Is it time for the Democratic Party to divorce itself from the Clintons?

[kentuck]

Their time has come and gone. We had a great economy under them. Most people agree that Bill Clinton did a great job as President.

However, as a Party, we lost tremendously. The "triangulation" strategy of Dick Morris did great harm to our Party. We lost the the Governors, the state houses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and finally, the White House. Was that Clinton's fault? To a large degree, yes.

Now, we still have the hangers-on that believe they can somehow return to the "glory days" of the Clintons. But, they have gone. We need to rebuild our Party with a new message and a new strategy and new voices. It's best we put the Clinton years behind us.

[xkenx]

1. Agreed! And Hillary,

we know Bill Clinton, and you're no Bill Clinton.

[leetrisck]

2. Yea - full speed ahead with the bush family

Peace & prosperity - what the hell? We should get rid of them. I think not.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Hilary is more valuable in the Senate, IMO

[papau]

4. No - I like the old message- this time with single payer National Health

"triangulation" is the only way we win so as to get progressive programs and fair taxes - both in rates and in what kind of income is taxed (as Bush tries to end all taxation of 90% of the income of the rich - namely tax on "savings interest/dividendeds/cap. gains" - forgetting that study after study shows the rich just move assets to non-taxable - there is no gain in savings)

[Loonman]

5. No way in hell will Hil get the presidency

She is viewed as way too power-hungry as her insincere run the the center has indicated. most folks plain don't trust her. Including myself.

[SaveElmer]

6. Absolutely not...

Real smart move...cut off ties with our most successful politicians!!

Hillary IMO is the best candidate we have in 2008, and in my opinion will win!

[xultar]

7. Yeah, you know what Fuckem we don't need them. As a matter of fact

We don't need any of the current candidates.

Let's divorce ourselves of all the mutherfuckers right now.

PURGE PURGE PURGE.


What is it you white folk don't like about the Clintons that us Black folk do.

If you ever want to keep the black vote you better keep the Clintons. We love them. I love them.

[OKNancy]

13. LOL

:rofl:

:yourock:

[BL611]

55. It has nothing to do with the fact

that most white middle class "liberals" stick to their utopian visions of the world because they have never had to face the realities of the world not being perfect, and are much more happy with the psychic satisfaction of their utopian "integrity", then making the compromises necessary for the real world gains that actually HELP MAKE PEOPLES LIVES BETTER. Nope thats not it at all...

[bluedawg12]

63. Why are you attacking liberals?

Calling liberals utopian and unrealistic about the real world sounds awfully like what I read from the right wing?

[BL611]

65. Notice the quotation marks around liberal

I was not attacking liberals, but people who call themselves liberals whose utopianism is resoundingly against what liberalism stands for, these people give fodder to the right wing....

[Outer_Limit]

70. This Black man doesn't love Clinton

And I know plenty of other black folk that don't love him as well

[BigYawn]

81. You are right Xultar, Clinton was the first BLACK president n/t

[billbuckhead]

8. Clinton's are stronger than the Dem party

Sadly, the Dems stand for nothing.

[AntiCoup2K4]

37. It's the DLC that stands for nothing

Because they "stand" for the same exact neocon corporatist treason agenda that the repukelicans do. And Hillary is the poster child for that mentality.

[AmericanDream]

74. What do the clintons stand for? Corporate money?

[Lasher]

9. Bill Clinton is still the most popular Democrat

At least he is our most effective fundraiser, from what I've read.

But I've been thinking it might be a mistake if Hillary or Al Gore were to run for president. I think it would be smarter to bring in a fresh face. Someone who would condemn the invasion of Iraq, and promise to get completely out in 1 year or less. Someone who would criticize Dubya's economic record for what it is: stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

[OKNancy]

10. Since the Democratic party is made up of DEMOCRATS

the Democrats will have to decide if there will be a "divorce".
I really doubt the majority of Democrats feel that way.

[calico1]

11. Yes, by all means.

I spit on the Clintons! Bah! What did they ever do for this country anyway? :sarcasm:

[mike_c]

12. yes....

