a divisive issue like Dean was.

[wyldwolf]

34. Interesting...

Howard Dean, a politician who has made much over the years of his experience as a doctor, has written a new book offering a blunt diagnosis of what ails the Democratic Party and the news media, as well as a prescription for a cure.

In Dean's "You Have The Power," centrist Democrats (which is what Dean is) get much of the blame for allowing right-wing Republicans to rise to national power. Dean also complains that reporters and editors give too much attention to campaign strategy and not enough to the issues.

The 188-page book, published by Simon & Schuster, is due to be released Sept. 27. The Associated Press obtained a copy at a prerelease book-signing in Seattle.

Dean, who co-wrote the book with writer Judith Warner, hits many of the same themes that became familiar in his failed Democratic presidential campaign.

*********

Dean recounts that one of the people Clinton called was a Dean supporter (who was he?)who described how the former president said that Dean "had forfeited his right to run for president." That was because, Dean writes, he had signed a law creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and Clinton believed Dean couldn't be elected as a result.

(Fair analysis. Civil unions and gay marriage aren't too different in many people's minds and gay marriage is opposed by the majority in our country.

Each time a Howard Dean sour grapes thread starts, it becomes more and more obvious that many Dean supporters have no stomach for politics)

[dsc]

38. At least I have a stomach for honesty and accuracy

Gay marriage polls in the low thirties while civil unions poll in the mid fourties. For the innumerate that is over a ten point differential which is pretty large. Partial birth abortion polls around 33% and opposition to the death penalty has been as low as 10% and as high as the low 40% range. In short, civil unions is hardly the least popular mainstream Democratic position, nor is it less popular than stands Clinton publicly took (he vetoed at least one partial birth abortion bill). Imagine if Clinton had called up Mosley Braun or Sharpton voters and told them they had forfeited the right to run for President since the country didn't want a black President. I doubt you would be calling people who were outraged about that names. Though you likely still would be posting inaccurate information. BTW I have worked in not one, not two, not three, not four, but five (as in 5) Presidential campaigns not counting Dean's. How many have you worked in?

[wyldwolf]

40. Here is my statement - now tell me the inaccuracy

Civil unions and gay marriage aren't too different in many people's minds and gay marriage is opposed by the majority in our country.

As for gay marriage and "partial birth" abortions, their numbers are almost indentical.

Imagine if Clinton had called up Mosley Braun or Sharpton voters and told them they had forfeited the right to run for President since the country didn't want a black President.

Pretty lame analogy. Are there any polling numbers to suggest a resistance to a black president?

I worked in GA for the Clinton campaign (twice) Gore, Clark, and Kerry, plus several senatorial campaigns. Thank you!

[dsc]

43. Your first quoted statement is totally inaccurate

When item A (gay marriage) polls in the low 30's and item B (civil unions) polls in the mid 40's they aren't conflated in the public's mind. Especially since the antis only barely beat the pros on civil unions (neither get above 50% due to undecideds).

As to your second point, ask Douglass Wilder. He ran briefly for President in 1992. Amoung the reasons he dropped out was that when his campaign polled with just biographies in New Hampshire and Iowa he was a top tier candidate. When they added pictures his support collapsed to single digits. While things have likely changed since 1992, it is a little hard to believe the change is total.

[wyldwolf]

45. we can both find polls to say what we want

This one suggests the two aren't that far apart in terms of approval.

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

Legal
Marriage 28%

Civil Unions 29%

No Legal
Recognition 40%

[dsc]

51. If you don't believe that at least half of the 28% who voted for marriage

would switch to civil unions in a polls between them and no recognition, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. As I pointed out above, your poll actually makes a far stronger case for me than I was claiming. Civil Unions almost certainly have majority support given that poll.

[wyldwolf]

52. you provide no evidence for your statement

[dsc]

58. The evidence will be here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2342200

I think it is fair to assume that supporters of same sex marriage here are not radically different than those in the public at large. If my poll turns out with less than 40% for position A I am clearly wrong, if it turns out with 60% or more for A I am clearly right, if it is between 40% and 60% then the jury is out.

[dsc]

75. with 35 votes in

69% voted A. Looks like the evidence is with me on this. Of course you will acknowledge that.

[wyldwolf]

82. Evidence? bwahahahahaha

35 votes from DU members is your evidence? :eyes:

[dsc]

85. It is more than you provided

YOu are making the rather bizarre claim that those in favor of gay marriage are not in favor of civil unions if they are forced to choose between them and nothing. Incidently the poll is still up so the numbers may be much higher. But typical of you, you are too damn lazy to click to check.

[wyldwolf]

89. uh, no...

It is more than you provided

I gave a national poll.

YOu are making the rather bizarre claim that those in favor of gay marriage are not in favor of civil unions if they are forced to choose between them and nothing.

No, I am not. Do you even read posts?

Incidently the poll is still up so the numbers may be much higher. But typical of you, you are too damn lazy to click to check.

Do you not understand that DU members and a DU poll are in no way a fair sampling of opinion?

C'mon.

[Uzybone]

158. Ludricous

now I think die hard Deanies are off the deep end. A DU online poll is evidence??? What????

[wyldwolf]

164. welcome to the alternate DU universe

[tedzbear]

136. You are correct.

It is simple logic.

[Monte Carlo]

39. Honestly, is it a lie?

Is this not America, the country of good, Christian upringings? Argue about the virtues of gay marriage all day long, but there are certain political realities that existed when Dean signed the Civil Unions bill and when he ran for President. It's the last great frontier of the civil rights movement, and we are deep in the woods.

