I defended Hillary and her race baiting dirt bag husband throughout the 1990s despite my disagreements with their politics. I mostly kind of liked him. I appreciated the fact that they had ability and he could win elections. The stuff about his alleged values, etc. I am not so sure about. He did do good things on the earned income tax credit and other initiatives, but I'm not sure how much he really pressed the envelope.
AND, he was a huge cheerleader for globalization. I think that posture and the policies that flowed from it had a great deal to do with Nader's candidacy for president in 2000. I am still not particularly wrapped up in attacking globalization and my eyes roll back in my head when I hear terms such as Neo-liberalism. It does seem pretty obvious, however, that Clinton & Co. rode that horse too far.
He was an elegant campaigner when he was running on his own behalf. You did not see much of what we are seeing now. The big thing I remember is the Dole-Gingrich push for reduction in the rate of Medicare's growth which Clinton beat them over the head with, calling it a cut. That was probably fair anyway. I think I would view it as a cut. He certainly stopped bad things from becoming law.
This campaign is totally different. This is the worst Democratic primary contests that I can recall. What some Party insiders did to Howard Dean in Iowa was bad, but nothing like what we are seeing now.
I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any way to say this politely. The Clinton supporters remind me of people who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to face reality.
I do not want a candidate who is unwilling to defend themselves as our presidential candidate. I want someone who is tough. But, does that really mean that we need a ruthless group of race baiters and liars?
They've slimed, lied, distorted, sought deniability over and over and over again.
It has nothing to do with hatred.
It has to do with people who will stop at nothing to win. I mean, ok, they aren't going to kill anyone or break the law, but if they had to be honest during this process that would be a real problem for them.
So, what do voters do? How do they make decisions? Well, they do it the best they can. But, what happens to our political culture as a result of this conduct? What about the people inspired by Barack Obama? Do we really want to go down this road after ALL the disgusting things that have happened (say for the sake of argument, just in the US) since the Vietnam War? Malcolm X, MLK Jr., RFK, Gene McCarthy can't win so we get Humphrey against Nixon, Nixon destroyed Cambodia & in come the Khmer Rouge, Watergate, Iran-Contra(arms for hostages in Iran & illegal arms for Nicaraguan guerillas), Robert Bork nomination poisons judicial selection process, Bill Clinton is successful but viewed by right wing as symbol of 60s counterculture, Gingrich "Contract With America," Delay is even worse, Clinton impeachment greatly contributes to Red-Blue divide in USA, Gore and Kerry lose close elections amid sloppy and perhaps illegal management of voting procedures while 9/11 is employed as a tool for beating Democrats and destroying the careers of honorable people such as Max Cleland. Then, of course, there is another war, but this one is really, really dumb.
Amidst all this, do we really want to let the Clintons Say Anything, Do Anything campaign serve as the winning formula for 2008? Do we really want this smut, this obscene garbage to be our antidote to the 8 years of the Worst President in American History?
From my read over of the Hillary debate, I think UVA08 made some excellent points. I just wanted to do this riff here. It is not my problem or yours what Bill Clinton owes Hillary Clinton. This is our country and we should tell Bill to go f*** himself.
Responding to the negative ad, Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, accused the Clintons of using the "politics of deception," and he compared the former president to the late Lee Atwater, a Republican operative from South Carolina who was known for his tough tactics.
Bill Clinton compared to Lee Atwater, the master of slimeball politics, by a former chairman of the SC Democratic Party? Ouch.
Obama also had this to say about the GOP: "The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."The first issue is whether these statements are shameful apostasy or, as we see it, accurate analysis. Agree with his policies or not, Mr. Reagan's historical importance and effectiveness in office are hard to dispute -- in fact, Hillary Clinton doesn't disagree. Mr. Reagan, she told Tom Brokaw for his new book, "Boom!," "played the balance and the music beautifully." Mr. Clinton deserves more credit for reorienting the thinking of the Democratic Party than Mr. Obama gave him, and perhaps Mr. Obama was playing up his centrist credentials to a conservative editorial board, but his overall assessment was accurate.
