Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To those who complain about another Clinton being in the WH, I ask a question:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:28 PM
Original message
To those who complain about another Clinton being in the WH, I ask a question:
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 06:29 PM by Harper_is_Bush
Was Bill Clinton really such a terrible President?

I realize he f'd up and lied over the Lewinsky thing, but besides that was he really so bad?

I have no problem with people judging Hillary in an honest manner for her policies and abilities, but the idea that she should have a mark against her because her because her last name is Clinton and there's already been a Clinton President seems to me to be without merit.

I could understand it better if the candidates last name were Bush. In the case of Clinton, it makes me wonder how those people felt about the first Clinton Presidency. Was it a failure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not A Failure, But Not As Good
as it could have been. I believe many Progressives feel Clinton was a bit of a sell-out and made too many concessions to corporate America. I won't list them here because they've been brought up countless times. The concern is that Hillary will do the same. And of course, many Conservatives hate her, just hate her and think the Clinton Presidency was a disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Actually her name is only Clinton by marriage.....
Bush 41 and Bush 43 were blood.. but you know what I don't think 41 wants to admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Interesting fact there, I wonder if there are those that will see it for what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clinton is the BEST Repug President that America had in 20th Century!
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 06:37 PM by KoKo01
One would hope the "Clinton Machine" has grown enough to deal with the "21st Century" ...but then...I think Al Gore owns this one! So...I admit ...I'm biased. Clinton's are OLD (for the problems in early 2000's but...GORE IS NEW!

GORE GREW and the Clintons just had "EYE ON THE PRESIDENCY like POPPY BUSH. A chance to redeem the "MonicaGate" stuff. I'm sick of Bill's female problems...I'd like to move on to "constancy." Al Gore is that person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Clinton was a Republican President?
I think you spent your 90's partaking of something a little too much!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
56. Gore's not running. He won't be, unless we end up with a brokered convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. My reasons for nonsupport are not becuase of her last name. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. Was he so terrible? ... No
Was he so good or great ... No. Mostly he was a BIG disappointment...anyway that's what he was to me. :-( and I don't care what Hillary's name is, that's not the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle_Eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. We need more Clintons, and 2009 seems like a long way off
When Bill Clinton was President, we had a peace dividend.

With little george bush president, defense contractors get rich.

I want my tax dollars to go for peace, not an illegal war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal renegade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. I remember a booming economy,
affordable gas, food, jobs and peace & quite. A POTUS who had rockstar status everywhere he went, blowjobs or not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
57. And a shrinking deficit, leading to a final budget with a surplus.
And the rest of the world still respected us, and thought the impeachment was NUTS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterHowdy Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. the problem that I have with it is this
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton


The same two families over and over again.
The bush's and Clinton's seem to be the unofficial royal families
of the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. They just like using the republican talking point.
I doubt if they were as outraged when a second Bush was put in office as they are if a second Clinton is elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I think it is a legitimate
concern. I want some new blood myself but will vote for her if she gets the nom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Nobody with Hillary's "blood" has been in the WH before.
To be accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. oh please
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 07:53 PM by RainDog
first, it is NOT a republican talking point to object to this family dynasty issue... it doesn't matter if Clinton is her married name or not. give me a break, that is so disingenuous.

Clinton? He made many mistakes over the blow job moment. Rather than lie, he should have said it is nobody else's business and simply refuse to respond. If that was impossible (or in the situation that existed) Clinton should have resigned and let Gore take over. Gore would have won (unless the elections were so rigged). Because Clinton didn't resign, he then made policy and the presidency about him. And with Gore assuming the office, we wouldn't have had Lieberman as vp, most likely.

This is an issue with Hillary, as well. She is such a target b/c of BC (and you certainly know that most Americans live on sound bites, not analysis) that she will be the issue, and not policy. She is such a divisive public figure that I do not think she can ratchet down the levels of outright hatred b/t the right and left.

Clinton mari shat on people with the welfare reform act. He had the good fortune to be in office when a new industry was developing. He didn't impede that. But he didn't produce it either. He also didn't work for some justice with Iran-Contra after Bush Sr. left office. For this reason, the same people are now in power, greater power than they had before.

However, I greatly miss his presidency after so many years of Bush. If only we had to deal with Clinton's problems rather than Howdy Doody and Cheney.

