We Miss Bill

By: Josh
Published On: 5/13/2006 10:03:18 AM

Americans now overwhelmingly long for the days when we had an intelligent, confident, competent, leader in the White House.


Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

For most Americans 2008 can't come fast enough.

Comments



Bring Back Bill Clinton (Ingrid - 5/13/2006 10:13:10 AM)
George Bush sent the troops o’er the ocean
George Bush sent the troops o’er the sea
He set all this madness in motion
Oh, bring back Bill Clinton to me

Bring back, bring back, oh bring back Bill Clinton to me
Bring back, bring back, oh bring back Bill Clinton to me.

Bush said our troops would get protection
With armor for every Humvee
His armor was plywood and cardboard
Oh, bring back Bill Clinton to me

etc...

Courtesy of The Freedom Toast.



Sing it with me!!! (Josh - 5/13/2006 10:21:24 AM)
Now the Democrats!!!

Now the Republicans!!!

Everybody now!



I am turning this (Ingrid - 5/13/2006 10:35:00 AM)
into a danceable salsa tune for both Democratic and Republican salseros.  Heck, we may even play it at the next Arlington County Fair, at TJ Community Center.  My band plays at 3:30pm on Saturday, August 19.


Don't Bring Back Bill! (KathyinBlacksburg - 5/13/2006 10:48:25 AM)
Bill Clinton was the president we needed at the time.  He was a good president.  And we were certainly better off during his presidency than that of George W. Bush.  But, neither was Bill a hero, nor right for today.  Much of what was packaged as Clintonism's (triangulation, as some say) success, has been over-interpreted though. The majority of Americans like(d) him and felt better off then.  That doesn't mean that everything he did or proposed was best for America. We should learn the right lessons from the Clinton era (more on this later) and discard the wrong lessons.  And one of the wrong lessons is believing that Republican-lite is really a position.  The fact that voters tend not to know what Democrats stand for is one of the Clinton era legacies as well.

Finally, "Billary" (or rather Hillary plus Bill) would be wrong, wrong wrong for 2008.  The Financial Times (Read it here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1ec9d26e-e21d-11da-bf4c-0000779e2340.html)ran a story indicating Rupert Murdoch is giving a fundraiser for Hillary this summer.  Need I say more?  As I have said elsewhere, we need the Democratic antidote to Hillary and we need it (him or her) now!

Kathy
www.demodcracyupsidedown.blogspot.com



My criticism of Clinton is simpler (Josh - 5/13/2006 10:56:08 AM)
He failed to build the Democratic party and left it weak and cowering in the face of the mounting conservative movement and its $300 M a year thinktank/messaging/"leadership" development/scream machine.

If Bill had focused more on building the party, the 2000 election wouldn't have been close.  Instead, he chose to bow to the will of mounting reactionary blowback and Gerrymandered Old Party hegemony.

Bill was excellent because he walked the line, but that's also why America suffers under Bush and his Corrupt congress today.



Missing Bill? (KathyinBlacksburg - 5/13/2006 11:02:35 AM)
Hi, Josh:  You are right that he did leave the party weakened.  He did so, in part by his personal failures, but in larger measure by his party-building (or lack thereof) failure. 

However, I'll repeat that things were still a lot better for Americans then than now.

PS.  Here's another link about Hillary making nice with Rupert (attending Anniversary party for FAUX News).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5395432



Bill was the leader for the time (Rebecca - 5/13/2006 2:55:26 PM)
Every leader arises from the need of the people, or from what has or not been engineered by the people. In Clinton's time there was no netroots movement. He carried on some bad foreign policies, but did well with the economy. He did some pandering, but the old Democratic modes were becoming irrelevant anyway.(For instance, how is a strike effective against outsourcing?i.e. How can you strike if you have no job?)

Now that the old Democratic order has emploded it is time to build a new movement from the ground up. That's what the Democratic party should be anyway.

To preserve democracy we must fight to save the internet from those who are intent on locking out the average person from the decision-making process. If we fail at that we will forever live with politics from the top down, without any real choices.

We also need to take back the airwaves. The public owns them and has from the beginning, but big business has somehow convinced us that we do not own them. Next thing you know they will be telling us they own the air and our first-borns (I have no kids, but you get what I mean.).

We will not go gently into the night of fascism.



IX-NAY to Hillary (Rebecca - 5/13/2006 2:58:05 PM)
Read some info on Hillary on the front page at http://www.dfa-fairfax.com. We have the account of the reception at Fox News as well as an article about Hillary by Markos Moulitsas from Daily Kos. He says she cares nothing about the grassroots.


Hillary supports offshore outsourcing/worker replacement (Info_Tech_Guy - 5/13/2006 3:10:34 PM)
Hillary Clinton receives financial support from TATA Consulting Services (TCS) a large Indian information technology outsourcing firm which uses imported "business visa" low wage workers in the U.S. and has a large Indian base of operations for all work that can be moved out of the U.S. TATA was a member company of Harris Miller's pro-outsourcing group, the ITAA lobby.

Hillary has attempted to appear opposed to offshore outsourcing when it seemed politically advantageous but she has consistently supported expansion of "business visa" programs (annual limits of foreign workers being permitted into the U.S.). She is considered a reliable supporter of offshore outsourcing and the use of foreign low wage replacement workers. She has done nothing in the Senate to challenge the present job loss and worker replacement paradigm.