Note that Bush ran against Clinton primarily on "integrity" issues, i.e. he ran as the anti-Clinton. One reason for that is that with the exception of tax cuts for the wealthy and environmental policy, Bush and Clinton share much of their essential visions for American leadership and where they want America to go. They differ on how to get there, but again, with the exception of tax and environmental policy Bush did not rush in and "undo" much of the Clinton legacy-- it just wasn't that different from his vision. Bush didn't offer a completely different set of alternatives in other areas. We need liberals who will do that, not a rehash of the 90s.

[kentuck]

14. Let's all hold hands with the Bushes...

and try to justify this criminal now in power - it's best we not be partisan about this - we should befriend the Bushes...

[emulatorloo]

15. Get real -- if you want a scapegoat look at Rove and his ilk

and the right wing echo machine which distorts what Dems are about and gets people to vote against their best interests by spreading FUD about Dems and hyping up BS "Social" issues.

[Festivito]

16. You think it was Clintonism more than the Fairness Doctrine?

Clinton never had the control Bush had. The Dem Congress, when he began, grudgingly supported him only after he cajoled them to pass his ideas. Two years later, Republicans took over.

I saw Republicans take over based on the repetative lies they reinforced with each other. Lies that went unchallenged, and are still repeated today.

The unchallenged repetitions resulted from no AAR, no fairness, and NPR that was villified, infultrated, and now controlled ... not from Clintonism.

Using the Clinton name is not for some principle. We should just check the polls and make it a business decision.

[kentuck]

17. Clinton had Democratic House and Senate when he came in...

He could have reinstated the Fairness Doctrine... But what did he do? He signed that great piece of Democratic legislation, the TeleCommunications Bill. Remember?

[Festivito]

66. He had an unsteady Dem Congress. And, Tele bill was in '96.

As I said before, Clinton had to pull Dems together in 93 & 94. Election cycle '94 saw the RepubliCON takeover. Clinton did not have free reign.

We see being cutthroat as normal now. It wasn't then. Jumping in and changing policy of Fairness seems obvious when we look back with 20/20 vision and see that he'd only have two years contentious as they were. Clinton wanted to rule benevolently.

As he proved himself, especially with his economic package, there would have been plenty of time to change such things. But, '94 said that his actions brought no communicatory fruit. The drone of Limbaugh overrode reality.

The idea was to let the RW lie itself into oblivion. But, people kept buying it. Then it was too late for the Fairness Doctrine.

Now, finally, more CONs are NOT buying it any longer.

Clinton's starting to look good.

Not just because the CONNED now see the past more clearly over time, add that they have forgotten why they hated him. They just need a way to save face and say that Clinton had an achilles heel, but otherwise did fairly well. And not object if someone else says that he was freakin' fantastic.

We should not have, only, to talk nicely about cocaine nose eunichs who snorted away their libidos.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

41. Right! There is that reality thing

that even Presidents have to deal with.

I believe there are consequences to some things like CAFTA and the media consolidation that weren't anticipated and not welcome.

Don't ask, don't tell was the best he could do given the congress and the attitudes in the nation.

It was one step. It was better than Ask, tell, kick out.

I believe there has been a shift closer to acceptance of gays in American life that wouldn't have come about without Clinton's policy.

I'd guess I'm as liberal as most here, but I recognize that change is often slow and grueling.

Trying to split the party into moderates and left wing is not going to help us win elections. Even if it did, it would only be a swing to the opposite extreme which would most likely be short-lived.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. I know you're not a Freeper, but you sure do post a lot of RW talking pts.

[IndianaGreen]

20. No, it's the DLC that uses RW talking points

always berating liberals and war opponents.

[Village Idiot]

21. Why do you keep posting stuff like this?

"I know you're not a Freeper, but..."


Last time I saw it, you were violently opposed to the use of ellipses in posts, now you seem to be against freedom of speech...

I know you are not an asshole, but...

Actually, I only SUSPECT you are not (you are here, at DU, after all), BUT you certainly seem to post a lot of $hit...

What is it about people expressing themselves freely that seems to piss you off so much?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. "violently", "asshole", "piss", "$hit": I think you doth protest too much.