I want a NEW start. A candidate that is not associated with past smears. I don't know what Hillary really stands for after her votes in the Senate. She doesn't inspire me at all. Instead, I have that queasy feeling of more of the same old same old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes, in many of the ways that matter, Bill Clinton was a bad president.
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 07:37 PM by Marr
From the Telecom legislation to globalization economics, Bill Clinton screwed the average citizen in order to reward corporations. Hillary Clinton seems to be to his right on most of the important issues-- that is, if you actually believe what she says and don't just assume it's a bunch of triangulation bullshit. Though I don't see why that would be any better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. Yes he was not so good.
Lucked out on the dot boom, got out before the dot bust, continued Kleptocracy friendly programs, added some of his own, expanded fuckedup-trade agreements, played around with military adventures, totally fucked up universal healthcare, annointed open discrimination against homosexuals in the military, and put the budget back in order just in time for the R team to have a full treasury to loot for their world conquest thing.

I really do not want a coninuation of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush. I do not want more of the same from the Duopoly. They are gaming us. I don't want to play any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
19. Bush Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton.
that's just f-ed up.

the issue alone is not a dealbreaker, but it's one of many WTFs about leadership in America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. What's f'd up is pretending that Clinton = Bush.
That's REALLY f'd up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. ?
Five families; war of the roses, etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Instead of pretending that Clinton = Bush, maybe you should try to speak directly
to her policies/record/etc that you disagree with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. If you're interested in having a direct and honest conversation
you'll stop misunderstanding me on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
20. I'm not worried about the dynasty thing,
but the BC presidency left a whole fuck of a lot to be desired, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. I always wonder
how the parents of half a million dead Iraqi children feel when they see people talking about what a great president Clinton was, or see us talking about how the worst thing he did was lie over a blow job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. Regardless of how gifted Mr. Clinton may have been as a
politician, the fact is, he put the entire Country in serious jeopardy for the price of a trivial
sexual dalliance. You can't get much worse than that? However, Bush is much worse.

Events subsequent to Clinton's departure from the White House have led many of us to believe that Clinton has joined forces with "Them". I mean by that, those who want to rule the world in order to enrich themselves with no regard for anything else.

Senator Clinton's strength lies almost solely in the fact that she has been and is still closely connected with Mr. Clinton. That's a weak qualification for being President.

Surely there must be one honest and capable woman or man in America who could and would try to lead us out of this unbelievable nightmare. Does anyone know such an American and if so, could they possibly be elected?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. "he put the entire Country in serious jeopardy"
How did his "sexual dalliance" do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Primarily because of his scandal, Gore was unable to pick the
overwhelming number of votes that he would have gotten otherwise. Clinton's problems most definitely influenced the 2000 election away from a larger Democratic majority.

Secondarily, he drove the dignity of the office, and therefore that of the U.S. in general into a sordid state of disgrace. Imagine the President of the United States, talking on the phone to a high foreign official while participating in a sex act. That is beyond perverted.

I'm not prude and couldn't have cared less what kind of erotic activities he participated in. But, he didn't have the right to drag the honor of the Country into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Ah. So, it's his fault that the repukes took the WH in 2000, thus putting the country in "jepardy"
I see what you were trying to say now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. 1. )You must not have read my post carefully and (2.)you have
given a sarcastic response to my post which was made in good faith by me.

I am fully aware of the crooked processes carried out by the Republicans in the 2000 election. My point was that had there be no Clinton scandal, the majority of votes would have been so large that the Republicans would not have been able to turn the election as the did.

And by allowing the Republicans an edge, Bush was installed and Bush's administration has proved to be the most devastating political event in American history. That is what I meant by using the word "jeopardize".

If you wish to continue to quibble about my opinions, carry on, but without my participation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. I find your little tirade concerning something that he did privately a bit unerving....
What did you feel about President John F. Kennedy. Do you feel he also shamed the presidency?

And if there is anyone I am upset about during that whole ridiculous so called scandal is those that kept it alive and used far too many hard working American tax payers money in order to attempt to defile the democratic party period, not President Bill Clinton himself.

I find those that wish our presidents to remain without any scars persay a bit foolish in the extreme, one can name some things he did as president not exactly worthy but I could care less about his private personal dealings that only hurt his wife and should not have bothered anyone else.

In fact we were really laughed at around the world for making such a big deal of it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. I don't consider having sex with a near teenager in the oval
office to be something done "in private". That is my point.