[Doohickie]

44. I AGREE with Clinton

That is exactly why I didn't think Howard Dean would have been a good candidate. This is not a judgment on whether or not gay marriage should be more widespread; it's a simple commentary on the state of elections. Gay marriage is a lightning rod issue. Strong support would eliminate many potential votes, including Democratic ones.

This is an issue that will become more prominent in the future, I think, but it is too new to have a candidate that is too strongly in favor of it.

If the government becomes more Democratic, I think there will be a greater opportunity to raise this issue. But having a Democratic candidate that is strongly in favor of gay marriage will make it that much tougher for him to get elected.

[wyldwolf]

53. As do I

[Eloriel]

92. Here's the deal

There is NO ONE who has made a more commanding explanation and defense of civil unions than Dean OR who has had more experience doing it. In fact, with his blunt and forceful, no nonsense, impeccably commonsensical style he was able to decimate a LOT of touchy "wedge" issues and render attempts by the GOP to use them to splinter our base mostly meaningless. Civil unions was just one of them. ANYone who thinks that he couldn't have won isn't factoring in this incredible ability of his.

[truthspeaker]

127. I disgree. Gay marriage would not be a deciding issue with most voters

While if you poll a bunch of Americans, a majority will say they oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean they would vote against a candidate just because he supported it. In fact, Dean proved that in Vermont. In polls, a majority of Vermonters opposed gay civil unions. But a majority of Vermonters re-elected Dean after he signed the civil unions bill.

It's an issue of leadership vs. followship, which was, IMHO, what Dean's campaign was about, and it is why many liberals are disenchanted with the Democratic party.

[tedzbear]

137. Your comment is why we need a third party...

"Gay marriage is a lightning rod issue. Strong support would eliminate many potential votes, including Democratic ones."

At least the Green Party won't put winning above what it is supposed to stand for. After this November, I and many other voters will be looking for a party that will stand up for what we believe in. It won't be the Democrats anymore unless they prove to us their worth.

[John_H]

47. i know the idea is to sow dissent, but pls. think for more that 1/2 a sec

before you post.

Clinton anti-gay? Yeah, right.

That's why he spent a good portion of his his "honeymoon period" political capital ensuring the rights of gays and lesbians to serve in the military as his FIRST initiative. That's why he appointed more openly gay and lesbian people to high level poitions in his administration (which makes a huge difference in policy) than any president in history. That's why he gutted the rethug's marriage act before he signed it. And yes, he signed it because politically in the real, non-liberal utopia world of american politics he had to, and said as much to many members of congress.

What Clinton said was undeniable fact--given the polling on the issue, it's likely that the rethugs would have eviscerated Dean on civil unions. We may not like it, but some things we don't like are true.

[wyldwolf]

54. "i know the idea is to sow dissent"

exactly.

Someone likes stirring shit up.

[dsc]

55. several things

One, He didn't choose to have the military thing be first on the agenda, the Republicans did. Yes, he did fight the good fight on it and yes I have said so repeatedly on this forum (search by name and you will see that).

Two, His record of appointments, at least well known high level ones, has been pretty much matched by Bush (both appointed one ambassador, both appointed openly gay AIDS czars, and both appointed one sub cabinent level appointee). But his policy is clearly better than Bush's is. The fact is though, we weren't exactly over rewarded here. LGBT voters provided around 4.5% of Clinton's 43% of the vote in 1992, which is over 1 in 10 of his votes. I highly doubt we got even 1 out of 30 of the jobs which he controlled.

Three, I didn't say a word about DOMA in my post. And again, I have defended his signing of it before on this forum. You can look it up.

I consider Clinton's record to be mediocure on LGBT rights. My major problems are no ENDA and no hate crimes despite a Democratic congress for two years. I also am tired of seeing LGBT voters get such disparate treatment from pro choicers despite being more loyal. Clinton crossed a line here by using bigotry.

[John_H]

80. You should research his record of appointments

When I worked in TBD's admin--I knew or knew of dozens of openly gay and lesbian officials who held senior positions in dozens of agencies. The figureheads get all the press, but the senior appointees within the agencies put the agenda into action.

Fred Hochberg (head of Lilian Vernon and then Deputy Administrator of the SBA) made sure that GLBT owned businesses were not descriminated against for loans, which they had been throughout the Bush I and Reagan Admins.

I worked on a project with a woman, who's name I can't remember at the moment, who was in charge of all the major highway projects at the Deparment of Transportation. Think she had a little bit of juice?

The list goes on and on.

[dsc]

86. I certainly didn't mean to say that Bush and Clinton

were precisely equal here, but in all honesty, they earned those jobs. About 1 out of 10 voters and even more contributers, to Clinton were LGBT. The very least a President can do is reward his base with jobs. That is hardly a shining achievement. He deserves kudos for that, but that puts him at a pretty low level of achievement.

[phish420]

48. I understand..but

I am a gay man who completely sympathizes with your point of view...however, you can't hold Clinton responsible for stating what he believes to be the truth. He is merely saying that in this day and age of so many bigoted religious zealots in the electoral population, it would be difficult at best to win the Presidency...a governorship or senate seat is another thing, but the Presidency is a long shot...unfortunately.

[robbedvoter]

57. How nice of Dean to air his grievances right BEFORE the election

he is not the only one with grievances, but mature people concentrate on the priority #1 first - get rid of bush.
believe me, there are plenty of grievances to go around - but the time to kick each other is NOT NOW.