[Village Idiot]

32. Shh...don't "out" me here...

[welshTerrier2]

30. ellipses in posts

i can't believe anyone would be opposed to the ellipses ... the ellipses is a reflection of how we think ... it allows for the possibility that there is more than was written ... it allows the thought to go beyond even when the writing ends ...

the ellipses is the road not taken ...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. ne1 cAN nvnt theyre pwn |_4|\|G|_|4G3 iF tHEY dun care 2B unnerst00d

Anyone can invent their own language if they don't care to be understood, or understood clearly, or understood easily.

Ellipses are used to indicate a long pause or sentences trailing off or words omitted. In the post that this replies to, ellipses have been used to replace full stops and not used for the expected purposes. Using ellipses instead of a single full stop (period) to mark the simple end of a sentence is at best an affectation and at worst a misuse of English.

Thoughtful writers, who write for their readers instead of for themselves, write for maximum clarity. People are free to use quirky mannerisms in writing and people are free to comment on the quirky mannerisms.

[jobycom]

47. Ellipses are also used to imply trust in a reader

A writer also uses ellipses to imply to the reader that the reader already knows the rest of the story, and the writer therefore doesn't feel it necessary to waste time and words on a point the reader already understands, thus insulting the reader as well as writing too much.

Ellipses used thus are especially useful on discussion boards such as this, where points are frequently repeated, and thus not always necessary to reassert.

In a similar way, ellipses invite the reader to finish a thought for themselves, when the writer is implying that his statements have more than one possible outcome. A writer tells a reader that the reader is trusted to draw his or her own conclusions, either because the conclusions are open to debate, or because agreement on the conclusions aren't necessary for the rest of what the writer wants to relate.

And then, of course, there is always the sex angle. Ellipses are another way to "yadayadayada" over sex. "We went back the apartment and..." Probably the most famous litarary use of this is in "The Marguise of O," in which Klein not only ellipses over a sex scene, but leaves the wholse scene a mystery for the rest of the book through the simple use of an ellipse.

Having said all that, I think you're right. There are way too many ellipses on discussion boards and in literature. People do use them as a substitute for a clear statement at times. But you know, what are you going to do? Require perfect grammar and cohesion in posts?

Neat discussion. Way off topic, but... What the Hell.

[stubtoe]

19. No way I could take another 4 or 8 years of witchhunt investigations.

Anybody looking forward to two more terms worth of Ken Starr?

[jobycom]

23. The only way to avoid that is to vote Republican

Because they will do the same thing to any Democrat we elect. Republicans can't win on message, so they go after the person directly, and make up stories when there aren't any there.

[stubtoe]

29. Point taken.

They did a pretty good hatchet job on Kerry and Gore.

[jobycom]

35. You don't know the half of it.

Ann Richards, Garry Mauro, Ron Kirk. Go back to the father's senate run in 1970, and you can add Ralph Yarborough. They even did it to McCain and Reagan during primary runs. It's the family MO.

[stubtoe]

40. Still, there seems to be a special hatred reserved for Hillary.

It's almost cosmic in scope, on the right. Goes past the BFEE, at least I think so.

You're correct jobycom. Any Dem who dares to run (and win) will be viciously savaged before, during and after the election. It's a new standard of politics, I guess.

[jobycom]

42. The reason they hate Hillary is because they are afraid she would win

Would they bother bashing her like this if she weren't a threat? They don't bother with Al Gore or John Kerry or Carol Mosley Braun or even Jesse Jackson anymore, even though they hate them just as much.

They know Hillary can win. That's why they attack her. Same reason they attack Dean--not that Dean can win the presidency, but that as DNC chair he could win back a lot of Congressional seats.

These guys don't waste their time. They go after those who can hurt them. If they are bothering to create smears, they have a reason for it. They are terrified Hillary will get elected and they'll be faced with eight more years of unassailable prosperity.

I'm not saying Hillary would win or have those results, but that's their fear.

[jobycom]

22. Yep, time for the Rodham era!!

Okay, not what you meant, is it? :-)

I partially agree. The Dems for too long have been trying to win by doing what they used to do to win, especially in terms of strategy. We need to move past that.

I don't agree that means giving up everyone in the party who was part of the old system, nor does it mean some fictional "return to our roots." It means looking at the problems we face now, and developing a progressive theory to answer those problems in a way that will get us where we want to be.

One big argument, of course, is where do we want to be? Part of our problem has been not having a clear message to that question. Clinton did, and that's a big reason he won. Gore did, but it was muddled by constant attacks, and by Gore altering it slightly every time he met with resistance. Kerry did, but his, too was muddled, and seemed more of a return to the past than a plan for the future.

So I agree with you that we need to move forward based on where we are now.

On the other hand, there are basic principles that make us Democrats that should shape that vision of the future. I don't mean specifics like guns or abortion, I mean big things like equality, quality of life, jobs--a focus on all people, not just on the rich (or the poor).

So I think the people of the past, specifically Hillary and Gore, as examples, can help us get there, but not by clinging to the past glories. Also, some things that worked with Clinton might still work now. We don't need to abandon ideas or people or experience just because we feel like moving on. That's how parties lose purpose and direction.

I also don't believe we can win be running far to the left. The only way mathematically to win is by convincing over half the voters to vote for us. We have to pry them away from the middle. Doesn't mean our candidate should campaign in the middle--it means he or she should make appeals to the middle from their position on the left.

And don't anyone start up with the myth that half of eligible voters don't vote, and that the number of disaffected voters is growing, and we should therefore get those voters and win. First off, those numbers are largely debunked--eligible voters vote now in about the same percentages they've always voted. And anyway, the overwhelming majority of non-voters I know are conservative libertarian types, not disaffected liberals. Nader showed how many disaffected liberals we could get out to vote. Buchanan showed it for the other side. The votes are in the middle.

[applegrove]

24. Why? Because they raise more money than any other Dem - in comparison

with Repukes? And they will be crossing the coutry seperately raising money for all Dems during 2006?

Karl? Is that you?:rofl:

[MadHound]

26. Hear, hear, no more corporate whores no matter what their political stripe

And quite frankly, that is all that Bill was, a corporate whore. One need look no further than NAFTA, the '96 Telecom Act, his actions with the IMF, and welfare reform to see how he ponied up for the money for Corporate America, while leaving the rest of us in the ditch.

And meanwhile, his wife not only supported the Iraq war, but continues to do so, voting for every war funding bill to come down the pike. This we do not need.

Quite frankly the Democrats should reject any candidate who takes corporate cash, but somehow I doubt that will come to pass, at least not in '08.

[sui generis]

27. We need candidates that have broad appeal to the base

and the base is not light pink democrats or "conservative" democrats.

As a democrat I sure as hell don't want a mush mouth candidate - I don't want "don't ask don't tell" policies, and I don't want a candidate who feels she has to reach out to fundamentalists by saying she doesn't support same sex marriage.

It's absolutely clear to me this year that I WILL NOT VOTE for a candidate who can't win on REAL moral values, such as equal rights for ALL Americans, and Hillary so far is not that candidate.

I like her as a politician, but not for president. If the DLC shoves her (or another Kerry again) down my throat and takes my vote for granted, I will vote for the candidate I want this year instead of the one THEY want, and that's a promise, because their plan didn't work last time and my vote for a candidate who doesn't fully support my equal rights didn't make a difference anyway.

[400Years]

28. Bill and Hillary are both just Repub Lite

She's a warmonger and he supported NAFTA.

[Rowdyboy]

31. DU divorced the Clintons (largely) a long time ago....

However, DU is not the Democratic party. Their position within the party at large is safe and secure. While Hillary is considered a veritable demoness here, she's held in high regard by the party as a whole.

The Democratic led congress of 1992-1994 was pathetic. Each disparate interest group demanded that it have its own way. Congress refused to work with the White House, or offer any substantive support. Clinton was forced to use every ounce of political capital he had trying to get a decent budget passed, and then it only passed by one vote. The ethical offenses of Speaker Jim Wright and the check writing scandal also hurt. Certainly, Clinton did nothing to help matters by giving Hillary charge or health care, and she did herself little good with her handling of the issue. However, in the end, the Democrats in congress were primarily responsible for their own defeat. The Clintons were just the focal point.

