Blogger reports on Bill Clinton's speech today in Orlando.

[flpoljunkie]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2006/06/clintons_advice.html

Bill Clinton was in Orlando today, helping Florida Democrats both by helping the state party raise more than $250,000 and by offering activists a little election-year advice.

The thrust of the former president's message: Democrats need to do more than just criticize Republicans and their policies and offer voters specific policy alternatives, from the relatively small (restoring cuts to college loan programs) to the much bigger (fighting global warming).

"The Democrats need to be out there not preaching doom and gloom," Clinton told his rapt audience of about 500.
How serious was he about that message? Well, when Clinton's speech turned to the war in Iraq, he asked the crowd, rhetorically, "What's the best way to achieve the objective?"

"Impeachment!" someone called out, drawing laughs from just about everyone in the room. Everyone, that is, except Clinton. He didn't even crack a smile. He just repeated the question again and moved on to argue that Democrats should support staying in the country "just long enough" to ensure Iraq's new government can stand on its own.

My response: Sounds like Bush's, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

[wyldwolf]

1. Clinton made his point

He'd just got through saying, "Democrats need to do more than just criticize Republicans and their policies and offer voters specific policy alternatives."

The he asked of Iraq, ""What's the best way to achieve the objective?"

IMPEACHMENT is NOT specific policy alternative. What Bill Clinton proposed is. Hell, saying "give Iraq a week and we're gone" is. "Leave them Iraqies to fend for themselves" is. "Ask the UN for help in cleaning up our mess" is. IMPEACHMENT isn't.

[flpoljunkie]

3. I am not suggesting impeachment is the answer either, and no one is saying

is suggesting we pull out precipitously--Murtha included.

Your response on how Clinton's recommendation on Iraq is different than Bush's--"as Iraqis stand up we will stand down?"

[wyldwolf]

9. I agree with Clinton

And if that is too close to Bush's plan for you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, Bush's plans sounds as though we're going to wait for them to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Knowing Clinton's history, he would pour financial aid and manpower in to make them a solid government.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Other than perhaps keeping the bases permanently, can you tell me how

Clinton's plan for Iraq differs from Bush's? I do not know if Clinton has made known his position on keeping the fourteen bases.

[wyldwolf]

13. I haven't heard that myself

But it is a matter of sovereignty. If the new Iraq government wants the bases there, and the incoming administration in '08 wants them there, there is no amount of foot stomping that's going to change that.

[flpoljunkie]

15. We Democrats should come together against permanent bases in Iraq.

Redeployment in the Middle East, yes. Permanent bases, hell no! And let's "stomp our feet" and raise our voices to make our position known to our leadership!

[bluestateguy]

21. I'm getting tired of that critique

At least as far as Iraq is concerned. Why do Democrats have to propose anything? Why must they "have a plan" for Iraq? It's one thing to have that debate in 2008, when we elect a president, but these are congressional races. The Democrats could win both houses this fall by overwhelming margins, and guess what? We'd still be in Iraq doing what we have been doing for over 3 years. In this case Bush is right: he is "the decider". The President is the Commander in Chief and with the stroke of a pen he can order those troops out or send more in. No deliberation, no paper pushing; it could just be done. Congress cannot direct military operations, no matter how hard they try. Realistically speaking, Congress has no say. Even if they cut off funding (which would never happen), Bush would just veto the bill, and the veto would be upheld.

The point here is that it is not up to the out of power opposition party to resolve the war in Iraq. Not in congressional elections anyway. It's Bush's war, always will be Bush's war and it will still be Bush's war even if a Democrat assumes the presidency in 2009 and inherits the war.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Or maybe Clinton's just being the adult

and is actually trying to help Dems be successful.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Or perhaps help Hillary,whose position is difficult to distinguish from *

Does that make my point clearer?

[AtomicKitten]

12. you didn't mention Hillary in your OP

[flpoljunkie]

16. That's right. I did not.

I only made a comment at the end of the post, which I found on the Orlando Sentinel web site.

[AtomicKitten]

17. So, what is your point?

You seem to be itching for some sort of fractious encounter. I commented on Bill Clinton which you addressed in your OP. My failing to mention Hillary was not an omission. If you wanted to talk about her or anyone other than what you put in your OP, you should have addressed it. Jeez.

On edit: The only Democratic opinion that even comes close to resembling Bush's on Iraq is perhaps Lieberman's.

[flpoljunkie]

18. I am not looking for a fight. I do not understand your point about

my original post not mentioning Hillary Clinton. Is that a a requirement to mention her subsequently? I think not.

[AtomicKitten]

19. OK let's review

You countered my original response with a comment about Hillary as if I had failed to factor her into whatever your point was, which is becoming less and less apparent. What is clear is that you are clearly po'd about something other than what you had actually written in your OP. Rewriting your comment about Hillary is convenient, but not what you originally wrote and not what precipitated this nonsense.

It's tough to engage in a conversation with someone when they are talking about something other than the topic at hand, the one that you raised in your OP.

Not a lot of sense getting snippy when people aren't following your less than clear point. Shoot me for actually addressing what you wrote in the OP.

You win whatever campaign you are on here by virtue of my utter lack of interest in continuing to try figure out what the hell your point actually is.

[flpoljunkie]

20. You don't sound disinterested to me.

I don't think there is anything else I can say to make to clear to you what I said in a subsequent post from the original.

[Minnesota Libra]

4. OMG, I miss Clinton's level head more every day but I have one............

.....question. Who and/or what is the determining factor of Iraq being able to stand on its own??? That could be a fuzzy area.

[flpoljunkie]

7. You asked the right question. Fuzzy, indeed!

[Master Mahon]

10. Exactly right!

If we truly want to let the Iraqi's stand up and create their own form of gov't, we have to get out of their way ENTIRELY and let them do it.
Our staying there has NOT prevented ANY bloodshed, and a good case can be made that our presence has provoked it.
Until we are out, the forces that will evently rule Iraq anyway can never take shape. We are just delaying the process.
The reality is that we want to 'mold' the new regime to fit our puppeteers fingers, and this is the ONLY reason we'll continue to stay!

[Minnesota Libra]

14. This is what I'm thinking, the Iraqi's won't know whether or not........

....they can stand on their own unless and/or until we force them to do it. Yes, from the way things are looking we may well have thrown Iraq into the beginnings of an all out civil war. On the other hand, if that is what is coming then all we will accomplish by sticking around is putting our young people in the middle of someone else's civil war. I know, that to come this may sound very cold hearted but something has got to give or that entire region is going to blow sky high. They are on the verge of it now. :hide:

[Virginia Dare]

6. What's wrong with preaching doom and gloom?

especially when it comes to Iraq. Let's stop pretending that anything good is going to come from this, at least in the immediate term. Personally, I'm looking for candidates who are facing this thing realistically.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Wondered what he was referring to here myself...

Iraq or perhaps Al Gore's movie? I have no clue.