The second matter is the Clinton campaign's repeated distortion of Mr. Obama's remarks. In the debate, Ms. Clinton accused Mr. Obama of saying "that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years," adding, "Now, I personally think they had ideas, but they were bad ideas. . . . They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt." In fact, there is nothing in the record that suggests that Mr. Obama supports any of those positions. As Mr. Obama explained, "What I said had nothing to do with their policies . . . what I did say is that we have to be thinking in the same transformative way about our Democratic agenda."
That didn't stop the Clinton campaign, which went up with a new radio ad yesterday quoting Mr. Obama out of context. "Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?" Ms. Clinton knows they're not. In fact, on policy grounds, the two candidates are extremely close, which makes the nomination fight in part about character and judgment. This episode does not speak well for Ms. Clinton's.
Again, ouch!
The only really good ideal was from Newt and how to win the congress and they messed that up after 2000.
Can any Democrat honestly say that from 1993 till now the Republicans had GOOD ideals. As far as I am concerned they had BAD ideals.
True, Reagon moved this country forward, but was it a good forward. Well that depends on what side of the coin the individual stands on.
With Reagon and the Bush's, the rich got richer and the middle class and poor got poorer. And under Clinton there was a slow down to Reagon and the Bush family.
Obama can court the Republicans and Independants all he wants, but to do it by distorting the record is another story. And these news stories keep adding fuel to the fire. I know the Clintons can take care of themselves, but can Obama,without some of his backers distorting the issue with Racism.
Now I know you are just tryng to give us all sides of the story, so this is not an attack on you. I am just getting your attention by using your name.
The Clintons play dirty when they feel threatened. But we knew that, didn't we?The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.
The problem is not Hillary Clinton per se or the sharp exchanges and personal accusations that squeamish political reporters deplore. That's what politics is always about. Tough, even nasty conflict is educational, also entertaining. Politics ain't beanbag, as Mark Shields likes to say.
The one-two style of Clintons, however, is as informative as low-life street fighters. Mr. Bill punches Obama in the kidney and from the rear. When Obama whirls around to strike back, there stands Mrs. Clinton, looking like a prim Sunday School teacher and citing goody-goody lessons she learned from her 135 years in government.
Looks like the Clintons are generating a major backlash among Democrats, liberals, lots of people. The questions is, how strong will this backlash get before Tsunami Tuesday on 2/5. Also, will it be sufficient, in and of itself, to derail Hillary Clinton's drive for the nomination. We'll see soon enough...
Because of the race and gender issues this campaign has a dynamic different than any other and the Clintons don't understand that, or are too arrogant to. What the Clinton's actions tell you is that they think if Hillary wins the nomination that blacks people will just get in line behind the white person and forget about all this like good serfs. But I think the Clinton's are very wrong about this. I think this stuff will not be forgotten. I know more than one Dem who will not vote for president at all if Clinton is the nominee.
I think if the Clintons had their druthers that Bill would have maintained a relatively low profile throughout the primary. The 3rd place finish though in Iowa gave them a bit of a "reality check" that the dream could be over. Since then they have literally pulled out all of the stops.
I definitely don't think that the Clintons are being paid covertly by Republicans, but I do think that they studied the Bush/Gore 2000 change election and have taken some of the lessons to heart about scorched earth politics (i.e. making the political battle one of the party bases and doing everything possible to alienate independent voters).
Narrator: "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama."The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
"But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA -- even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq.
"Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing.
"It's time to turn the page."
Obama said almost the exact words Hillary accused him of saying, "the first time".
Since then he has rechanted his words and came out with a new dialog. NEW dialogs do not change the originial statment.
No one believes Hillary when she gives her explanation of her vote for the WAR, but we are suppose to believe Obama when he changes his original statement. That is Bull.
What I keep hearing from the Media is exactly what Bill said yesterday.
"You got your story line and fight and you do not give a darn about the voter."