[madfloridian]

63. Two books, 4 articles have been out already.....Dean can defend himself.

He has that right. His former staffers are making money off kiss and tell books about the campaign, and he as every right to go ahead with his.

Trippi and Maslin and Grossman and Dunnam are telling all, fair is fair. Even his photographer, Pettit, is making money off campaign photos.

Sorry, but that is Dean's right.

[seaglass]

72. Yeah, it's his right to make a buck, too bad he couldn't

resist until the elections was over.

Does he think once the election is over no one will listen to him, he won't be able to sell his books? Why does he have to do this now?

[bklyncowgirl]

71. Nothing new here except the motive

Since it was pretty well known at the time that Clinton, while ostensibly neutral, did not want Dean as the nominee, all that this does is confirm that Dean knew it too.

Clinton's motives, incidently, as described by Dean, are ones that are perfectly appropriate for the head of a political party. Clinton himself got screwed big time for trying to do the right thing on the gays in the military issue.

Was torpedoing Dean a good idea? If Kerry wins it was a brilliant move. If Kerry loses, in part because his party leaders did him the favor of taking out his strongest rival thus preserving him from a primary fight that might have toughened him for the campeign ahead--or exposed his liabilities as a candidate before Democrats had a chance to change their minds, then it was one of the dumbest moves in the history of American politics.

I'll tell you on November 3rd.

[newsguyatl]

59. there's a reason bill's referred

to as the "best republican president" we've ever had.


he's no liberal, not even close.


he's a lukewarm moderate-to-slightly-conservative, always has been.



so that he would say this or infer this, comes as no surprise to me.



the same for his wife --- useless for the liberals. both of them.

[wyldwolf]

83. only by hard left reactionaries

[lastliberalintexas]

103. Really?

So which of these was LIBERAL:

Voting for the bankruptcy "reform" bill?
Voting for the IWR?
Voting for NCLB?
Voting for the "Patriot" Act?
Voting for some/any of the Shrub tax cuts?


The Clintons aren't evil by any means, but they certainly aren't liberal, either.

[wyldwolf]

107. Yes, really

You've created your own definition of "liberal."

Name me one well known and credible liberal democrat who thinks Clinton was a repubilican.

[tedzbear]

140. Who gives a fuck what some well known democrat thinks?

There are many small fry democrats like moi who think both Clintons might as well be Repugs.

[wyldwolf]

157. I, for one, give a fuck

There is no basis other than your opinion - an opinion vastly outnumbered, I might say.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

61. Do you really want to die on that mountain now?

Say what you want about Clinton, the man is a political genius. Period. He played Bush41 and the whole GOP party like a violin. They tried for 10 years and millions and millions of dollars to bring him down - they didn't lay a glove on him - when he was finally hoisted on his own petard - he did it to himself.

As far as this statement, he was just being realistic for this election cycle. You can either look back six months and whine or fight today's fight.

Dean will live to run another day - we don't need to be getting sidelined by nonsense that doesn't make a tinker's damn at the moment. Let's get Kerry/Edwards elected and then worry about four and eight years from now.

[DaveSZ]

64. Dean > Clintoon

[wyldwolf]

84. "Clintoon" = rightwing phrase

[dsc]

78. It isn't about Dean

Had Clinton called Dean unelectable for his stand on civil unions, this thread wouldn't exist. Had Clinton said Dean needed more military and or diplomatic experience to be fit to be President, this thread wouldn't exist. But for a man who threw his Presidency away for a blowjob, only to have his base save it for him, to declare someone else has forfeited his right to run simply for actually standing up for that base is outrageous. Shame on him.

[neonplaque]

65. Dean was the only candidate who...

had a clue of the pulse of the nation... and as others will continue to concede, 'Ho Ho' was right from the start. *sigh* So now we have Kerry.. oh well, sh*t happens and we must make due.

[RummyTheDummy]

66. Oh for Christ's sake

Enough with the Clinton bashing already. And don't feign concern about his health. It's transparent. Dean lost. Get the fuck over it or get the fuck out of the way.

[dsc]

76. It isn't about Dean

it is about LGBT voters. We carried more water for that man than patch hell a mile. We gave our time, our money, our energy, and our votes to him. We are his third most loyal voting block and in 1992 we were his most loyal. Then he goes and stabs us in the back. I highly doubt you would be lecturing a Sharpton supporter if Clinton had said Sharpton had forfeited his right to run for President since America isn't ready of a black President.

LGBT voters stuck with him through thick and thin. When he valued his penis more than his job we still stuck with him. And this is the thanks we get. Sorry but fuck Clinton on this.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

101. I get so sick of these Clinton bashers, good post!

Even brings up Lewinski, as if that had anything to do with anything.

[Clinton Crusader]

104. Right on! Hear Hear!

Enough with the Clinton bashing already. And don't feign concern about his health. It's transparent. Dean lost. Get the fuck over it or get the fuck out of the way.


Applause.

Im SURE 25,000 plays a day of the scream had fuck all to do with it, right? PLEASE! You're outta line.

And yes, by my username, I am a Clinton Crusader.
:kick:

[askew]

69. This quote completely sums up the main difference

between Clinton and Dean. Clinton loves the game of politics and Dean is more concerned about doing the right thing for his constitents. He made the decision to sign the civil unions bill knowing while it would be unpopular and could be political suicide, it was the right decision for the state. Dean then traveled around the state of VT, wearing a bullet-proof vest due to death threats, explaining why he signed the bill. Dean was re-elected Gov. of Vermont and civil unions became accepted by a majority of Vermonters. A person more concerned about their power and position would not have signed that bill. That is why Dean inspired so many people. Clinton may have charisma and be great at politics, but he always put his needs before the needs of anyone else's. Which is too bad, because he could have been one of our greatest presidents without this weakness, because he had all of the other strengths.