There was a near 100% chance that a young girl such as Monica was going to tell someone about the events. Mr. Clinton should have known that. If he was desperate for sex, arrangements could have been made in order that the activities remained "private".

I'm aware that several American Presidents have had extra-marital sex during their tenures. You asked me specifically about John Kennedy. I'm not sure what was true and what wasn't. However, if it is true that he was consorting with a mafia don's girlfriend, he was taking an unnecessary risk. If if the Monroe thing is true, he was dumb to think she wouldn't someday threaten to reveal the relationship.

Please don't mistake me for being a sexual prude. And please don't suggest to me what I should or should not be voicing my opinions about.

My "little tirade" was little, it was large tirade because I was talking about a person who changed the course of American history in a tragic direction for the price a a few orgasms. The kindest that that could be said about Clinton would be to declare that he must have been a sex addict and was unable to control his impulses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Umm, a near teenager? She herself has admitted her experience with men, he was not
her first by any means. I am not saying you don't have the right to voice your views and or concerns just as I have the right to find your views a bit ridiculous and nothing more than prudish behavior which I find to be rather foolish considering nature as it is. You can't fight it always nor can you hide from it no matter how much we at times attempt to do so.

You did not answer my question regarding President Kennedy, all you said was you were unsure if the rumors of his dalliances were true or not.

And if that is the only kind thing you can say about President Clinton than I cannot take you seriously at all and honestly I am not trying to be rude, I just cannot help it when I see people still bringing up his sex life and attempting to use that as blame for where we have found ourselves now????

Put the blame where it lies and it is not with him for the Monica show and tell but with certain people, they themselves proven since then to be not exactly as pure as the driven snow that attempted to play political blackballing by pretending they cared when its now known that the sex scandal was all they could come up with in the end though they tried so many other ways to destroy our democracy so early on and not only did they waste our time but wasted our money as well, continue to do so with this illegal invasion and all in order to win and blame those silly Americans who fell for it all, they also share the blame for allot that has been allowed to happen the last several years. There is plenty of blame to go around but at least make sense when you do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. I don't recall the Monica's exact age. I thought it to be early
twenties. I consider that to be "near teen". Her virginity is irrelevant to the situation.

Are you saying that you think the President if the U.S. has the personal right to have sex in the Oval Office?

I attempted to answer your Kennedy question within the demands for brevity.

I loved John Kennedy. I, like everyone else grieved for him and us when he was assassinated.

I only heard about the sexual things latter. My feelings about that were that he was at least imprudent to have done those things while he was still in office. No, I wasn't ashamed of his work as President. As it turned out, whatever he did was discrete enough that it never turned into the sordid mess that Clinton experienced. And, perhaps by luck, it never caused in significant damage to the U.S. in general.

Clinton's acts were far more careless and much more damage ensued. I wasn't being "kind" when I said that perhaps he was a sex addict and couldn't control his behavior. After all, his high intellect is public knowledge. How else could a person as smart as he was manage to participate is such apparently compulsive behavior?

I repeat, I couldn't care less about anyone's sexual behavior other than my own. The simple fact is that Clinton's acts were extremely bad for the Democratic Party and subsequently were an important component of the 2000 election, not the only element, but a significant and unnecessary one.

What would be your reaction if it was discovered that your child's school principal was having sex in their office? What about your preacher? What about your Boss? What about your spouse? What about any person in a leadership role that used their public office for sexual purposes? Would you be defending their rights to "private acts" when the acts were public by virtue of where and when they occurred?

I believe that by accepting the most honorable role of President of the U.S., an individual is making a covenant to conduct their life in ways that are in the best interest of the people of the U.S. After all, it's only 4 to 8 yrs. Sexual adventures could be postponed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
59. I'm sorry but President Kennedy's discretions were no more discreet perhaps less so then President
Clinton's and yet you say you loved him? What your forgetting is that it was a different time than what we live in now, such things were not so easily discussed nor would I think the people of that time would have allowed their local newspapers and nightly news programs to talk so openly and vividly about certain sexual acts regardless of who was doing them.

President Kennedy was a good man like many before him and many after him, he was not perfect but then again who do you know that is? To either expect perfection or demand it in anyone is reaching to say the least, years later it was also proven without a doubt that President Kennedy did indeed have his dalliances within the compounds of the whitehouse walls and many knew of them but protected him.