Don't misunderstand. Hillary is way down my list of preferred candidates for 2008. But I only reflect my vote. I fear that far too many people are guided primarily by name recognition.

[William769]

33. No!

It's the Clintons that will help save the Democratic party.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

34. No. n/t

[adwon]

36. Clinton did all that?

Silly me, I thought it was the disgust over things like the House banking scandal, Dan Rostenkowski, and the fact that, after 60 years of dominance, Democrats had grown fat and lazy. Not to mention the fact that, at the end of the Cold War, ruling parties all over the world were tossed out of government.

While I'll agree that new faces and voices are necessary, I wouldn't try to purge Bill just yet. He's not as good an example as FDR or Truman in terms of the Democratic legacy, but he is much more recent and available. Yes, some people will always hate him (though I suspect the haters feel that way due to envy), but many more will look back at his admin with the knowledge that the country was on the right track with him at the helm. Plus, the guy was president. With the exception of Hoover and Nixon, nobody just tosses ex-presidents to the side.

[tularetom]

39. Clinton is like Replublicans in many ways

And he played the sleazy corporate fund raising game better than any of them. I believe if he had run as a repub they would already be putting his face on Mt rushmore. The reason the repubs seem to have a special hatred for him is that they were jealous of his political skills. They knew he was the ultimate politician and couldn't find anybody to match him. But bottom line he has always been more interested in his own fortunes not the country as a whole.

Before you start flaming, I don't think this is necessarily bad. His self interest and his excellent power to sense trends led him often to do the right thing for the country. Unfortunately it sometimes led him away from doing the right thing.

On balance I liked him as pres because he pissed off the lunatic fringe so bad. As a politician there isn't his equal in the US today certainly not in the dem party. Hillary definitely is not. And remember you can't govern if you can't get elected. So I'd be real reluctant to write him off as a campaigner for whoever is nominated, even though I want to puke when I see him on TV suckin up to Poopy Boosh.

[Armstead]

43. Not a Divorce -- But a civil removal from dominance would be helpful

Bill Clinton was an unusually skilled politician.

However the strategy that allowed him to succeed as a President personally is also a strategy that in lesser hands has been very damaging for both the Democratic Party and for the nation as a whole.

You can't make the liberal party an extension of the same interests and values as the GOP. It has both robbed us of a real two-party system, and allowed the interests of average Americans to be trampled underfoot.

We need a new center of gravity for the Democratic Party.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

46. Again, I believe we won the last 2

elections, but they were stolen.

Given that, we're not doing so badly that we have to totally revise what we're doing and get into this sustained infighting within the party.

Clinton had the great advantage of winning after 12 years of Repub Presidents. He has charisma.

As someone said, Clinton is loved by many African Americans, as well as by many people around the world.

I believe that if a candidate of your choosing came to power as President, you would either find yourselves being very critical or some other people doing so.

And with some valid arguments.

Why? Because first nobody is perfect, and second in governing there is always going to have to be compromise. Unless you are like the neocons who don't even allow any Dems to have a voice at all in so many aspects of what goes on in Congress.

Criticizing is easy.

If ya'll wanna flame, not much I can do.

But this is my honest opinion.

[Armstead]

53. Clinton has charisma -- But that's not a platform for a party

If you look at the roots of many of the Bush-era scandals and problems, many had their genesis in the Clinton era and his policies.

Enron did quite well under Clinton and privatization and deregulation. Remember much talk about reining in the energy companies when Clinton was president?

Healthcare got immeasurably worse in the 1990's, even though Clinton was elected in large part on a promise to make healthcare more affordable and universally accessible.

Oursourcing, loss of good American jobs, etc? Remember how "free trade" and corporate style globaization was touted by the Clinton administration?

I could go on, but that's the general point. Under Clinton we fiddled while the fires that have become the burning of Rome were being fanned. We need to stop being part of the problem and start being part of a REAL alternative solution to this.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

64. Genesis, a beginning

"Clinton has charisma -- But that's not a platform for a party"

Wow, you learn something every day. :sarcasm:

As for the "root" of the current scandals, having a beginning (genesis as you say) at another time and place in a different administration doesn't prove a whole lot, even if it is true.

Times change, people's perspective's change as new facts or circumstance emerge.

So you want to be a part of a real solution. So be it.

So much energy is expended in fighting within the party, I wonder how much energy will be left for fighting outside the party. And I wonder how fractured the party will be as the anti-Clinton drum beat begun by the vast right wing conspiracy is taken up by some left wing Democrats (only some as I too am a left wing Democrat).

I recall all too well when the infighting was a huge political problem for Democrats and then we were losing elections, vs them being stolen as they have been recently.

That is a road I don't want to see us embark upon again.

[flpoljunkie]

44. Chris Lehane calls Hillary a "Dem Maggie Thatcher" from today's ABC's Note

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

In a two-page insert, CQ Weekly pooh-poohs the chances of many other potential Republican '08ers.

The Allen boomlet has left at least one Democratic strategist feeling sanguine about how the junior senator from Virginia would match up against the junior senator from New York.

"The presidential campaign is like an NFL game," Chris Lehane told The Note. "It is all about match-ups. And while Allen may have the NFL pedigree, he will be a great match-up for HRC."

"Eight years of corruption and incompetence take their toll. . . and while I don't see the Democrats winning a majority in 2006 (unless the current scandal runs as deep and high as it could potentially go) — I do see HRC as a candidate who can run as a strong leader — a Democratic Maggie Thatcher — and who can leverage the general feeling that the Clinton-Gore years were, if nothing else, very competent."

"George Allen will be George Bush without the brains or the fig leaf of compassion. . . a Confederate flag-waving, tobacco chewing, Bob Jones stumping, Bin Laden missing, economy dumping, Schiavo diagnosing, country dividing right winger at a time when the public will be looking for someone who will be a strong leader, non-partisan, capable of making the right choices for the country, and tough on national security and right on the economy. . . And HRC will make that character match-up."

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

48. LeHane is a peddler of dirt, somewhat like

rovererer.

[TumorSupressor]

45. Something has cause them to become

Corprotists. The DLC is not the progressive movements friend.

[Larkspur]

49. I never married the Clintons to begin with..

I was never enamored of Bill Clinton and neither was my Mom who saw him as the philander that he is. My Mom and I didn't vote for him in the 1992 primaries. We did vote for him in 1992 because Bush One was bad.

I never encountered Clintonmania until I moved to Connecticut.

Hillary will follow Lyndon Johnson's path. She may win the Dem nomination and 2008 election, but she'll be a one-termer, especially if she insists on sending more troops into Iraq.

[Bridget Burke]

50. No.

Bill Clinton was elected President as a Democrat. Hilary was elected Senator as a Democrat.

There were good parts & bad aspects to the Clinton years. But things have gotten so much worse since then.

How, exactly, did Clinton make us "lose" Governors, state housees, etc.? In Texas, Karl Rove & Tom DeLay did the dirty work.

[sendero]

51. I don't know about that..

.... but I do get frustrated at those who think Hillary is Bill II. She's not, she is not a charismatic speaker, she is not someone who can show empathy, she is not many of the things that made Bill successful.

I suppose that Bill would be running her campaign to some extent, so that has to be worth something, stillI just cannot get excited by Hillary no matter how hard I try. She is bland, she is insipid, and just because the right hates her that doesn't mean she's the ultimate candidate by any stretch of the imaginiation - after all the right is so smart they put a dumbass figurehead at the top and look how he's turned out.

[Ignacio Upton]

52. Yes and no

No because I believe that Hillary should continue to remain a powerful force in the Senate. She is my Senator, I feel that she is doing a good job for New Yorkers. On the other hand, I do not want her to run for President, mainly because I do not like the idea of a Monarchy or having two families switch between the Presidency. Also, I'm not crazy about her stance on the War in Iraq, as she has only criticized Bush when asked to do so and occasionally.

[mandyky]

54. After listening to Scott Ritter last night

I'd say it is long past due!

[Q]

56. Answer:

Yes.

[ChiciB1]

57. I'm With You & This Bus Has To Be Stopped!!

Hillary is not the person to lead us ANYWHERE!!!

I've said it before, but just think. We had Bush, then Clinton-Clinton, now Bush-Bush...TELL ME WHY we need to keep TWO families in control of America???

This IS NOT going to WORK!! Regardless of 2006 elections and what focus NEEDS to be put on them, it's also important to start NOW to stop MSM from cramming Hillary down our gullets!!

Every poll that comes out shows HER on TOP!! I say NO!! Democrats need NEW BLOOD all around!

Go Johnny Go!!

[truthisfreedom]

58. ever heard "they eat their own"?

think about what you're saying.

[ladjf]

59. Yes. The only agenda that bill and hillary have is the "clinton

agenda". I don't believe that they care a damn about America's best interest. (IMHO)

[bluedog]

60. rather have a Clinton than a Jeb Bush or Rice

think about it...................

[bluedawg12]

61. How about some serious choices? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

77. I rather have a Wes Clark ten times over the Clinton sleaze

I may have some policy differences with Clark, but sleaze is not something that he can be accused of having.

[Skidmore]

62. Yes. UInless they want to go to counseling and work on

changing a bit.

It is time to move on. Frankly, I don't want a dynasty from either party. Shoot, hasn't this country learned anything from the * travesty?

[Catherine Vincent]

67. No!

[The Great Deceiver]

68. Not to mention Hillary's most egregious crime

The opportunistic pro-war vote. It's a shame.

[The Great Deceiver]

69. Not to mention Hillary's most egregious crime

The opportunistic pro-war vote. It's a shame.

[mitchum]

71. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robbins]

72. Clintons

Bill Clinton was the right man In 1992 however he let the DLC take control of the party,and I can never forgive him for NAFTA,and the
Wellfare reform bill of 1996. Untill Bill Clinton stops hanging
around with Bush,and supporting the Iraq War he doesn't speak for true Democrats. As for Hillary tell me one time as Senator she stood
with the rank and file democrats against Bush. She wants to send
100,000 more troops to Iraq,and suuports actions against Syria!
Not only that but the question remains did they pressure Gore not to
run In 2004,and work to get Dean defeated In the Primarys? After the
election Bill Clinton sure was well enough to go make a lot of speeches. Untill a nominee Is choosen Dean Is the leader of the party,and If Democrats want to end the regin of Bush first we need a
Democratic Congress In 2006,and In 2008 we need a real Democrat.
Feingold,Clark,or Even Warner would fit the bill. Hilary,Biden,and
Bayh will not fit the bill. Kerry Is better than Hilary.

[AmericanDream]

73. It's long overdue!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[barb162]

75. No, both are too popular

and beside that, they are basically good Democrats

[IndianaGreen]

78. Ask the people of Colombia about Clinton's Plan Colombia

or the Serbians, or the Iraqis. Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years in order to soften it for a future invasion. Shall we mention the Balkans, or his bombing of Sudan? Shall we mention SOA?

Replacing one war criminal with a war crimes enabler, which is what that woman Hillary is, is not my idea of change.

[barb162]

82. I see no problem with what we did in the Balkans , which was

very little. It was basically a European action to try to get things stabilized there, what with the ethnic cleansing and all. I liked the Clintons in certain respects, such as their trying to get in national health insurance, working toward reducing the deficit, etc

[dolstein]

76. Clinton's scum, but he's still the best president we've had since LBJ

NT

[AJH032]

79. yes, let's divorce our party from the best economy in our nation's history

wow, that's a great idea

[Demi_Babe]

80. absolutely not

[SoCalDemGrrl]

83. I have been uncomfortable with Bill cozying up to Bush I In fact

every time I see it I want to puke :puke: :puke:

I know what many people say about keeping your enemies closer than your friends, but for some reason with Bill, I just can't hack it. It's demoralizing!!