As for those who say that Dean's signing the civil union bill would have doomed him in the general election, I think you are underestimating this country. Yes, there are people who are horrified by civil unions and gay marriages and who would vote on this issue alone. But, those people are already voting for George Bush. The other people who are against CUs/GMs would not vote on this issue alone. There are more serious issues in this election. And Kerry's position is exactly the same as Dean's on CUs.

As for surviving attacks from Bush. Kerry was supposed to be the "most electable" because of his war record. Well, look how well that turned out. Plus, he is being attacked for his stiff personality. Bush was going to attack the Democratic nominee on character issues, regardless of which candidate got the nomination. However, in my opinion, Dean or Clark would have responded better to the attacks due to their personalities and they seemed to fire up the base more effectively. This is not to say that I am not thrilled to be casting my vote for Kerry/Edwards on Novemeber 3rd. I just think that deciding a nominee based on supposed "electability" is pretty stupid.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

81. ...pretty good post...pretty much sums it up, huh?

Good analyses, I think. I wasnt a big Dean fan, but I did like him better than Kerry.

But we have Kerry now, so we have to ridet that lead zeppelin...

[incapsulated]

70. If Clinton had that much influence...

Clark would have done a lot better in Iowa, since Dean is alleging that Clinton was trying to get his supporters to switch to Wes before the primary.

Instead, they voted for Kerry.

It's also ironic, since Clark was one of the few candidates who supported a State's right to give gay couples the right to marry (and call it a "marriage") with full Federal rights.

[dsc]

77. irony and ineffectiveness are irrelevent

the action is immoral no matter how effective it was or wasn't.

[BuelahWitch]

93. Clark didn't run in Iowa n/t

[tedzbear]

142. Thank you.

for your valuable clarification.

[incapsulated]

163. He was on the ballot n/t

[Deja Q]

73. He'd sporadically done other things too...

I recall, in 2000, he cracked a nasty joke that slandered lesbians.

He's always been a smooth centrist and repuke-enabler (in terms of policies and politicians, his Lewinski mistake helped cost Gore the election...).

In the past I've mentioned the other reasons why I don't like him before, though at least he did balance the budget and seemed sincere regarding world peace initiatives. But even I, despite my financial status, could balance the budget, though diplomacy is never easy...

[robbedvoter]

79. Dean's judgement is worse than Sharpton's who was in it for self-promotion

Only a few weeks and he could have "defended himself" - even could have lashed at the guy he hated the most in the campaign. But noooo! HE HAD TO DO IT NOW! Maureed Dowd (who's been nice lately, to sell us her book) found the old primary bone in this stupidly timed book.
As unhappy as I am with the candidate up there, I feel a bit better that at least we don't have Mr "ME! ME! ME !- THE HELL WITH THE WORLD" here.
geez! happy heart surgery, Mr President - time for Dean to disgorge SOME of his bile. (note that he spares the potentially powerful - and I know that there are gripes there galore) Pssst! remember, there's a general election on its way? Some guy named Bush? ABB?
Because all the people accused in this wonderful book won't take time to answer - they are too busy helping Kerry win - no matter what personal qualms they may have with him, Dean, DNC or their own mothers.

[Eloriel]

94. I don't know how you say all that when Dean has done as

much as if not more than anyone who isn't actually part of the Kerry campaign to help Kerry get elected, just as he promised. In addition to that, he's done a lot to try to get a Democratic Congress elected. I don't see any of the others doing nearly as MUCH. And yet, it's not enough for you, is it?

Dean is also probably the LEAST "Me! Me! Me!" candidate we've had. Clark and Edwards are close contendersm IME.

Ridiculous pap, all of it, robbedvoter. You don't do yourself any good with this little tirade. You might want to actually read the book before trying to pontificate. You might be surprised. OR, like Dowd, you just might find more little nothingnesses to fuel your Dean hatred.

[robbedvoter]

146. because he is griping about the primaries NOW!

he should have told his publisher to hold on until November 3 - there's simply no time now for that. I may agree with some of his points, disagree with others, but resent the hell out of his bringing it all up NOW.

[madfloridian]

168. He has another reason, I hear.

That is to make sure the party does not start taking it easy and not standing up for the base.

[Zomby Woof]

87. Clinton was right, as usual

His political instincts are unmatched. Dean was a disaster waiting to happen. Things worked out for the best. I am grateful every day that Dean's candidacy imploded.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[truthspeaker]

121. Why was Dean a disaster?

What the hell are you babbling about?

[Eloriel]

95. dsc -- just want to say

that I share your outrage. I've never forgiven him for letting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" become the milirary's policy BT (and not firing Powell's ass in the bargain).

[bklyncowgirl]

96. Can't we all get along? Please.

Just a few more weeks and then we can all go and do what liberals do best, i.e. form up that good old circular firing squad and have at it. Until than let's keep our eyes on the prize which is doing what we can to keep the most reckless and corrupt administration in the history of our country from getting reelected.

A few observations:

Howard Dean's campeign was one of the most exciting things to happen in the Democratic party in years. It was also one of most polarizing. There were many powerful people in the party who did not want Dean to be the nominee.

There were faults in Dean's campeign some of which were a direct result of his personality and lack of experience with media politics. That alone may have been enough to do him in but as is well documented there was a conspiracy among Democratic leaders to deny him the nomination--resulting notably in the infamous Osama ads. Dean was also hit by ads sponsored by Republican group "Citizens for a Sound Economy". We can argue till we're blue in the face as to whether or not Dean would have lost if some Democrats hadn't sabatoged his campeign or whether Karl Rove really did want to run against Dean rather than Kerry--at this point it's all a matter of faith.

It was well known at the time of the primaries that Bill Clinton--though ostensibly neutral--was not a fan of Howard Dean's. What we didn't know at the time was the reason. Well, now Dean has released what the reason was and quite frankly, compared to some conspiracy theorists on the left and right, this motivation while disturbing to gay activists, is politically justifiable. Believing that Dean would be hammered on Gay Marriage is certainly more altruistic than, as some have suggested, wanting to make sure that a weaker Democratic candidate would run and lose so that Hilary could run in 2008.

We can argue till the cows come home whether Dean would have been a stronger candidate than Kerry. My personal take is that our candidate would have been subjected to the Rove smear machine. Kerry's documented war heroism hasn't stopped them from rather effectively raising doubts about his character. Had Dean been the nominee I'm sure we would have seen, oh I don't know, "Vermont Pastors for Truth" ads. Likewise, Clark would have been subjected to a steady stream of high ranking officers voicing doubts about his mental stability. I personally think that Dean or Clark would have been more effective in using the Iraq war against Bush than Kerry has been but on other issues these guys were vulnerable.

Howard Dean's behavior since dropping out of the primaries has been exemplary. He's backed Kerry 100% and has become an important campeign surrogate. I haven't read the book, it's due to be released in late September, but this personal take on the campeign seems to be a rather small part of the message of how to win in November which appears to be the purpose of the book. Maybe he should have left this bit out, maybe not. On the whole it seems pretty inoccuous to me.

OK rant over.

[robbedvoter]

147. Whatever good things he did, he ruined with this stupid book -

or rather the stupid timing of his book. He is not to be trusted - once again he proved immature and unpredictable - as I saw him in the primaries (discovering Jesus, the secret documents and other idiocies)

[Mr Blond]

98. President Clinton was elected twice, and would win a landslide this year..

Dean would have lost ala Mondale. Not only because of the civil unions issue, but that would have been one of the reasons.

[no name no slogan]

102. Without Perot, there wouldn't have been a President Clinton

Despite his cannonization by the party, Clinton NEVER won an election with a majority of the popular vote. In fact, without Perot stripping away the moderate Repub vote in 92, it's quite likely that Clinton would not have won his plurality in 1992.

Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Clinton was one of our worst Democratic presidents ever. He did little (if anything) to help out the party's core constituencies, helped lead the party into minority status during the 90s, and gave us such Democratic "wins" like NAFTA, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", "Welfare Reform", and "most-favored nation" trade status with China, one of the biggest human rights abusers on the planet. Not to mention his "health care reform" plan that would have consolidated all health care coverage into the hands of the five largest PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT insurance companies in the nation.

"But what about the economy?" some may cry. Yes indeed, what about it? His lack of fiscal policy may have wiped out the deficit, but the gap between the rich and poor grew at an alarming rate-- as bad as Reagan or Bush I, if not worse. The "rising tide" that lifts all boats certainly helped out Wall Street and the 5% of the country that "earns" its living off of investments, but drowned out the working poor and those who actually make their living by WORKING at a JOB.

And then there's the personal scandals. How could one supposedly intelligent man make so many outright stupid mistakes, like banging an intern? It's hard to believe a Rhodes scholar somehow doesn't think sticking a cigar into an intern's coochie isn't just plain stupid. And to do so with a rabid right-wing cabal putting his every move under a microscope just screams of irresponsibility.

After 12 years of Reagan/Bush misrule, the Democrats actually had a chance to really make some positive changes in this country. We had relative peace, and the opportunity to really lift up the poor people in this country who work two jobs just to make ends meet. Instead we got a Wall Street lapdog who had no qualms about helping the Republicans pass their right-wing agenda, as long as he remained "popular" with the focus groups, while his own party all but withered and died on the vine.

Yeah, yeah, I didn't like Clinton, but compared to what came after, he's downright inspired.

[wyldwolf]

106. political urban legend.

[no name no slogan]

108. No, it's not

Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

109. He was talking about the myth of Perot helping elect Clinton

The fact is when the 2 challengers get close to a 2/3 share of the total votes, then that means the incumbent was going to be replaced no matter what.
Perot was a symptom, not a cause.

[wyldwolf]

111. Yes it is... (two responses)

Did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

More of this analysis here:

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm


Now, PROVE Clinton was a republican.

I dare you.

[no name no slogan]

114. Here you go

First part:

Perot cut into the redneck anti-gubment Bush vote more than he cut into the Clinton vote. His presense did more to hurt Bush than to help Clinton. And keep in mind that, even though he won, he NEVER won a majority of the popular vote-- not even in his 1996 waltz with Dole.

Second Part:

__________________

Well, if he's not a Republican, how do you explain:

NAFTA
Business-friendly, labor-unfriendly. Remember when we used to be the party of working people? There was a reason most congressional Dems and labor unions opposed it...

"Welfare Reform"
...which has led to more poor women working more crappy dead-end jobs which pay poverty-level wages, and has done VERY LITTLE to raise them up from poverty.

The 1996 Telecom Act
...which has led to more media consolidation and has done more to damage media diversity than even Reagan's suspension of the "fairness doctrine" in the 80s. Let's put it this way: there would be no ClearChannel if not for the 1996 Telecom Act.

The de facto repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, and deregulation of the Securities industry
G-S is a depression-era law that kept a "chinese wall" between investment firms and banks. Clinton (along with the Rs and the DLC-friendly Dems) worked hard to gut the law, which has led to scandal after scandal-- everything from insider trading to misleading investors to the overinflated stock market bubble of the 1990s (which had NOTHING to do with economic growth, and EVERYTHING to do with the transfer of $$ from the working class to the rentier class).

Decline in pollution standards for automobiles
New cars today get less miles per gallon than the cars of 1987 did. Clinton had EIGHT YEARS to make auto manufacturers produce more fuel-efficient cars, and he did NOTHING. In fact, his administration helped fuel the boom in SUV sales, which produce more pollution and get lower gas mileage than almost any passenger car.

Corporate-friendly "National Health Care" plan
Instead of advocating for the most affordable long-term solution (a non-profit, single-payer, universal health care plan), the Billary Commission actually CONSOLIDATED health care coverage into the hands of the five biggest insurance companies.

Instead of a non-profit plan, Clinton proposed a FOR-profit healthcare plan which still relied on the good will of large insurance companies. But instead of a vibrant, competitive market made up of many insurance companies, his plan would rely on the five biggest players. Furthermore, it still would have excluded many millions of people. In effect, it was the worst of both worlds (for-profit insurance that still didn't cover every American-- much like the situation today).


Wall Street-friendly fiscal policy (at the expense of Main Street)
IMHO this is possibly the WORST thing Clinton did. Because Clinton lacked ANY sort of fiscal policy, he let Alan Greenspan run the money supply as he saw fit. Greenspan kept inflation down, but at the expense of increases in working people's wages.

Instead of pursuing a policy that encouraged growth in wages with manageable inflation, Clinton/Greenspan instead encouraged wage stagnation and cheap credit. So instead of earning more money, you got greater access to easy credit.

This led to a creditor-friendly environment that let creditors reap all the rewards while transferring the risk to the taxpayers. Creditors could loan out to the worst credit risks, because they knew damn well that they could write it off as a loss.

This led to skyrocketing personal bankruptcies in the late 90s, as more and more working families were forced to borrow because their wages did go as far as they did before.

_____

Most of these policies are straight out of the Hoover/Nixon playbook-- except Nixon did create the EPA. And I didn't even touch the bloated military budget or foreign policy!

As I said, Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower. He may have had a "D" after his name, but his economics were straight out of the University of Chicago playbook.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

116. You need numbers of the "redneck anti-gubment Bush vote"

to support your claim. Otherwise that doesn't hold up.
GHW Bush was a clueless blue blood from Connecticut is why he lost.

[wyldwolf]

117. Invalid

What page of the Democratic manual does it list the qualifications to be one that you seem to believe exists?

[no name no slogan]

123. Well, Democrats historically (at least since FDR)...

* DO NOT pass economic policies that favor big corporations over workers (see NAFTA);

* DO NOT favor policies which transfer wealth from the working class to the upper class;

* DO NOT dismantle programs that help the less fortunate in order to score political points in the suburbs;

* DO NOT cooperate with a Republican-dominated congress to further the GOP's right-wing agenda;

* DO support cleaner environmental standards;

Maybe it's different where you're from, but here in the land of Paul Wellstone, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Gene McCarthy we believe in standing up for the rights of working people before those of Wall Street.

These fine men are ALL Democrats, who supported the things I mentioned in my previous post. I would find it VERY hard to believe you if you said they "didn't exist".

If that's not in some "Democratic manual", then maybe it should be.

[wyldwolf]

126. Like I said

If there is some litmus test to being a Democrat, YOU certainly don't administer it.

I could list (again and again) the absolute liberalness of many many Clinton policies but it gets so damn tiresome rolling out the list each time someone thinks they're clever and we've never seen the "Bill Clinton Republican" far left BS.

[no name no slogan]

149. Point out where I said I administered anything

All I did was voice my opinion, which is one that's also shared by a good number of Democrats. I NEVER said there was a litmus test-- you're putting words into my mouth, or hearing what you want to hear instead of what I said.

All I said was that Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative-- just like John D. Rockefeller, Harold Stassen and Lowell Weicker.

Maybe I'm nostalgic, but I remember a time when this party cared more about living wages than investment income. When our Treasury Secretaries were not culled from the ranks of top Wall Street firms, and cared more about workers wages going up than easy credit.

That was also a time when we controlled BOTH houses of Congress and a majority of governorships-- AND the presidency every once in a while, to boot. We also created laws that PROTECTED workers from predatory capital, and made damn sure that they earned a living wage.

But apparently it's worth more to the party to have its conventions sponsored by the Fortune 500 than it is to represent the little guy. If it were the 1950s or 1960s, Clinton's economic policies would have
made Eisenhower proud.

The Democrats have effectively ceded the economic argument to the Republicans, which means the only issues that separate us anymore are the "wedge" issues like abortion, school prayer and gun control. Since we've abandoned working people's economic issues, all they have left are the social issues-- where many of them are quite conservative.

Hence you get the blue-collar union member voting for Republicans. And why not? NOBODY is talking about his economic concerns, but at least the Repubs make good noises in favor of school prayer and against gun control.