Your question about a school principal? My preacher? My Boss? I don't see a comparison and I strongly feel you are reaching to ensure your point has more merit than mine, it really won't matter, I have been known to change my mind and my thoughts in regards to knowing more evidence per say but in this case knowing it all it changes nothing. And your what ifs are not comparable enough to make me change my mind regarding President Clinton.

Again, the whole show was nothing more than a beginning to what they are doing now and I am sure if you sat down and read more on how far they went in trying to find dirt on the Democratic individuals after daddy Bush lost you perhaps would understand more whom is really to blame and whom really needs to be held accountable for the current state of affairs.

Its funny how you believe a sexual act performed by a Democratic president destroyed the democratic party? How many acts both sexual and criminal do the republicans have to be accused of before they themselves are destroyed?

Regarding the pastor question, how many pastors need to be accused and convicted of having sex with minor children before religion is destroyed?

Regarding your question about principals but you forgot to add teachers having sex in schools? How many has to occur before schools are destroyed?

My point being to honestly believe that President' Clinton's affair with Monica destroyed the Democratic party is pretty melodramatic and reeks of nothing but right winged nonsense, thankfully we hear less and less of such bs since each new day proves their party to be nothing to be proud of...

Not attempting to be rude here but seriously, I find it troubling in that you feel that way and I have to question exactly how knowledgeable you are on just what political grandstanding is and if all your outrage comes from nothing more than you somehow being brainwashed into believing any of that truly mattered in the grand scheme of things?

I am more worried that young females in not only other countries but ours as well are being mutilated and sold like slaves in certain religious organizations.

I am more worried that innocent lives are being lost and innocent Iraq people are without food, water and housing and dying of diseases that have no cure as you and I discuss president Clinton having sex with a woman named Monica obviously needy who knew full way what she was doing..

I am more worried that our schools have lost their ability to ensure our children are getting everything they need because of so many programs being cut by this republican run government.

I am more worried that still several years later, New Orleans has such a far way to go to ensure it's people and it's city is once again livable for all it's one proud citizens.

I am more worried that daily, unknown american children are either beaten or sexual abused or mentally abuse by parents who should never have been allowed to reproduce.

I am more worried about those children growing up and ensuring such legacies continue with their own children.

I am more worried about religious organizations destroying families and stealing from people who can ill afford it hoping that the earnings they give church leaders will ensure they have a place in Heaven.

I am more worried about the effects of Global warming and that to this day little is being done to stop its rapid course and destruction of the very lands we call home.

I am more worried that our own government is so openly ignoring the cries of its own children's need for health care and proper and clean environments to live in.

I am more worried about the hundreds of new jails being built each year and knowing full well jailing innocent americans have become nothing more than another way for get rich quick schemes for those already in abundance.

I am more worried that this current leader and commander could care less what the people of this country desire openly telling us we have no true idea of what we need or want and only he is able to decide that, I worry about a president laughing that and saying out loud how it would be so much easier if he were a dictator, I worry when an war president makes jokes about the reasons he stated to send our young men and women to a war where thousands have died saying he cannot find the wmds and I worry even more that those in attendance laughed instead of becoming outraged....

You have passion it seems, I hope that you use it for good and less for caring about things that should not have become anyone's business...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Monica a teenager? Not quite
by the way EVERY and I mean this, EVERY US President, save Carter, has had sexual laissons in the WH.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I said "near teenager" and no thanks for the history lesson.
Not every President had sex in the Oval office. And none of their acts got so involved in the subsequent election. Clinton is a gifted politician. He had to have known the the discovery of his acts would be disastrous to the Democrats in the 2000 election.

Are you saying that you think it OK for the President to receive bj's in the oval office, even while he's speaking on the phone to high foreign officials? Are you saying that discretion is old fashion prudishness? Why are you defending Mr. Clinton when he was personally so careless with your Country?
He risk trading the next election for a couple of acts of fellatio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Yes they have
and if you think they have not, you are wrong

What is more, a twenty something IS AN ADULT, under US Law and US tradition... and responsible for her own actions.

By the way... you have yet to answer about real provable facts such as Caging Lists (Choice Point USA), Felon Lists, (Choice Point USA), the stoppage of counting of votes (United States Supreme Court, as well as GOP Operatives in places like Volusia County)

If you choose to believe that a sexual trist (common in US History, and I fear around the world) had a greater role than the above law breaking and malfesance, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. All of the lawlessness that you mentioned happened and in the
end allowed the stage to be set for the final blow by the Supreme Court.

My reference to Monica's age had nothing to do with the law. I used the term "near teen" because it seemed to me that Clinton was particularly careless to trust his secret to someone as young as that.

In terms of the human experience, his sexual trysts with Monica were of no more moral significance than his daily bathroom habits. Who cares and what difference does or did it make.

But, at the time, he was in the most powerful position of any person in the World. One doesn't have to be political genius to know that if one gets caught have sex on the job, in the oval office, it's going to be BAD POLITICS and it was.

I wasn't aware of any other Presidents having sex in their office. If they did, they shouldn't have and they were lucky that they were outed while still in office.

I'm also aware that times have changed. In earlier days, media and politicians might have covered for the President. But, in the era of the rising Republicanism, Clinton knew perfectly well that if the Republicans discovered his indiscretions, that would make maximum capital out of it.

Why were we arguing with each other about this when polls out there are trying to show that Gulliani could beat any of the Democratic candidates? If Americans are that dumb, we are doomed anyway.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. No previous president has been outed since it wasn't politically
expedient

And historians have, sort off... because it mostly does not matter... or rather should not

The "outing" of Bill is part of the Politics of Personal Destruction that Republicans carry against their real and perceived enemies

And bill was an enemy. He got on the way of the grand plan... damn him...

This Republcian party is not your father's republican party

They will do ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING to win... and to push their agenda... even if what they are pushing may very well lead to a second civil war.

And I am not kidding on that last one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Everything you said is true. My point is that Bill, the astute
politician that he was, shouldn't have been so careless with his personal life. It was best interests that he was jeopardizing. He hurt the Dems in 2000. He paved the way for the Republican and USSC criminality that actually installed Bush into office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
65. Historians will disagree
truly

If it was someoby else in office they'd do the same

Read on the Arkansas Project... which I will remind you started the day after the November election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #54
70. He did not hurt the democratic party, the republicans lying and scheming
and outright theft of the elections and so on and so on are destroying this country, your foolish into believing that democracy destroyed is somehow President Clinton's fault, perhaps it is our fault for ignoring to long that our government forgot just who are the true leaders of this country...

I think in many ways Nadine is right in that democracy is done in the republic gone unless we the people stand up and take it back and not be suckered into pointless and ignorant reasons to believe another is incapable of leading this country and having to spend pointless hours arguing about meaningless issues they created in order to ensure people like you and me argue about issues of no real importance while the issues we should be taking note of become fodder for future historical school books and in lest you forget, your rights are slowing being eroded and the destruction of habeas Corpus is still not being addressed which ensures the people's concerns are not of importance.

What is wrong with some people? I honestly don't understand how some can be so easily misled and fooled? Is it fear? Are you scared of being bombed by fictional enemies? Are you fearful that you will not find Heaven's doors open to you unless you agree with the churches views on what sin is and call people out for them?

I honestly don't understand? What is your fear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. Bill was nearly denied the presidency
because of his so-called "bimbo eruptions." He endured a sustained assault on his character from rightwing organs and the prurient-sniffing MSM from before day one. They managed to hobble his effectiveness and it wasn't until the OK bombing that he began to get a measure of it back. Yet, in 1995 he began that comedy with Monica. Bill was a dumbass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
62. She was 24. You might have well have said, "near 30 year old."
She wasn't a young girl, or any kind of girl -- she was a woman, and a college graduate, who threw herself at him. Or have you forgotten how she showed off her thong underwear when they met?

I have to wonder why you're trying to turn her into a teenager. Why rewrite history? If you are going to criticize him for the age difference, then you should be as critical of Kucinich, who has a bigger age difference with his 29 year old bride.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. So caging, and the USSC court had nothing to do with this
don't get me wrong I don't want HRC in the WHite House, but it has to do with her VOTING RECORD, which is far too conservative for me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. By no means did I say that. Please read my post more carefully.
All events are caused by an array of causes. The installation of Bush in to the Presidency in 2000 is just another example of this.

Yes, the criminal USSC was the final and telling "nail" in the coffin of American Democracy. Yes, the crooked behavior of the Republicans in Florida were directly involved in the caper. Ralph Nader's influence pulled enough votes away to make the Republican's job easier to rig the election. In fact, there were thousands of factors that influenced and allowed the outcome.

But, this discussion was about Clinton's role. I am simply saying that had he left office having served for eight years as a very competent President, Gore would have had so much momentum that the Republicans wouldn't have been able to overcome the landslide majority. Clinton was a successful and very popular person. He was getting 66% support even during the impeachment proceedings. If he had told Monica to check with him after he was out of office, the history of the world would likely have turned out better. Was that too much to ask of him? To turn down a couple of minor sex acts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. He SERVED as a very competent President
the PUGS made the sex issue something a nation flushed in weatlh may have cared

But the poll numbers tell the story and he was at the upper seventies at the height of impeachment

When historians look back at this... the events you are describing will be noted as the begiing of the second American Civil War... (yes cold phase), but not as what you think they are... or the begining of the death of the American Republic (though more properly that should be Ford's Pardon)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
28. Clinton's presidency successfully moved the party and the country to the right.
Hillary promises more of the same.

Also, there's the matter of Bill's foreign policies in Iraq and Rwanda. Both cost millions of lives.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2000/clinton.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Just another attack without specifics. Surprise surprise. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. You didn't notice the links?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Your claim was that Clinton moved the party to the right. Your links weren't related to that.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyedyeto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
34. What part of 20+ years of either Bushes or Clintons
don't you understand?

It's not that Bill was bad (he gave us a surplus which a Bush immediately gave away), but he was still DLC. And what does his wife have to offer? Another 4 years of the same ol', same ol'.

For me, it's the dynasty. I don't want another Clinton and forget about anyone who even claims to be related to Bushies.

It's time for someone with a new face and a fresh outlook for this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. I'm not sure how to respond to you. You're upset over a "dynasty", but Bush is not Clinton...
..so where's the 20+ dynasty?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #34
67. Bush does not equal Clinton. The Bush years were bad. The Clinton years, good.
My feelings about the Bushes have NOTHING to do with my feelings toward HRC or the potential First Gentleman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kohodog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
35. Bush=Cronies, Clinton(Bill)=Corporations
Hillary also=Corporations.

The money comes from the same places, though perhaps not the same people/companies. I doubt that Blackwater will flourish under Hillary, but others will. Who will stand up for the people? (and I don't mean just the American people). I would like to see a candidate with a true global perspective that respects all people and our troubled planet. anyone?? anyone?? Bueller??

Seriously, the DLC made their pact with corporate America and while the economy flourished and many people benefited, many were left behind and the war machine hardly slowed. How can we stop the train wreck? Is it even possible at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Don't you feel a little uncomfortable making such accusations without details?
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 10:26 PM by Harper_is_Bush
That's how the rightwing operates.

Not saying you're rightwing, but presumably you'd want to differentiate yourself from them.without detials?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
51. Hillary is not a decendent of Bill. She's his spouse, not his daughter
So I have always thought that the whole "dynasty" thing was kinda maybe not the best term for it if she wins.

Bush43 is the direct decendent of Bush41. So it Jeb. And Neil. And Marvin. And Dorothy

Jeb has a son, George Pierce Bush, looks like he'll be entering politics "when he makes a name for himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

Neil Bush has a son, Pierce, who looks well on his way to becoming a neocon asshole. He's being properly groomed, bred, educated, etc., looks like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Bush

So that's three generations worth of potential Bushiness running around, potentially five (!) Bushes serving up to 36 years as President. Throw in a run by Pickles and three other Bush spouses, and you get 68 years of potential Bush hell.


After Bill, there's only Hillary and Chelsea. Bill's brother Roger and Hill's two brothers Tony and Hugh are screwups of one sort of another and will probably never become politically viable. So unless Chelsea pushes out a litter of kids, I think we'll be free of the Clinton name in fairly short order one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
52. Another Republican/corporatist in the WH is the problem
it's not a 'legacy' issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. So, Clinton was a "Republican"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
55. A failure? No. But it looks better right now due to just..
how bad Bush is. I think Clinton was so stupid to have the Lewinsky scandal after all the abuse from the right wingers. That was just what they wanted. It makes me think he thought about himself too much. But foreign policy was much more reasonable with a couple exceptions, and there was more economic fairness. Who knows how much better it would have been without the Repukes' harassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
58. NAFTA, Rwanda, and Welfare Reform were my main problems with him...
He picked two good SCOTUS justices and otherwise had a pretty good record.

I don't consider Bill's record when I look at Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
60. I have a question as well. why only 2 names out of millions?
for so many years?
some fairy tale books say that anyone can grow up to be president.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. So what's your point? The fact that she shares her husbands name shoud act against her?
What?

Less emoticons and more sense would serve you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. George shared his fathers name as well.
It's All in The Family, Archie!!!

:rofl:
I kinda like emotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Ok, not going to answer. Oh well.
You're posts are fluff, but's that ok. Everyone needs a little fluff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. do you not find it odd, that Only Two Family Names
have ruled the world for so many years?

I do.
but I'm,...... fluffy.
and you are, ..... steely ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #68
72. "ruled the world".
Is that what you believe the USA is doing?


I don't have a problem with the Clinton name reaching the WH again. I don't believe it is a legitimate argument.

Argue/debate her policy and leadership ability. Beyond that, you're swiftboating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #60
69. Would you feel better if she went by Hillary Rodham? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. no.
are you suggesting she is not of the Clinton clan?
now if bill took on the name of Rodham, maybe that would be a different story. not likely tho. same FAMILY.

the name is carried on, the history is carried on. close quarters of rule.

why do I even have to try to explain this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
73. Bill isn't on the ballot this time. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
74. Yes, he was. What he "accomplished" was to enact the entire Republik agenda,
while claiming to be a democrat.

He talked about liberal causes, but accomplished fascism.

He took credit for the economy created by the boom of IT and the advent of the www, while ensuring that it would die here and be shipped overseas, just like his predecessors did with our manufacturing industries.

He was anathema to working Americans.

Sure, he compares favorably to the shrub, but then, so does a shrub.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
75. Ladies and gentlemen, the mind-blowingly awesome CLINTON RECORD...
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 07:46 AM by Perry Logan
The awesome Clinton record:

longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993

AGAINST TERRORISM

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html

ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. Launched pilot projects in low-income communities across the country to redevelop contaminated sites into useable space, create jobs and enhance community development.

President Bill Clinton sought permanent funding of $1.4 billion a year through the Lands Legacy initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide significant new resources to states and communities to protect local green spaces and protect ocean and coastal resources. Won $652 million for Lands Legacy in the FY 2000 budget, a 42 percent increase.

Launched effort to protect over 40 million acres of "roadless areas," which include some of America's last wild places. Dramatically improved management of our national forests with an ambitious new science-based agenda that places greater emphasis on recreation, wildlife and water quality, while reforming logging practices to ensure steady, sustainable supplies of timber and jobs. Balanced the preservation of old-growth stands with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities through the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Adopted a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other light-duty trucks, producing cars that are 77 percent cleaner -- and light-duty trucks up to 95 percent cleaner -- than those on the road today. Set new standard to reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline by up to 90 percent. Once fully implemented in 2030, these measures will prevent 43,000 premature deaths and 173,000 cases of childhood respiratory illness each year, and reduce emissions by the equivalent to removing 164 million cars from the road.

# Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. Defending the standards against legal assaults by polluters.

# Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as the previous two administrations, with cleanup of more than 90 percent of all sites either completed or in progress. Secured $1.4 billion in FY 2000 to continue progress toward cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by 2002.

# Providing Safe Drinking Water: Proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure that our families have healthy clean tap water. Required America's 55,000 water utility companies to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water.

# Established EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that provides grants to States to finance priority drinking water projects that meet Clean Water Act mandates. To date, the DWSRFs have provided $1.9 billion in loans to communities.

# Awarded nearly $200 million in Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and grants for over 100 safe drinking water projects in rural areas of 40 states. USDA grants and loans target rural communities plagued by some of the nation's worst water quality and dependability problems.

# Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communities from potentially dangerous microbes, including Cryptosporidium, in their drinking water.

# Ensuring Clean Water. Launched the Clean Water Action Plan to help clean up the 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways still too polluted for fishing and swimming. Secured $3.9 billion since 1998, a 16 percent increase, to help states, communities and landowners in reducing polluted runoff, enhancing natural resource stewardship, improving citizens' right to know, and protecting public health.

# Strengthening Communities' Right to Know. Strengthened the public's right to know about chemicals released into their air and water by partnering with the chemical industry and the environmental community in an effort to provide complete data on the potential health risks of the 2,800 most widely used chemicals. Nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to communities, while expanding the number of facilities that must report by 30 percent.

# Expanded the community right to know about releases of 27 persistent bio-accumulative toxins (including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs). These highly toxic chemicals are especially risky because they do not break down easily and are known to accumulate in the human body.

# Secured $83 million in FY 2000 for two major new efforts to restore salmon in the Pacific Northwest: $58 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which provides resources for states and tribes to protect and rebuild salmon stocks; and $25 million to implement the historic Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, which established two regional funds to improve fisheries management and enhance bilateral scientific cooperation between the two countries and provides funding to buy back fishing permits in Washington.

# Expanding Wildlife Refuges. Added 57,000 acres, including lands along the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River, to the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to protect salmon habitat in Washington.

# Forging Partnerships to Protect Habitat. Completed 255 major Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), compared to 14 before the Administration took office, to protect more than 20 million acres of private land and over 170 threatened and endangered species. These voluntary agreements protect habitat while providing landowners the certainty they need to effectively manage their lands.

# Strengthening Protections for Wildlife. Signed legislation that strengthens protections for wildlife by mandating that the most important use of our nation's wildlife refuges is giving refuge to migratory birds and other animals reliant on this rich system of natural habitat.

Protecting our Oceans and Coasts

# Creating Comprehensive Oceans Policy. Directed the development of key recommendations for strengthening federal oceans policy for the 21st century and appointed a high-level task force to oversee the implementation of those recommendations. Convened a National Ocean Conference in June 1998 that brought together government experts, business executives, scientists, environmentalists, elected officials and the public to examine opportunities and challenges in restoring and protecting our ocean resources.

# Strengthening Our National Marine Sanctuaries. Secured a funding increase of over 100% to better support national marine sanctuaries -- homes to coral reefs, kelp forests, humpback whales, and loggerhead turtles. Supporting the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions to explore, study and document ways to better protect underwater resources.

# Preserving Coral Reefs. Issued an Executive Order to expand protection of coral reefs and their ecosystems to address issues of coral reef management, expansion of marine protected areas and increased protections for coral reef species.

# Protecting Marine Mammals. Led negotiations resulting in a multilateral agreement to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Issued new standards to protect the endangered northern right whale from injuries from ships by instituting a first-ever ship reporting requirement in two areas of right whale critical habitat. Fought for creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an area of more than 12 million square miles off the coast of Antarctica.

# Banning Ocean Dumping of Toxic Waste. Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The U.S. was the first nuclear power to advocate the ban.

Introduced "Better America Bonds" to generate $10.75 billion in bond authority over five years to preserve open space, improve water quality and clean up abandoned and contaminated properties known as brownfields. Local communities can work together in partnerships with land trust groups, environmentalists, business leaders and others to develop innovative solutions to their community's development challenges.

# Provided leadership critical to successful negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.

# Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money. Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001, reducing emissions and reliance on imported oil.

# Growing Clean Energy Technologies. Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies, which can convert crops, trees and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and materials. Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons a year -- the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

# Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earth's climate system. This record research budget continues strong support for the "Carbon Cycle Initiative" begun last year to improve our understanding of the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed lands in capturing carbon.

# Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances. Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. The new standards will cut the average appliance's energy usage by 30 percent and save more than seven quadrillion BTUs of energy over the next 30 years, more than seven times the annual energy consumption of the entire state of Arkansas.

# Promoting federal Energy Efficiency. Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year. Forged new partnerships with industry to develop and promote energy-saving cars, homes and consumer products with the potential to save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills and significantly curb greenhouse gas pollution.
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/gore.html

PS: What about corruption?

Forget about it. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, Clinton's was the cleanest administration since Teddy Roosevelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
76. I don't understand this. Hillary is not Bill, Bill in his time and place
did a fantastic job. Hillary in her time and place offers ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
77. In retrospect, considering the so-called "free trade" deals,
I don't look on the Clinton years quite as happily anymore. Lewinsky means nothing to me, although I would not look forward to reliving the White Water, Travelgate, Christmas card mailing list, Vince Foster, stock market bonanza, etc., etc., etc., etc. faux scandals. Hillary needs to be set apart from Bill because it will be her presidency, not his. I'm certain she's smart enough, but I'm concerned it will be a continuation of government for the corporations and by the corporations. She's not nearly enough of a leftie for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC