Clinton?!!

[Robin Hood]

Poll question: Clinton?!!

In light of recent events.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=29173&mesg_id=29173&page=

What should we do with Bill Clinton?

[redeye]

1. Lol...

...I say option number 1 :D.

[Robin Hood]

2. We have a winner!!!

The majority so far seem to think so as well. Who knows, Maybe it will get freeped.

[JVS]

3. Maybe by attacking him we can attract those precious swing voters

Nothing is too good for swing voters :eyes:
;-)

But seriously, I've heard enough from the man. And 3 points:
1. His personal conduct was questionable at best.
2. His policies were not all that liberal.
3. His method of charm-politics have left the Democratic party in a bad situation. Rather than forging a Democratic identity, badly needed 20 years after the last previous Democrat, we were essentially the 'Clinton Party'. Republicans have a great advantage in this field, they are largely interchangeable because they have a basic worldview of which the public is aware. For us the ideology of the party is dictated by the candidate, which leads to heavy personal infighting, as the only way to effect party ideology is to capture leadership.

Just my $.02

[Robin Hood]

7. More than 2 cents.

More like 100%. I agree.

[Wonk]

4. Get him and everyone else you know to read this before passing judgement.

Donald Rumsfeld FED CLINTON THE LIES ABOUT HUSSEIN

[Robin Hood]

5. Thanks for that info

But it still does not take away from the fact that he's a dumb ass.

[redeye]

8. In other words...

...Clinton listened to PNAC/Rumsfeld. :puke:

[Wonk]

9. Want to change your vote? nt

[JCMach1]

6. Don't let him shmooze with DOLE on a show again

:puke:

Look at the context people...

[rhite5]

10. My evolving assessment of Clinton

( and, yes, I have read the related thread which is an essential read)

Brilliant - Quick Study - Agile Mind - Impressive command of a vast storehouse of knowledge he could tap in an instant.

Attractive - Affable - Magnetic Personality

Exceptional Campaign Instincts -- best campaigner I have ever seen.

I worked my ass off for him in 1992.

Before 1996 I had soured on him because of some wrong moves he had made related to the environmental issues most important in the Pacific Northwest. I made a protest vote for Nader in 1996 once it seemed certain Clinton could win without my vote. (I would never vote Republican).

As I learned more about the DLC and NAFTA - GATT - WTO - migrant labor issues and the rest, I realized that the DLC did NOT represent me or where I wanted our country to go. Clinton was DLC. These were HIS policies and these policies seemed destined to weaken Labor and the American middle class and could likely destroy the American economy.

I was never able to find satisfactory justification for Kosevo and the Balkan campaign.

Since I was NOT a supporter of Gulf War I with its "yellow-ribbon" mentality, I saw the subsequent Iraq Sanctions as cruel and hardly justified. I could NEVER understand or accept the continuous bombing raids on Iraq throughout the Clinton years. How could the man who had once been my hero permit this bombing to go on?

Eventually I began to realize I did not trust Clinton. Things just were not what they seemed. It went beyond just philosophical differences.

I was also never sure that Al Gore held views different from Clinton's. Were his environmental views sincere or for show? Gore generally supported a strong military and appeared to be in full support of the globalization that Clinton supported (WTO - NAFTA - GATT).

Gore was a poor campaigner in 2000 and needed the help of a brilliant strategist like Clinton, but Gore refused that help. What really was behind the rift between Clinton and Gore? Was it substantive? Or was it just related to stains on a blue dress?

Now it appears that Clinton is whoring for the Bush cabal almost openly. It figures the Repugs would find a way to hire the best campaign strategist out there! I am sure he is being paid well. Makes a nice balance with Karl Rove.

Thanks for opening up this dialog opportunity. I voted #1.

edit - fixed html

[CWebster]

11. Something happens to them

when they've been inside the Beltway too long.

They lose relevance and fail to connect.

Clinton was smart and charming, but he was weak and superficial.

He has become a pundit.

[ArkDem]

20. He was as you describe long before

he got to Washington.

[KG]

12. thank you -

about time we start to dispell the myth of 'st william of clinton'.

he was no liberal. in fact liberal/progressive causes took a beating during his tenure. 'free' trade agreements, the telecomm. act and welfare 'reform' were decidedly conservative policies he supported.
these policies are coming back to bite dems. on the ass today, but they don't hurt BC one bit.

and the dimwit nader-haters can scream their fool heads off all they want. you wanna know why the chimp squats in the WH? BCs dalliance with monica cost al gore what should have been a slam-dunk victory in 2000. his self-idulgent affair lost gore a ton of votes in that 'mushy middle' the DLC wants so deperately. to think otherwise is denial or dellusion.

does BC possess admirable qualities? many. but his actions aren't anything to cannonize him for. for some, the fact the clinton has a (D) by his name is enuff the evoke hero-worship. others hold their leaders to higher standards.

[Walt Starr]

13. I've lost respect for him

Screw him. Anybody disses Clinton in the future, I'll agree with them.

[CWebster]

14. Unfortunately

people have short memories and search for reasons to deny the obvious.

Folks were outraged that Kerry dismissed the 2000 coup, and then they went right back to rationalizing.

Only a "purist" would be concerned with the facts.

[tomp]

18. long live purity! it's much underrated. nt

[ShaneGR]

15. WAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

boohoo, he doesn't agree with you and you turn on him like a pack of rabid gerbils. Sighs.

[CWebster]

16. No, he agrees with

Bush.


comprende?

[Loonman]

17. Bunch of fair-weather folks around here

Sunshine patriots and summer soldiers.

[Robin Hood]

19. What's so fair weathered about this?

Clinton screws us yet again, and wer'e supposed to not only take it but also like it? Give me a break already!!! The guys a moron.

[jos]

21. Yes!

Captain Triangulation is back! Clinton is never as happy as he is when he can "demonstrate" his "independence" from the party.

He craves everyone's approval, and ends up being disrespected by almost everyone.

[lanlady]

22. that's him in a nutshell

He craves everyone's approval, and ends up being disrespected by almost everyone. Amen to that!

Someone ought to tell him a) he has every right to hold a grudge against his GOP tormentors and b)no matter what he says to gain their approval, he will never get it.

[jos]

25. Clinton is unique in that respect

Most politicians, if you want to gain their support, you have to suck up to. With Clinton, it was (and is) just the other way around. If you want to get his support, just attack him. He'll go out of his way just to prove you wrong and get your approval. That was the left's big mistake during the Clinton years. It kept silent to often where had it made more noise in opposing certain of his policies, he would have been more responsive.

[John_H]

23. Nah...just two-percenters

pulling the wacky shit that dooms them perpetual two-percentism. They've always been against TBD, no matter the atmospheric conditions or eight years of making things better for real working americans.

[5thGenDemocrat]

24. I'm ambivalent about him

1. I love him because he was a winner for us -- and that's damned important.
2. I don't like a lot of his policies -- DOMA, NAFTA, etc.
3. I surely didn't appreciate his wagging his finger in my face and telling me he "did not have sexual relations with that woman," before it was revealed he had. I don't like his parsing of words. And I don't much like that he (and Hillary) generally behave as though they're the smartest kids in the class -- which they probably are, but it's patronizing, anyhow.
Add to that the fact that the Repugs were pursuing him for crimes (however imagined) -- yet he took the BJ in the Oval Office, anyhow.
At the end of his administration, when he should have paid attention to his legacy, he pardoned a dirtbag like Marc Rich, anyhow.
And now, when he should be a statesman, promoting his ideals of peace and prosperity for all -- what he's mostly promoting is Hillary and himself. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.
My favorite president (in my lifetime), Vietnam notwithstanding, was LBJ. Johnson was my idea of a liberal -- look at what he accomplished in just the first two years of his presidency. And I live in Michigan -- so I can offer Carl Levin as a fine example of what a liberal should be today.
John
Clinton -- big Democratic winner. But that's about it to me.
Put it this way -- I don't think his visage belongs on the side of Mount Rushmore.