Maybe this party will get over its Wall Street infatuation and will find its voice again on economics. Instead of a $1 raise in the minimum wage, we'll champion a mandatory LIVING wage.

Instead of greater access to health insurance, we'll provide health COVERAGE-- for everyone.

Instead of so-called "Free Trade" agreements, we'll get FAIR TRADE agreements that put human rights above corporate profits.

Instead of more credit, we'll get more PAY for the work we do.

Instead of an economy that serves Wall Street, we'll have an economy that serves Main Street.

Either that, or the party goes the way of the Whigs.

[wyldwolf]

152. "Democrat" is not a subjective term

Liberal or progressive? Maybe. But not democrat. It isn't a subjective term. Like it or not, Zell Miller is still a Democrat, for example. Democrats are an established party. Look at all reference materials. Clinton is a democrat. That isn't something you can wish away.

Perhaps he isn't YOUR kind of democrat. And perhaps the issues you listed are the things you want Democrats to address. But you can't truthfully say someone is a republican who is obviously a Democrat because you don't like their policies.

You want to talk about FDR and the many things he did that some would find un-Democratic-like?

Starting with the internment of American citizens? How about LIHOP theories concerning Pearl Harbor?

You can't make a ridiculous statement like "Clinton is a republican" and back it up with fact.

[no name no slogan]

154. I didn't call Clinton a Repub, I said he governed like one

It isn't a subjective term. Like it or not, Zell Miller is still a Democrat, for example. Democrats are an established party. Look at all reference materials. Clinton is a democrat. That isn't something you can wish away.

"Reference Materials"? What are you, the Library of Congress? Look, I know that Clinton is a Democract (as is Zell Miller, as was George Wallace and Jefferson Davis, too), but that still doesn't mean that he didn't govern more like a post-New Deal Republican than a Democrat. Clinton is a Democrat, but the man has Republican tendencies coming out his earholes.

You can't make a ridiculous statement like "Clinton is a republican" and back it up with fact.

Um, I DID back it up with facts, several posts ago. And I did NOT say that Clinton was a Republican. What I said was that Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower-- which is something I've heard said before by BOTH Republicans AND Democrats!

And if you look at the way he governed, you'd see it's true. Hell, even Richard Milhouse Nixon did more for poor and working people than Clinton ever did.

Nixon signed into law many of LBJ's Great Society programs, and even proposed a "$1000 a year" cash stipend for the terminally unemployable (back in 1970, that was a lot of money). What did Clinton give them? "Workfare" programs which got them off the dole and into two or more sh!tty jobs, without benefits, after they used up their alloted time.

Instead of addressing the reasons why I said Clinton governed like a Republican, you choose to fixate on my choice of words. That's fine. Some people also interpret the Bible literally, and actually believe that the sun revolves around the earth and the universe was created in six days.

Either way, it's clear that you don't agree with me. Fair enough. Clinton was not a bad president, but he certainly was not a good Democratic president (considering those who came before him).

[wyldwolf]

156. Yes you did call Clinton a republican

Post #108

Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower.

Is that NOT calling Clinton a republican?

... that he didn't govern more like a post-New Deal Republican than a Democrat. Clinton is a Democrat, but the man has Republican tendencies coming out his earholes.

That is your opinion, based on your perception of the list of issues you presented.

I DID back it up with facts, several posts ago.

No you didn't. You presented policies Clinton participated in then stated your OPINION that those policies made Clinton a republican.

And I did NOT say that Clinton was a Republican. What I said was that Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower

So calling Clinton a republican president isn't calling him a republican? :shrug:

Hell, even Richard Milhouse Nixon did more for poor and working people than Clinton ever did.

Would you like to make a comparison?

he certainly was not a good Democratic president (considering those who came before him).

Still, your opinion.

[tedzbear]

144. Amen.

It's in the Green Party manual, that's for sure.

Go Greens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[no name no slogan]

150. It used to be in ours, too

...up until fairly recently, which is the saddest part.

But apparently the powers-that-be that run the party think that Fortune 500 sponsorship is more important than support from the working people of this country.

C'est la vie...

[mrgorth]

105. Thank God for Al Gore

What a good man. I can only imagine what was said.

[nini]

112. I'm not seeing where he says he against gay marriage.

He's making the statement that POLITICALLY it did Dean in.. and this is probably right as most of this country can't seem to deal with gay marriage quite yet. Clinton proved once again he's a political genius in reading the electorate and their mood.

Rethink this in a few days and be logical about what he really said. I honestly think you are not getting the actual point being made.

[madfloridian]

115. The issue was civil unions.

The point was well made. Clinton should not have made those calls. Civil unions would NOT have been any bigger issue than Vietnam or Iraq.

Let's all be honest here.

[wyldwolf]

118. We are being honest here

Republicans have proven to be very well versed in manipulating moral issues to their benefit.

Sorry. Dean would have been eaten alive on this.

[madfloridian]

128. Like Kerry is being eaten alive on other issues, like Vietnam and Iraq.

Excuse me, it would have NO MORE disruptive than this.

Most people approve of civil unions. You need to get rid of some of your disapproval of people like us who stand up for what is right and hold the party accountable.

We are not going away.

[nini]

119. Politics is a nasty game

and unfortunately the repubs have made many issues moral issues and these will not be overturned overnight whether we like it or not.

We have to pick our battles in order to be in a position to make change.

I don't like having to do that either but it's a political reality.

[madfloridian]

129. In other words, you choose to let them define the issues for you.

Right? Let the GOP make the issues.

