Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton ran against....

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:38 PM
Original message
Bill Clinton ran against....
Bush sr. and Bob Dole ..

And never received a majority of votes, and preceded to lose seats in both houses.

We have placed him on this pedestal over the years, calling him the most powerful force in politics, calling him the Big Dog...ect...

But maybe he wasn't 'all that' ...maybe we are seeing the real Bill Clinton in his wifes campaign. Maybe he WAS 'all that' and we are seeing the de-crowning of the king.

Who was the real Bill, and where did he go ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Um, there were 3 candidates both times...
...and in 1996, he would have easily gotten over 50% without Dimwit Ross...he still got the most votes...he was still the guy who ended 12 years of Repuke rule...and you can't blame him for 1994...that was the fault of the cowardly and corrupt Dems (remember the congressional post office scandal?) who were making their own beds to be tossed out of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texas_indy Donating Member (432 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "he would have easily gotten over 50% without Dimwit Ross" - NOT
Ross stoled this people from Shrub #1, many who were pissed about "NO NEW TAXES".

If not for Perot, then Shrub #1 would have won.

Texas is Obama country! VIVA OBAMA!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. touche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I thought it was about an even split
A third would have voted for Bush, a third for Clinton, and the rest not voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. You are right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texas_indy Donating Member (432 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Nope, check up and see what Ross Perot said later about both times
he ran. He was pissed at the Bush family and wanted to take them out and did that by drawing people from Bush.

Read Perot's speeches and handout from them. He was not a centralist in any manner. He cost Shrub 1 the election and marginal effect on the '96 election.


Texas is Obama country! VIVA OBAMA!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. The evidence says otherwise
But the right-wing chose to make excuses instead of accepting responsibility for the failure of Reagan-Bush economics. Now many of the anti-Clinton myths have been revived among Democrats thanks to Barack Obama's "movement for change" ( David Axlerod)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe if a frog had wings, it wouldn't scrape it's butt when it jumps.
Maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Big Blue Marble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. The Bill we knew was a projection.
He was a creation of what he wanted us to believe. And what that said about us.

Is that not true of every candidate including Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. Your point with the pointless smear being, exactly what?
I'm just curious as to your motivation.

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kermitt Gribble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. Real constructive
smearing Bill Clinton. We've lived through 16 years of repukes smearing him, now we have to live through Dems smearing him. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Right you are
Although Bill hasn't had an admirable record in this primary season, it's totally unfair to call his whole presidency into question.

The man is still respected by a majority of Americans and the majority of the WORLD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. Bill Clinton was the best president, by far, since 1980.
That makes him a pretty Big Dog in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. bill clinton was a one-man bulwark against the rabid-right-wing tidal wave
you have to judge a president by the times. did clinton enact a slew of liberal laws as fdr did? no, but then, fdr would have gotten nowhere had he served in clinton's era.

why? because fdr was elected with an overwhelming mandate to do SOMETHING to handle the depression, and he had huge support in both houses of congress. the supreme court was his only real opponent.

would fdr really have been able to accomplish more than clinton if the media was overwhelmingly in the control of the right-wing? if both houses of congress were republican? if there were a thousand and one investigations into his private life, trying to smear and entrap him? if they had impeached him on the flimsiest of pretenses? of course you just KNOW the republicans would have exposed his wheelchair and heaven knows what they would have done to his wife.

similarly, imagine if clinton had been president while having unambiguous support of both houses and the media.


finally, imagine where the "republican revolution" would have been had we had 8 years of a republican president instead of 8 years of clinton, and shudder. personally, i think stemming that tide was a HUGE accomplishment, and he practically did it single-handedly by sheer force of personality.
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 Nov 24th 2014, 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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