[wyldwolf]

131. In other words, you refuse to face reality

Did I "let" them define what was moral for me during Clinton's term? Carter's?

Have I "let" them define what being a patriot is to me now?

No, because I belong to a certain block of the electorate who has their mind made up.

Not everyone is there and it is those who are easily swayed by the GOP's tactics.

[madfloridian]

133. Then we should educate them with truth instead of giving in.

We have done that too long. Your version of accepting reality has gotten us into another bloody war with no solution.

Civil unions indeed, no comparison at all to the mess we are in.

Don't put down my efforts as a Democrat. You want us to listen to the GOP and let them guide, and I refuse to accept that anymore.

NO more.

Remember Clinton gave us NAFTA, and Dean was threatened by Rubin about criticizing that and outsourcing.

[wyldwolf]

134. we do educate them

...but we don't always win.

Your version of accepting reality has gotten us into another bloody war with no solution.

huh?

Don't put down my efforts as a Democrat.

Quote me where I've done that.

You want us to listen to the GOP and let them guide, and I refuse to accept that anymore.

Now THAT is a GOP tactic. Demonstrate to the readers here where I have done that.

Remember Clinton gave us NAFTA

No he didn't. It was a GHW Bush program. But Dean supported it. Actually still does but, like most, recommends changes now. Hind site and all, you know.

But this has what to do with anything we're discussing?

[madfloridian]

138. Dean did support it in a modified version...Rubin said back off....

do NOT criticize Nafta or Outsourcing or you will not get funding....hmmm...

[wyldwolf]

141. Dean supported it

The record shows it.

Perhaps he went back afterwards and recanted or modified his position or said "what he really meant was..." - but he did support it.

Why did he first say that US labor standards should be the model for negotiating free trade, and then change that to international labor standards?

Now, address your fiction about Clinton giving it to us, that "my version of accepting reality" has gotten us into another bloody war with no solution, that I've "put down your efforts as a Democrat" and that I "want you to listen to the GOP and let them guide,"

And please tell me why you tried to spin the conversation to NAFTA.

[nini]

151. no.. just fight what you can how you can at a given point in time

we're not going to get anywhere if we can't get some control at all.

[mzmolly]

124. *!@#$ !!!

I love Clinton but this does piss me off.

I enjoyed reading this however:

Dean describes a middle-of-the-night cell-phone conversation in which Dean questioned why he was a Democrat.

The conversation was with Al Gore, who had endorsed Dean months before. It helped calm him, Dean writes, when the former vice president helped him deal with his anger and concentrate on getting out of the race after Wisconsin.

Dean describes how close he felt he had been to winning the nomination and then the devastation of losing it in a matter of weeks. Only Gore could help him regain perspective, Dean says, because of Gore's experiences in the extended recount of the Florida vote in 2000.

GORE/DEAN 2008 !?

Provided we don't pull this on off. ;)

[GOPBasher]

125. I can see why you'd get mad at Clinton, but

please don't take it out on Kerry. Remember, Kerry opposes the FMA. Please vote Kerry. :looking very persuasive: :-)

[Mr Blond]

139. What I don't understand is...

...How anyone can bash the single greatest Democrat since JFK while defending a flash in the pan who would have been the Democrat's biggest disaster ever if he and his campaign hadn't imploded.

[no name no slogan]

165. Carter and Johnson were also great

Don't forget that Carter is the ONLY President we've had that was able to broker a peace treaty between Israel and one of its Arab neighbors (the Camp David agreements of 1979). This is something Clinton never did, despite the Oslo accords in 1994. Carter is also the only US president to convince Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in 1967. Clinton didn't do this.

Despite Vietnam, LBJ was a fairly decent president, too. He signed not one, but TWO monumental Civil Rights bills into law in his term. Several of his Great Society programs (like Head Start and Medicaid) are still around, and continue to help people to this day.

Clinton may be the most recent, but Carter and Johnson did things that make Clintons accomplishments pale by comparison.

[Lerkfish]

145. FWIW, that's hearsay twice removed.

You're getting upset at what dean says a guy says Clinton said.
While possibly true, it is also quite possible the first guy misunderstood or exagerrated what was said.

Also, for what it is worth, Clinton ran on a platform supporting gays in the military. If he felt supporting the gay community is an election-loser, then that is widely inconsistent.

However, after the election, he did waffle to the "no ask no tell" policy which was worse than a compromise..

[robbedvoter]

148. Excellent point - thus irresponsible to put in a book NOW.

I trully doubt this conversation took place as described.
I know of other, more compromising conversations - but I am sitting on them until November 3, royally pissed as I am.

[orpupilofnature57]

153. WHATS BILL CLINTON DO FOR LIVING?

I BELEIVE IN MODERN TIME NO AMERICAN EXECUTIVE'LET ALONE PRESIDENT HAS A BETTER VANTAGE POINT. NEXT TO DUbYA ' BILL IS LGBTS SANTA CLAUSE.WHO ADRESSED THE WHITCH HUNT' IN HIS FIRST TWO WEEKS IN OFFICE.

[hippiegranny]

159. why are you yelling?

and further, what are you trying to say? by the way, welcome to DU

[NewYorkerfromMass]

161. He's saying Clinton did right by the GLBT in trying to protect military

gays.

[Freddie Stubbs]

160. Niether Dean nor Clinton are on the ballot this fall

How exactly is this relevant now?

[DURHAM D]

162. Good question ... ?

[shrub chipper]

167. VEry good question...

and I can't believe I read the whole thing :thumbsdown: