Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is anyone else asking themselves, "Were the Clintons always like this?"

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
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:33 PM
Original message
Is anyone else asking themselves, "Were the Clintons always like this?"
Like most of you, I spent the 90's defending the Clintons. Now I find myself really not liking them at all.

Did something change about them or did I just move on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've been asking myself that for months
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:39 PM
Original message
Me too. Did I just not see it until this year?? I started out this primary season a supporter of
Hillary. Now I wouldn't vote for her for dogcatcher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZinZen Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
141. Power can corrupt
that is how I see the Clintons now. I think they have always been seduced by power but now they are addicted to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #141
142. Power DOES corrupt,
and absolute power has ABSOLUTELY CORRUPTED, THE MEDIA.

We are woefully misinformed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. Same here .. I defended them throughout .. no more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nope, you've just burned out, I guess and got Obamaligion
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 09:35 PM by splat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. my thought also = the Clintons still equal "good" despite Obama selling "Monster" 24/7/365
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Penndems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
147. As someone who worked in the Clinton White House, all I can say is "thank you"
They are good people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
53. hilarys have nothing more to contribute than
their little snark infested, flea bag spam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
87. its perplexing. I guess they don't lose good. Having no
plan past super tuesday tells a lot about them, the presumption that they could walk in and win without effort and that others were nothing to their ambitions. It is difficult to see this. My brother's last conversation with my mom was an argument over him. I lost my relationship with two brothers over Bill. Now this. What a total waste it has been. The cost for some of us was way too high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
buff2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. No
It's the Obama Kool-Aid. PS. I don't like Obama and his wife either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatnHat Donating Member (669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
91. Obama supporters
elevates the Kool-Aid crowd to a whole new level. Granted, we all saw what "mass delirium" had done to normally sane supporters of Bush; they were in the state of denial for years; until it was too late. P.S.: I don't like Obama or his wife either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. Took the thoughts right outta my brain. Exactly.
I have thought back to the times I defended the Clintons against Repubs, and now I wonder....were THEY the ones who were right? It would seem so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Ah, you think the Repubs were right. Always did. Ringer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. I recall a Repub telling me that Clintons didn't want Kerry to win, so that THEY could run in '08.
I scoffed at the idea. I defended the "honor" of the Clintons! No way they would do such a dastardly thing...not help Kerry as much as they could, helping the country to stay Republican, when they would know what damage that would cause to the country. They would not DO such a thing!

But now, I think that is probably what happened. Others think so, too. The Clintons have had these plans to run for years. Their plans would not come to fruition if Kerry had won, probably.

Sometimes loyalty blinds us. I was blind to the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. They made Kerry be a lousy candidate, too. All their fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buff2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. The Clinton's are the most powerful couple in the USA
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 09:58 PM by buff2
I mean they are responsible for EVERYTHING. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
129. He was a great candidate who won all his debates DECISIVELY. How did the DNC do in its matchup
with the RNC? McAuliffe's DNC sat on their hands for FOUR years while allowing the RNC to gain control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

The RNC stole that election and the DNC let them do it.

Kerry won his matchups with Bush.

DNC let the RNC drag Bush back into office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noirceuil Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. You Ought to Be Ashamed of Yourself...
Weeks after Clinton had open-heart surgery, John Kerry BEGGED him to campaign for him and Clinton did. Now, John Kerry is attacking the Clintons at every turn and psychotic Obama supporters are attacking him just like right-wingers. It's disgusting! Don't preach to us about loyalty. You people don't know the meaning of the word!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. I think Obama is a pied piper, and a loser. I think Hillary will be the nominee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
54. I think you're one of those types like geraldine who
gets off on smearing 'cause hilary is a worthless piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
36. Please link to something that says that Kerry BEGGED Clinton
to campaign for him. I suspect that, like the Gores, they had mixed feelings about using Bill Clinton. In addition, Clinton's actions were not restricted to campaigning - and some were negative. As to Kerry attacking the Clintons - all he has done is call them on lies - and there were lies. He has also said that all The Democrats were qualified to be President and that he would work his heart out for whomever is the nominee - as all will take the country in the right direction.

As to 2004:
You make the issue campaigning in fall 2004. The lack of support that I and many others have spoken of - with no Kerry quotes to back us up, because there are none - are based on our observations of negative things he and his allied did - not anything not done. Some are:

1) Releasing his autobiography in July 2004. Bill Clinton is reputed to be the sharpest politician of our generation - any high school kid could see why this is a bad idea in the run up to the election. As it was, June was a month when Kerry could get little coverage - as it was solid Reagan coverage for at least 3 weeks. Then Bill Clinton took a fair part of July - and all of us were treated to learning that the reason for Monica was "because I could". Now, frankly I could have happily lived my whole life not knowing that. This was a repeat of Bill Clinton having a confessional interview about getting his family back after Monica in the week before Gore's convention. You need to either challenge his political acumen or accept in both cases he had some need to fight off Gore or Kerry becoming the head of the party and President.

2) In the book, he has 2 strange pages where he writes of the 1996 MA Senate race. Kerry was the nominee almost 2 months before he finished editing his book - so you know that he reviewed this knowing Kerry was our candidate. The overall impression was that he liked Kerry's competitor more but wanted Kerry to win because of his knowledge on the environment and technology. He also mentioned Kerry's long term work with disadvantaged youth, noting there were no votes in it. Now, none of these 3 were big 2004 issues. Not mentioned were most of Kerry's strongest issues - foreign policy, terrorism (BCCI was already shut down), and healthcare, where Kerry had just written,with Kennedy, the precursor bill to S-CHIP based on the plan that had just passed in MA over Weld's veto! In the sections on Vietnam reconciliation, Clinton extends a huge amount of praise to McCain, nearly ignoring that our nominee was the chair of the committee and, per all accounts of those on the committee, did an incredible job and was the one person most responsible for its success. Now, I think most people, unlike me, looked up "Lewinsky" not "Kerry" in the index - but for people who read that nearly 1,000 page book those pages played into the Republican theme that he didn't accomplish much in the Senate.

3) There were Clinton and Clinton ally generated stories all through the period he was convalescing that Kerry's campaign was poorly run and that he was not listening to Clinton's advice. In fact, Kerry numbers went up when he concentrated on Iraq and the War on terror, rather than the economy as Clinton advised. These stories hurt.

4) In the wake of defeat, is when Clinton was the worst. That he praised Rove on the campaign he ran and made a point of saying he liked both Kerry and Bush within a week or two of the election hurt. Then there was the whisper campaign generated by Clinton allies that Kerry was not taking a place as just 1 of the 100 Senators and implying that he was at odds with Reid. The fact is that Kerry, by virtue of being the nominee, was a party leader - not the party leader, but a party leader - a status that the Clinton allies were denying. Clinton also had a conflict of interest as the last former President and the husband of HRC - this showed most when in 2005, he spoke of Kerry, a Democrat with far more national security credentials than almost any other Democrat, as weak on defense - rather than embracing Kerry's position on the war on terror. With the specter of Kerry running, he likely didn't want to hand that to Kerry. However, had the Democrats continued to keep that as their policy, the reaction of people like George Will that Kerry was right would have positioned us best on national security. The fact is that contrary to the list in BC's book, there was no Senator who understood more than the guy who wrote "The New War". The constant belittling Kerry and blaming Kerry for the SBVT by all the Clinton people was painful - and that did color my picture of the Clintons for the worse.

As to the campaigning, the question I would ask is who called whom. I seriously doubt the Kerry campaign begged him to campaign. By the time Clinton campaigned, Kerry alone had already had huge rallies - that broke all previous records. Of course Bill Clinton was a draw - but I seriously doubt the attendance had it just been Kerry would have been much less. I saw the entire thing on CSPAN and it was emotional - as the first time Clinton was out and he was good - but Kerry's speech was equally well received - judging from the applause. The media reports all spoke mostly of Clinton, because his being out was the news. In fact, either CNN or MSNBC cut away as soon as Clinton ended. So, newswise - I would guess it helped Kerry less than the local coverage of a just Kerry rally would have. Now, I've seen people post that Kerry would not have won PA without that rally. This is extremely unlikely - this was downtown Philadelphia - an area that ALWAYS is very Democratic. The African American turn out across the country was record breaking - even where Bill Clinton didn't go. There is no reason to think Philadelpia would be different. In Pittsburgh, it wasn't Clinton but THK who made a difference. I suspect that was the case in the affluent Philadelphia suburbs - as there were likely many independents that remembered her as their Senator's wife and as one ex-PA Republican in my area accepted Kerry as good because otherwise she wouldn't have married him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #36
81. holy shit kary remind me never to argue with you lol
I couldn't see what you were arguing against because of that ignore thing but that puppy got a smacking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #81
123. But, I've never had a reason to argue with you - as I love your posts
Edited on Sat Mar-22-08 12:05 PM by karynnj
I guess I did over react a bit - but I detest these Clinton claims that act as though after 2004, Kerry had a huge debt to Clinton. There were interactions before and it likely was pretty even or even with Kerry helping Clinton more. Clinton was not for Kerry until he was, for all intents and purposes the nominee. He had been quoted in Fall 2003 saying the only stars in the Democratic party were Wes Clark and HRC. Clark was really the 2004 opponent who came closest to being in the same niche Kerry was - with foreign policy and military expertise.

Now, in 1992, Kerry was not for Clinton - he was closer to Tsongus, who he knew since the 1970s and who alerted Kerry that he was not going to run for re-election in 1984, and Bob Kerrey - but he spoke eloquently against hitting Clinton for avoiding the draft.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The one thing that I have gotten out of BC's actions this year is that I might buy the hypothesis that he actually is incapable of genuinely supporting anyone well and that things that looked like possible low key, under the radar sabotage weren't. I am less sure of the Clinton hanger ons - who actually had vested interests in the Clinton wing being in control - which wouldn't happen had Kerry won. It is reasonable to question whether election night was the first time Carville, who was not in the campaign - but had access via the Clinton people brought in, passed inside campaign information to his wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #36
108. Great post, Karyn. Philly loves Clinton (er, $$ for shipyard) but Kerry would have done fine anyway.
The reception for Kerry in Philly was just as good as it was for Clinton. While I despise the Clintons' current campaign, as someone who was at that rally, I have to say that Philly was welcoming someone they saw as an old friend, when they cheered Clinton. When Kerry came on, we were welcoming the next President of the United States - and that wasn't because Clinton was there.

Clinton may have helped Kerry in a small way, I don't know if we'll ever know. I just know that to this day, in my (heavily active Roman Catholic) area, I still run into voters who spit and froth at the mere mention of Clinton. Would any of them voted for Kerry if not reminded of Clinton? Probably not, but they may have been more motivated to show up to vote against Kerry, thanks to the reminder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
162. The Rally was in Philadelphia
My aunt and uncle were there. They joked afterwards they thought someone was going to have to take a hook to get the President of the stage and that he talked about himself more the Kerry. I wasn't there but that was their personal observations.

Also I don't know if you have ever been to Philadelphia but the democratic nominee for President is going to draw a crowd even if his name is Mike Gravel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #25
111. "Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina, too." NAFTA. Monica. "McCain more qual. than Obama"
A quick look at the Clintons' record and ethics in running a campaign, and I can say that I am PROUD that I got wise to them.

I will NEVER vote for them. (and it is THEM, not HER, who is running)

And a LOT of Independents like myself feel that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
138. No shit!! Where is the loyalty? Where is the party dedication?
The Clintons have given their lives to the Democratic Party. They have campaigned for countless traitor candidates (e.g., TED FUCKING KENNEDY, JOHN FUCKING KERRY)) who have turned their backs on the Clintons.

How quickly they forget. But I don't.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #138
156. What you call "loyalty", I call "cronyism".
They should pick the candidate who they feel is best for America, not pick a candidate based on a perverted notion of quid pro quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #156
161. And you think Richardson isn't looking for a quid pro quo?
You think he really wants to stay in N.M.? I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you ...

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buff2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I thought a lot of OB supporters were repukes
I was right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. The really sad part is that the Clintons lived up to the Repubs' visions of them.
They had a chance to be ethical, to do the right thing, to go down in history, and for his legacy to stay intact. Sigh. That hunger for power can do some people in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. They know he can't win the GE, so they want him nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buff2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I know
There is no way the repukes will let it happen. NO EFFIN WAY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
112. The opposite is true. 100,000 Repubs in TX voted for HRC because they think she'd be easier...
to beat in the G.E. There was a call by Rush Limpballs to go vote for her, and his followers responded.

HRC won TX by about 100,000 votes.

You know that the Repubs want HRC. Everyone in the nation who is paying attention knows this.

Hahahahahaha! Even if HRC wins the nom. (and she won't), she can never win the G.E. Dems will vote for her, but no one else. No one. Ever. And it takes more than the core Dems for her to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
52. That's rich, considering all the praise team Clinton heaps on McCain
while revving up the last vestiges of racial animosity* in America in the attempt to turn people away from a good candidate who happens to be black. Anything to win.

*Not saying Clintons are racist. AM saying they are stoking the fire in the belly of those who are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #52
113. Now Bill is speaking of a McCain-Clinton unity run of sorts? Puke, and Repuke.
Now other Dems are beginning to see what the Clintons are like.

They don't care about their country or anything beyond their own power.

Greed. The Clintons lost their way because of greed years and years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
167. im new here and
one of my earliest replies to a post said this exact statement almost word for word

i was grilled and freeper called at the time
really run over the coals that i would say such a thing

funny how time changes things
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemGa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Clintons are the same -- the hate came with Obama
Go ahead put me on ignore, it's the TRUTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:40 PM
Original message
Why did Obama destroy my party? I don't like these bullies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemGa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Funny these confused Obamas wondering where they got their own hate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I think he's gonna trip bad before the convention
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noirceuil Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. They Won't Be Able....
to put the voters of Ohio and Pennsylvania on ignore if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The majority of people in both states can't stand him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
44. "Noirceuil" - the flesh eating sociopathic, incestuous, infanticidal character in Marquis de Sade
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 10:21 PM by Divernan
Surely Clinton headquarters did not choose your screen name for you. I had never read Marquis de Sade, but I was curious about the meaning/origin of your French screen name, so I googled it. You are one deeply sick individual. "Infanticide after incest" and "love of eating human flesh" only begin to touch on the evil of your namesake.


Writing the Orgy: Power and Parody in Sade - Google Books Resultby Lucienne Frappier-Mazur - 1996 - Literary Criticism - 245 pages
The counterpart of parricidal incest, infanticide after incest, feeds several sadistic inventions and reaches paroxysm in the episode of the Noir- ceuil ...

John Phillips
Sade's Footnotes
French Studies, Apr 2002; 56: 153 - 163.
......SADE'S FOOTNOTES J ??? P ??????? The Marquis de Sade's epic novel, Histoire de Juliette...du vice, in OEuvres comple ` tes du Marquis de Sade, ed. by Annie Le Brun and Jean-Jacques...Juliette, VIII, ???, quoted earlier, or of Noirceuil ' s love of eating human flesh, ibid......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
56. It fits..but too smart..all it can do is
spam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
89. take your 78 posts back to freeperland, troll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
155. Funny you say that-
I was in Rittenhouse Square yesterday watching some HRC supporters with their "Honk for HIllary" signs - In the hour I was there I heard 6 horns honk.

They were walking around trying to give out leaflets and people were refusing them, saying "I'm voting for Obama".

There seems to be a lot of people in Philadelphia who can't stand HRC.

And the last person with the nickname of the "Iron Lady" was Margaret Thatcher beloved of Ronald Raygun. Hardly a recommendation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. The Clintons ARE the same NeoCon enabling, corrupt, power-hungry sellouts they always were
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 09:50 PM by cryingshame
You wouldn't know the truth cause there it is staring you in the face.

The FACTS show Clinton was bankrolled by the Necons
He allowed their crimes to swept under the rug
He made sure the Democratic party rotted and used what was left as his own means of maintain control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
49. No, I remember what Clinton did to the party and progressives.
I knew it long before Obama came along. It should have been obvious to everyone after the 2000 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
163. there's no hate. In the days of Dennis
Since Dennis dropped out I turned to Obama. I had a worry about Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichardRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. I honestly don't think so.
I think the Big Dog was a pretty darn good president, certainly far better than the train wrecks who followed him. Sure, he wasn't perfect, but he got a job done. Hillary was a good and gracious First Lady who changed the way that role is seen and the things it can get done. If Barack goes to the White House, Michelle will stand on Hillary's shoulders it that respect.

Something happened about a year ago, though, and I sorrow a bit for the loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
latinolatteliberal Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. that describes my experience pretty accurately. i don't know the answer.
but it's not absurd to think that we'd tolerate different standards when it comes to fighting against conservatives vs. fighting against fellow democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. We were just talking about that at dinner!
We decided that in the past, they'd used their considerable talents, energy and intellect, in the service of ideas that were mostly the progressive ideas I could support.

When they use all their talents, however, in service to their own aggrandizement, it isn't so attractive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. She's the one responsible/ in charge, now.
She runs her operations a bit differently than he does.

Very different styles of leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. I wouldn't call it leadership. Remember she wasn't even told her campaign was out of money
When she finally learned the campaign was out of money it was too late to organize in key states. She's let advisors tell her to switch personalities day by day until she began to look like Sybil. Her campaign manager was watching soap operas in the office instead of working the phones and her consultants were too busy having shouting matches to come up with a cohesive strategy. She claimed just yesterday to be unaware that they're urging SDs to back her on the basis of the Wright videos even while they're admitting in the NYT that that's exactly what they're doing. Hillary is not running this campaign, this campaign is running her. I don't call that leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CookCountyResident Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #31
144. Right....... and if she has this much trouble .
Right....... and if she has this much trouble running her own campaign, how effective will she be at running the country?


I'm beginning to be troubled at our prospects for the Nov. election with Obama showing signs of imploding over the Wright business and his Farrakhan following campaign staffers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Ask Libby Holden
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
40ozDonkey Donating Member (730 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
17. "Did something change about them or did I just move on."
You moved on. Based on the replies of her majesty's royal supporters, it's more accurate to say you grew up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
22. I , like you am asking myself the same question. They are disgusting me right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. We all moved on, the CLintons ... well not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ysabel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
59. there's a saying about how people turn more conservative over time...
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 11:25 PM by Ysabel
anyway people evolve and some older ones manage to keep up imo in part because of a sincere love of the young anyway besides that some do remember problems within the clinton admin. however it was better to support them than the republicans (which is always the case)...

- typo (lol from a slightly older one - my eyes my eyes - actually i can see well i'm just a shitty typist)...

p.s. also there had just been 12 years of reagan / bush - people were feeling really desperate...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CookCountyResident Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #59
145. "Turn more conservative" OR
Triangulating, as the (former) Clinton advisor Dick Morris called it, when giving Bill Clinton advise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. Both my husband and I voted for Bill twice and defended both of them in our Military Community.
I've felt obliged to tell those friends and acquaintances who we were affiliated with when living on bases during the 1990s that THEY WERE RIGHT about the BAD character and LACK OF INTEGRITY of both Clintons. Yes, (I'm sweating blood confessing this) to people I once argued with BUT the Clintons are as smarmy as they come.

Hell, I even had a pin that said, "I'm part of the Hillary Clinton Fan Club."

I feel both betrayed and disgusted by the behavior of BOTH of them. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
28. I agree 100%
I think the felt OWED this nonimation so thought she would not have to work for it! When Obama cam along and excited so many people se turned desperate. It makes me think I was wrong before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
32. Bill is getting on and she was never a great politician.
I hope they weren't always like this. I spent a lot of time defending them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. Look at the pictures of the Clintons...
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 10:10 PM by TwoSparkles
...when they were in college. They were very liberal, very anti-establishment and anti-war.

I love those early pictures of the Clintons.

Although I think the Clintons began their political years very liberal and optimistic, something
really dysfunctional seemed to creep into the lives and transform them. The grinding gruel of
politics seemed to roughen them up and Bill's infidelity, I believe, tore Hillary Clinton apart.

She sacrificed so much for Bill. She was the graduation speaker at Wellesley and her first job
after law school was working on the Nixon impeachment hearings. She could have gone anywhere and
had any job in her field that she desired. She gave it up to go to po-dunk Arkansas, put it all
on hold and prop up Bill's political career. His affairs left her bitter and full of a sense of
entitlement. It was as if she decided that one day she would attain whatever she wanted politically-
and that was her entitlement--because of everything she sacrificed and endured.

I think it's a tragic story, because I think the Clinton's fed off of each other's dysfunction and
that's when the corruption crept in. They lost themselves.

Those two young people in the pictures are long gone.

By the time they got to Washington, they had all ready sold out--even if they did still hold onto
some liberal social ideals. The neocons folded the Clintons into the fray. After Bush became President,
the Clintons still wanted to play--and they're just as much a part of the corporate elite as Bush, Cheney,
Lieberman, Baker and the rest of the power players. Clinton played along--and practically remained silent
while Bush decimated our democracy--because she knew she had to be a player if she wanted to be the
Democratic nominee.

Then, came Obama. Geez. I can only imagine how shattered she is. When you spent much of your life thinking, "I
can put up with this shit, because I've got my eyes on the prize and someday this will all be worth it," and
then the prize is taken away---everything you endured seems like it was for nothing.

As much as I detest the Clintons and their sell-out status--and the way they've lied, ruined lives and
campaigned so viscously--I think their entire story is really tragic and so very sad.

When I look at those pictures of the young Clintons, and see them now--I see a glaring illustration of what
has happened to our country and our government within the past 40 years. Innocence, a sense of decency and
optimism---has all but died in our government and has been engulfed by greed, corporatism, corruption and
distortions.

I really hope the Clintons find the peace that they need--and I hope our country does as well.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Lord I agree with every single word of this response. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
58. You are so right. It is very easy to despise what they have become.
We shouldn't forget what they once were. But as Obama says: Not This Time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angie_love Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
62. this deserves a thread of its own. Its that good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #35
74. Great post n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgadorSparticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #35
88. WOW! If I could, I'd nominate your post to the most recommended page.
Everyone should read your analysis of the Clintons. It is eloquent and I think, very accurate. Thank you for your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgadorSparticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #88
140. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #35
93. I'll just bet there's more truth in your post than not
We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm sure you're not far off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #35
101. Spot on, TS. I've had thoughts along those lines as well.
If I were to pick a quintessential couple to reflect what happened to my generation, it would be the Clintons. What happened to them? From barefoot in the park to coiffed and manicured and deciding whether to drive the Beemer or the SUV. From crashing at someone's pad and rapping about the universe to buying experience from the current faddish boutique. Yes, they lost their way--badly. You can't change the world when the world becomes a commodity and you the consumer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #101
125. That's why I've contended for years...
...that the vast majority of the kids driving that "movement" in that period were no different than other middle class kids from other generations. They were following the trend of the day and once pop culture moved on to something else, so did they.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #35
118. that was such a great post.
It reminded me of how I felt when I saw George HW and Bill Clinton pal-ing around. It made me a little uneasy, although, at the time, my first reaction was to assume that Bill was good, but once part of that establishment, you melt into it, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
37. Yes, definitely I have asked that question.
And I've come to believe that no, they weren't always like this.

There is definitely something about Washington that corrupts. Was Bill a ladies man? Yeah, obviously. But I do believe that Hillary in particular (and her early work gives us an idea of the woman she was) truly cared for children and others less fortunate. Her association with Bill and his influence, I think, have had a negative effect on her. I don't think in her heart, she is this woman that we see currently.

Remember the "change you can xerox" line? Remember how phony it sounded? How fake and unlike Hillary? She's trying to be this person that Bill wants her to be. You can see him in the background, running things. When Bill Richardson talked about his endorsement today, he referenced Bill's outlook, Bill's opinions, Bill's ideas. But... it's NOT Bill's campaign. It's Hillary's! Yet, that's what we're getting. We *are* getting a Team Clinton. It has been made clear that they are inseparable and you cannot pick one without the other.

But I want to remember her as the trailblazing mother, wife, and First Lady that she was:













Regardless of the woman she is now, or the campaign that she has run, you can't take away from the empowerment she gave to women who didn't just want to "stay at home and bake cookies."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. You are one of the most insightful posters here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
38. They might be the same but I am different
More informed, more skeptical, less accepting.

I am starting to think that I really didn't have the entire story during their Administration and if I had access to the same information sources then that I have now, perhaps I would have been tougher on them.

Their behavior during this campaign hasn't done anything to comfort me about my previous opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
40. yes and now I finally understand why so many people hate them
I wonder if we defended him in large part because he was unfairly attacked. Which he was. But now I understand the hatred. They really do seem to be driven by nothing but self aggrandizement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
41. I was disappointed with them pretty soon after he was elected in '92.
I worked for the campaign. He caved on everything he promised to do.
Soon there was DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, telecom deregulation, etc.

I still defended them over the whole sex scandal. What a crock that was.

Now I'm thoroughly disgusted with both of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
42. I think they simply do not wear well, either of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
43. Yes. In '92 they pulled this same shit on Jerry Brown
Brown was nipping at their heels and the Clintons needed a decisive victory in Wisconsin to knock him out of the race. When Bill got busted playing golf at a whites-only country club, it looked like the Clintons were in trouble.

Then, a story surfaced in the Wisconsin press that drug parties had been taking place at Brown's home in California. Nightline reported on it, but said that Brown wasn't there.

That was all the Clintons needed. Hillary went around the state flogging the story and helping to expand it. First it was drugs while Brown wasn't there. Then there were rumors that he was there. Then the parties happened in the Governor's mansion. Then they weren't just parties, but orgies. Then gay orgies. Etc, etc, etc.

The stories were never substantiated, Brown angrily denied them and once the Clintons had squeaked out wins in Wisconsin and New York, the rumors evaporated. Brown had too much class to accuse the Clintons of starting the rumors, but to all of us working on his campaign it was obvious where the bogus information had come from.

Today, we're seeing this same pattern against Obama. We've had kindergarten-paper-gate, anti-war-fairy-tale-gate, his-wife-hates-America-gate, Barack-talked-to-Canada-gate, he's-not as-experienced-as-John-McCain-gate and, finally, let's-scare-the-white-folk-with-a-loud-mouthed-black-man-gate. As the Rev. Wright stuff dies out, Bill is again raising questions about Obama's patriotism. If that doesn't stick, expect them to bring up his teenage drug use. If that doesn't stick, expect some other piece of filth.

This has been the Clintons' MO as long as I've known about them. And don't think they'll let up once the nomination is decided. If Hillary doesn't manage to steal it this year, they're going to make damn sure she has a chance to run in 2012.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #43
92. Thanks for reminding us
Yea, kind of even forgot about that deal. Was always thinking somebody gave Brown the short end of a stick at one time, karma can be confounding :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #43
98. I loved Jerry Brown back then
Thanks for the post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #98
132. I still love Jerry Brown!
We're lucky to have him here in California. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
105. Yes they did throw the kitchen sink at Jerry Brown big time
Clinton had knocked off Paul Tsongas in what I think was a fairly clean campaign, but then Jerry Brown who was running a shoestring campaign--even sleeping on supporters pull out couches--pulled off a string of victories.

The New York primary was as nasty as it gets. The drug rumors hadn't surfaced yet but there were plenty of people calling radio talk shows saying that they had prrof that Brown was gay. Bill Clinton, as you say, got busted playing at a whites only country club. That would have been bad news for anyone else but the Clinton camp skillfully used New York's racial tensions to set one group off against another. Al Sharpton showed up at a Brown rally with a golf cart! Sharpton's support pissed off the Jews, particularly the influential Hassidic community who vote in a block and can swing elections bigtime. The Grand Rebbe threw his support behind Clinton and there were nasty fliers and radio ads suggesting the Brown consorted with noted anti-semite Al Sharpton and also Isreal hater Gore Vidal.

Brown lost New York and the drug rumors came out on ABC News a few days later. The accusations were made by some (identities concealed) ex state troopers who'd been on Brown's guard detail. Among the more salacious stories were two roaches found in a coke can in Linda Ronstadt's bedroom after Brown had spent the night at her house. Several ABC correspondants including Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings denounced the story as bogus. Brown spent the next couple of weeks fighting off these rumors and as a result lost Pennsylvania. That was pretty much that for Jerry Brown. Clinton marched to the nomination and Jerry Brown after a stint as Mayor of Oakland is now Attorney General of California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #43
120. I am very worried that Clinton will work behind the scenes
to hurt Obama if he is elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
131. In '87-88 the Clinton camp sabotaged Gary Hart's campaign after Bill flunked an interview to be V.P.
Clinton hired Ray Strother, who did Hart's media ads in his '84 campaign. Strother didn't see a conflict in working for two men who wanted to be President. Clinton pushed Strother to get him a meeting with Hart about being named Hart's V.P. As Strother wrote in his book "Falling Up", after the interview Hart told him that Clinton had no political "core" values, and "doesn't believe in anything". Hart's words made it back to Clinton likely through hack James Carville, who was a protege of Strother. (Carville would later use an almost verbatim quote about Clinton, but attribute it to Ken Starr.)

For those who don't remember, after resuming his '88 campaign, Hart was leading in both national polls and in Iowa. Two weeks before Iowa a completely false story was circulated that Hart's campaign had been "secretly funded". The story was complete crap. Hart never took a dime from a PAC and mortgaged his home to finance his '84 campaign. The well timed smear was enough to cost Hart any showing in Iowa, and with it his once promising campaign.

And before someone brings up Donna Rice, who for 20 years has denied that she had a sexual relationship with Hart, that was not why he suspended his campaign in May of '87. Hart suspended the campaign after the Washington Post threatened to publish a story from a PI who had followed Hart in January 1986 after Hart, the presumptive party nominee, gave a radio response to Reagan's weekly address. The PI had pics which he purported showed Hart leaving the house of another woman the following morning. (This was before Hart announced his candidacy in the '88 campaign, and before E.J. Dionne quoted him as saying "follow me around".) According to the WaPo, the PI was paid for by a former Dem Senator, who was likely then a paid lobbyist.

So the story was that certain people in the party were looking to go in the gutter and attack Hart by an means necessary, including throwing the election.

Who were these people?

The guy spreading the rumors that Hart couldn't "keep his pants on" to Newsweek was James Carville.


Qui Bono?

In "Partners In Power", Bill Morris, a Democrat whom LBJ named a National Security advisor, and who resigned from the NSC to protest Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, writes that the Clintons sabotaged Hart's '88 campaign. (Pgs. 433-434)

I don't know of anyone from Hart's '88 campaign who disagrees with Morris.


So why are the Clinton's so friendly with the Bushes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CookCountyResident Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #131
149. Wow! Politics of personal destruction
That Carville would be the one spreading those rumors? Sorry to say I'm not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CookCountyResident Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
146. Thank you for that reminder.
I'd forgotten about the Jerry Brown story/stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
45. To be honest, I never voted for Bill
I was an independant up until Bush highjacked the 2000 election.

(Voted Democrat ever since.)

I was a Perot supporter in both 1992 and 1996, as I knew that NAFTA was going to destroy our economy.

Damn if that crazy old fart wasnt right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grassfed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
48. yes
I was thinking today about the Arkansas State Troopers who said under oath that they provided security for Bill Clinton during trysts in the governor's mansion. I bought the spin that they were just stupid rednecks sponsored by wealthy vindictive right wingers. Judging by the Clintons' behavior, these were probably decent men.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
better tomorrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
50. The Internet came out with all the truth about them.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
51. I moved on in October 2002 after meeting
hilary at a local fundraiser in May 2001 where I shook her hand and took her pic and then the IWR vote came up and she blew it with hundreds of thousands of future lives at stake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. The IWR vote did it for me too.
I campaigned for her in 2000 when she first ran for Senate. I was sadly disappointed, as were many of my fellow New Yorkers. Not just in the IWR, but that was the real eye-opener. She'll never live that down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. As well she shouldn't...the other stuff messes with
jobs and money but the IWR and subsequent pandering for the War On Iraq with bill as caboose took people's lives and torn families apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angie_love Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. Yes I'm a NY'er too and I remember the day she voted for IWR, my friends are I were just shocked
dismayed and felt betrayed. NY'ers didn't want that war and she betrayed us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. I'm a NYer also, but wasn't as aware.
:hi: No excuse here. It didn't take me long to figure out how wrong this shock and awe was, but I wasn't on board initially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angie_love Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. Yeah I was 22 then and I kept thinking "why won't they just wait for the inspectors
to see if there really are WMD's?" I mean, I was 22 and I thought the reasons for war were bullshit, so in that regard I had better sense than Hillary did. Thats shocking! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #71
134. Well yeah.
I knew the war was a bad idea. All my friends knew the war was a bad idea.

How did half the dems in the senate miss the memo? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
better tomorrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. and so did you sell her picture on Ebay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
60. We all woke up........
Bill was the best Repuck in the 28 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. Bill told people he was like this.
He wrote about it in his memoirs when he said he had relations with Monica "because he could" - folks just didn't want to see it because he was a better president than GWB is.

But if he cared about his family and the nation and the dem party "because he could" would never have been reason enough to risk all that he was to so many at the time especially knowing that the right wingers wanted to destroy him and destroy him something fierce.

HRC has told folks she is like this for years too - she's done what she had to do to get to where she is at

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
73. merh, that's brutal, but they've shared their truth.
I'm so tired of how they spin their truth, I want something better.

Thanks, as usual, for cutting to the chase. :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #73
79. LOL - brutal - the truth often is brutal and that is why it is so hard to face.
What I find remarkable is how feminist believe that HRC is a feminist.
She got her MRS degree like most female grads of her era wanted and she has used it for all its worth. That is not the shining example of an independent woman who deserves to be treated equally by anyone, imho.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/merh/87

Obama is not perfect and I am no glassy eyed fan waiting to swoon. He is the face of change and this nation's political scene desperately needs change. The same old same old is killing us.

:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. I'm happy we are so agreeable!
Yes, he's not perfect, and he will piss me off, but I yearn for someone new who will react (to incidents like Katrina?) like a human instead of a ????? Still boggles my mind that the pResident didn't have a clue about how bad that was. I did, and all I did was watch TV. What was his excuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. eww
don't even get me started on Katrina cause Bill's "involvement" was a major personal disappointment to me. He & poppy raised all that money but that money didn't go to the people, it went to institutions, to churches and universities and such. No individual saw any of that money and it was the individuals that needed (and for some, still need) that money. Rebuild all the schools and libraries and churches you like, without homes, there won't be anyone around who will be able to use them.

and he teamed with poppy - how can you team up and be buddy buddy with the man that tried to destroy you, your efforts in office, your efforts on behalf of the nation?

Clintons = opportunists, imho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #64
102. Interesting analysis.
Makes one see how Clinton and Bush are like two sides of the same coin--faces of Janus. Both did what they did because they could get away with it, and could care a fig about what happened to their parties or nation. War, infidelity, corruption...because they could, and they both were "compassionate."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
65. Yes!!!! I hate it but I'm starting to feel like the Republicans were right about the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #65
96. Repubs criticized them from the right
People on DU criticize them from the left. That's an important difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #96
135. Criticizing sleaziness and opportunism
knows no party. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
66. yeah its scarey
i am thinking for the first time I agree a bit with the republicans about how secretive they are. i hate when democrats act like the republicans i don't respect, it makes us look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
67. I think HRC is getting some bad advice
Shes was the winner as far as i could see but she went negative. I don't really blame her so much as i do her advisers. I think they fired that one because she was standing against the negative strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadElephant_ORG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
69. I've found myself wondering if the Repukes were right about them all along...


honestly. It's a scary thought.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #69
110. It is scary
But I was having the same thought.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
70. perhaps they only seemed so good because of what was before them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
72. That's such a good question- I've been asking myself this off and on for a while now.
  I still don't have an answer but their collective and individual behavior is really abhorrent. Not just for a Democrat but a politician of any pursuasian it's really dishonorable behavior.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beregond2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
75. Clintons
I can't say I was ever that keen on the Clintons. I defended them, because the attacks on them were so outrageous and wrongfully motivated. But I lost it for Bill when the first thing he did was break his promise to the gay voters by caving in to the bigots and saddling us with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I also thought Hillary's health care plan was a complete mess, and her arrogance toward her own party appalling. Then came NAFTA, which always struck me as something Reagan would have loved. So...no, I'm not terribly surprised by their current behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sunsprite Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #75
86. Clintons
Bill Clinton is charismatic but lies like a rug.
The Clintons are owned by the Israeli lobby and I mean owned.
If anyone can tell me what he did that was great for America please let me know.
He was the lessor evil,that's it that's all.

The economy did well because of high tech and it would done well if Elmer Fudd was President.

Bill Clinton is a womanizer and I am sure all the woman he has slept with since leaving office will all come out of the wood work if Hillary was to rob Americans of Obama.

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is no different than GWB,war with Iran will be executed,but with better propaganda and the help of NATO.
Hillary Clinton signed Bush's pretext paper declaring the Iranian national guard a terrorist organization.This is the first declaration that the war will go ahead and everyone who signed that bill knew exactly what this bill meant.

It's about Israel's expansion agenda and the oil riches in the Caspian sea.

McCain is on board and Lieberman has taken the newbee to Israel and introduced him to the Israeli Lobby with assurances McCain understands and agrees to the agenda.

The Clinton's were in Israel for exactly the same reason in 2005.

Obama is Not in anyone's pocket,he is the real deal and is not going to impose war atrocities on any more of these nations and Obama will spare the genocide of millions of innocent people.

Obama is going to use diplomacy as an instrument to peace,which is what everyone wants.

Obama has said he will not allow the special interests and/or lobby groups to determine American policy.

Americans should be the only lobby for their government in a free democracy.


CNN is biased and insults the intelligence of Americans.
The news media in America is all about flash,drama,headlines and propaganda.
Americans are not getting information.


Our Canadian kids are dying in Afghanistan because of the moral turpitude of the elite ruling establishment pretending to be your government.

Barack Obama inspires us all and this has become rare and precious trait,great leaders inspire,this is what great leaders do.

Barack Obama possess the ability to bring everyone together for the right purpose.
Hillary Clinton isn't going to win the primary on her own good merit,or on her husbands appearances.
The Clinton's can only win using trash politics and character assassination.

The Democratic party will be broken if Hillary Clinton is permitted to continue this type of campaigning.

Hillary Clinton would risk the Democratic party and the fate of Americans for her self serving ambitions.


Barack Obama might be America's last hope and ours too.

I hope Americans wake from their slumber.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #86
157. Welcome to DU!
Interesting first post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
76. Watch Primary Colors. Liberal Veteran, many of us are only now opening our eyes.
We had this very discussion at dinner tonight.

Were they always this self-absorbed and mean and like this? Or are we now just finally facing something we wouldn't look at?

Watch the film Primary Colors, some 15 years later. You will be amazed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #76
126. I was thinking the same thing. They've always been like this.
I just see them clearly for what they are now.

And I will vote for her if she's the nominee, but it will be the most disgusted vote I have ever cast in my life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
77. I feel completely and purposely hoodwinked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
78. Oh please, you people expected a coronation?????
Don't you get it? There's millions of people who think that Obama is not experience enough to be president and who keep telling Hillary to stay in the race until the end.

Get over it!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
80. I recently read Washington Babylon by Cockburn and Silverstein
I felt I needed to fill in my political knowledge of the nineties, a decade in which I was far more immersed in raising three young children and evading dire poverty than following political currents (other than being an avid NPR listener).

Along with pointing out some milestones in the devolution of the fourth estate and some other political highjinks, there is a chapter on Bill Clinton (BTW this book was written pre-Monica). I was not shocked, but certainly saddened by the extent of the Clinton's opportunism. I spent over a decade of defending the Clintons from winger comments, and after reading the facts I felt pretty silly. My old uncle, a yellow dog dem to the bone(as are most of my depression-era family members)used to call Bill 'Slick Willy' despite having voted for him. I used to cringe when he said that, but now I know why he did. And although I probably wouldn't state it as crudely, I pretty much agree with the assessment. Bill has always made his fortune at our expense. It explains the discomfort I felt between the relief of having a dem pres after barely surviving the 12 years previous and the outrage I felt when he would cave in to the ongoing march of the neo-cons on topics like BCCI, trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, welfare reform, deregulation, etc.


It all seems so clear now. The Clintons weren't really the good guys, they were just a bit kinder and gentler than Reagan and Bush, the 'good cop' to the republican 'bad cop'. They also rode an economic bubble that a few nostalgically remember and benefited from, but was certainly not shared by all.

edit for grammar goof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
82. Nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
84. I've known it since NAFTA, since Hillary-care
She tried to hand a monopoly on American Health Care to her insurance industry cronies... FOREVER making single payer almost impossible, and entrenching us in a system that fails to deliver vital care.

Then Bill sent our jobs away... and busted our Unions.

I said like everyone in Arkansas did "That slick willy is slipperier than a boiled peanut."

They are traditional Southern Democrats in this sense... they are REPUBLICANS WITH USED CAR SALESMEN SMILES.

I'm not prejudiced. Regarding the Clintons I have contempt AFTER investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
90. I've wondered too but come to the conclusion
that the Clintons were always this way. I was blind to the way they were because the attacks came from the reTHUGs. I hated the reTHUGs so much that I didn't believe ANYTHING they said. In opposition to them I defended EVERYTHING the Clintons said and did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomreedtoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
94. I think the Clintons suffer from Woody Allen Complex.
Remember the early Woody films? How they were small films that made you laugh?

Then as he went on, his sickening egotism and attention-grabbing on the screen started to get annoying. Even a died-in-the-wool New Yorker could get sick of his fear of straying beyond the Hudson. And all other characters in his films were caricatures that were supposed to reflect the glory of his "great" humor.

And then, it turned sour for nearly everybody when he had sex with his underage adopted daughter. That blew the last shred of credibility he had. Everyone realized that Allen's films were exercises in egotism. His Stardust Memories essentially told his fans to drop dead. Today not even Howard Stern will stoop to make fun of Allen.

That's what happened to the Clintons. To put it simply, they are part of the "Me Generation," as is Bush. But there are a few suggestions of a "We Generation" beginning to form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
95. It's not them that changed**nm
**
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
97. They are despicable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:22 AM
Response to Original message
99. Nope. I always knew they were like this. I never drank the Clinton koolaid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
100. Nothing has changed. People have always lied through their teeth about the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TragedyandHope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
103. I supported Bill
Edited on Sat Mar-22-08 06:21 AM by TragedyandHope
in '92 as the lesser of two evils, but he did not endear me during his first term. Things went downhill from there, but I am still as shocked as many are at the Clintons conduct during this primary season. I'm naturally averse to the GOP point of view, so it was much easier to brush off their tactics back then as opposed to now when it's directed against their own party. I suppose I don't really feel the sense of betrayal that many here feel, because most of their appeal for me had evaporated during the 90s.

That said, the Clintons look like saints when compared Bush's criminal Presidency. The difference between my support for Bill in '92 and my support for Obama is that now for the first time I am choosing a candidate for overwhelmingly positive reasons, rather than as the lesser of two evils.

If Obama wasn't running and winning and Hillary ended up in the general against McCain, I would choose Hillary as the lesser of two evils, but I wouldn't be deeply invested in her after living through 16 years of the Clintons in public life. Anything will be better than Bush and I would hope she could start turning things around, since it would be near impossible to do any worse than the last 8 years. I would be pleasantly surprised if she managed to do better than that, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

I have no illusions about Obama or any politician, for that matter. Despite all the put-downs thrown our way from the other camp, I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker or cult follower. Obama is certainly not perfect and it's almost statistically impossible for him not to make any mistakes in office since he's only human, so I assume he'll have his fair share of screw-ups (that plenty of people will enjoy jumping all over). He will inherit a war and and possibly the worst recession in nearly a century, so the odds are stacked against him. It's quite a mountain to climb, but his life story, his public service and this primary season have shown that he not only has courage and determination, but that he can overwhelmingly exceed all expectations.

He's not going to magically change the entrenched system in Washington, but I think he has the potential to do slightly more good than anyone else in the running. Obama has a great chance to raise the country up nationally and on the world stage in a way that no one has in recent memory. After the way Bush has driven the country straight into the ground, Obama has a chance to raise the bar for our country and ourselves. Honestly, I think Obama deserves a chance to fail more than the Clintons deserve another 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaniqua6392 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
104. I think people forgot about how much we liked the Clinton's
because they are infatuated with the newcomer. We threw them under the bus. They have always been politicians who have fought their way into various political offices. They have promoted the Democratic agenda for most of their lives. I am not saying it has been a perfect ride, but they have been hounded and tormented by Republicans for years. A year ago, I would have never seen a negative thing said about Bill on DU. But now he is the equivalent of Bush to some who say horrible things about him. No one ever mentions what he has done for the victims of the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and AIDS in Africa, etc. Some just like Obama better and instead of just having a spirited competition between two of our finest Democrats, some have decided we would be better off if the Clinton's were just dead....gone....out of the picture entirely. How sad we Democrats have become. Personally, I will support either of them. I think they are both wonderful in different ways. I like some things about them and I don't like some things about them. I will never sacrifice one for the other. Just let the voters decide and in the end we will have our nominee. I don't ask that anyone drop out of the race until the end. That would not be fair to their respective supporters who are my fellow Democrats. I stand ready to fight for whoever is left standing in order to keep John McCain from taking the oath of office. Just picture him standing there with his hand on the bible being sworn in as President of the United States!!! Need I say more?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #104
107. The not-so-nice side of the Clintons has come out in this campaign.
It's not just infatuation with a newcomer. The day she started campaigning for McCain was the day I realized I could never support a Clinton again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
106. I spent a large part of the eighties in the Ozarks,
While I wasn't living in Arkansas, I got to know many people who did, and heard a lot of news coming out of that state. One of the things that I'll never forgive Bill for is starting this whole testing, NCLB mania in his state. His program for teacher accountability was the prototype for NCLB, and by the time he hit the WH, it had already destroyed the education system in Arkansas.

It was also during the eighties that I heard strange stories of corruption coming out of Arkansas. I remember laughing off the stories at the time, but now one has to wonder.

I never was a big Clinton fan, I thought that in many ways he was the best Republican president we've ever had. As the ninties wore on, I found myself liking them less and less. I didn't give a damn about the Lewinsky matter and such, that was all bullshit. What I cared about was the corporate cronyism Bill exhibited, and the "kinder, gentler" brand of corporate conservatism they brought to the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklynChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
109. I never liked Bill Clinton and his moderate policies. None of this is a surprise. Never liked them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
114. After Bill's latest thinly veiled comments about the candidates patriotism
I'm wondering when he becomes a net negative to the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
115. I spent entire weeksof my life defending hem, now I wonder,
"do I owe my republican friends an apology?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
116. I think the world moved on and they didn't change.
People want something different. The Clintons are the same.

Bill's ego is probably bruised. He is used to being the Golden One. Everyone called him the most talented and charismatic politician of our generation. Until Obama.

They have both suffered so much and worked so hard. There may be some sense of entitlement, that they deserve this nomination because of all they have gone through. This nomination would be their vindication for all they have sacrificed.

But still, I wish they were doing this with more grace and understanding. Big picture, this is not about them or their sacrifice. They are not owed this nomination. People want new leadership, and the Clintons are not offering that. They are old hands at this, they should be able to recognize that the trend is moving against them, nothing personal.

Also, they have always been able to pull out a victory at the last minute. It may be hard to recognize that it is highly unlikely. There will be no Comeback Kid this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
117. I don't know what they're like
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
119. They were "like this"
and that is how they survived the constant attcks of the RW.

Now they are taking it from the RW & the LW.... so they dig their heels in deeper. No surprise.

I admire them both, greatly. And will admire Mr. Obama as well if he can show the same fortitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Penndems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #119
164. "and that is how they survived the constant attcks of the RW. "
and they'll survive the attacks and campaign spin coming from the Far Left, too.

In fact, after being in the public eye for over thirty years, the Clintons haven't just learned to live with the attacks, they've learned the capacity to endure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #164
166. They endure
and actually seem to thrive despite (or because of?) the attacks.

Never count them out. Never!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
121. me, too.
Edited on Sat Mar-22-08 08:02 AM by npincus
I started out with an open mind, not sure who I'd get behaind and happy with all out choices. HRC's campaign (and BC) have so turned me off, I feel like I never realy knew their true nature(s)/ They are political creatures who will do anything to ensure their own survival. ANYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
122. I think they've always been this way. It's hard to believe something
you just don't want to believe, though.

I'm like you - I didn't want to see it. But we've seen that ugly side pretty clearly in this campaign.

I still wish I didn't have to see it, to be honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
124. I guess they were always like this.
I was a duped delusional. About Carville, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
127. No, you probably just defend everything that benefits you past


where it makes sense because you have no capacity to admit a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. More likely is that sense their tactics weren't aimed at democrats, it was okay.
When they started attacking members of their own party, I became disillusioned with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. Exactly, you are blinded by partisanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #127
136. Oh teh irony...
The OP is admitting that they made a mistake about the Clintons, and you accuse them of being incapable of admitting a mistake? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. After he became an Obama supporter


Oh, the humanity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #139
153. I don't think you are in a position to cast aspersions on my motivations.
Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 11:29 AM by Liberal Veteran
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you are secretly my boyfriend posting on DU, I doubt you know me well enough to understand why I have become disenchanted with the Clinton campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
133. You're caught up in the media created drama/entertainmant.
One day someone is awesome the next day they're not. One day the world is going to end, the next day it's not. Please don't believe the reality you have allowed others to create for you. Assess facts in a void as best you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
137. I started wondering that shortly after Iowa, when they ramped-up the negativity ...
... after their third-place thumping.

I began to wonder if maybe the Right Wing had developed such a loathing for the Clintons because of 14+ years of this sort of negative campaigning -- distortions, outright lies and divisiveness -- down in Arkansas, and then during the Presidential campaigns. We never really saw this sort of negativity during Bill's 1992 run because his competition faded pretty quickly, so he was never backed into a corner like Hillary has been.

I think we may just be getting a look at what being on the receiving end of Carville/Clinton-style politics is like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
143. I'm afraid they've always been like this.
Like many others here, I defended then for a long time. No more.

Clinton did a number of good things legislatively in 1993 and 1994. After that, he had no significant legislative achievements. In fact, after 1994 he participated in a few legislative disasters. I continue to like his two Supreme Court nominees.

Otherwise, he has been a disaster for the party, and Hillary has not been much better.

I have been eating a lot of crow about the Clintons, lately, and I don't like the taste of it.

:puke:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
148. You moved on -
even though I defended them back in the 90's, I have a more than sneaking suspicion that they were always like this.

Willing to do, say and be anything in order to get what they want(short of actually causing physical harm).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
150. I had no idea..
it is amazing to me how much they have tarnished their reputation in a few months. In the beginning of all this I would have been perfectly content with Hillary. Now, I am so disgusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. That's how I feel. I actually said as much at my caucus.
The first words out of my mouth was how proud I was that we had two candidates (by that time it was apparent it would be HRC or BHO) that I could proudly walk into the voting booth and vote FOR the candidate.

Now, I feel like there is only one I can vote FOR. If I am forced to vote for Clinton it will be a vote against McCain and I'll need a nosepin the size of Jupiter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
152. Yes...And now I want to smack Bill Clinton for that McCarthyite smear.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky 13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
154. I ADORED the Clintons
I loved the Clintons. I voted for Bill. I contributed to Bill. I defended Hillary whenever the right-wing decided to attack. Because I believed them. i believed they cared about people and the good of the nation.

I started this primary season FIRMLY in John Edwards camp. Not for dislike of Hillary or any candidate, but largely for the reasons spelled out in Michael Moore's letter released just before the Iowa caucuses. I just felt John Edwards had it right. Anti-corporate, tough on health insurers. His message just matched so closely with what I actually believed.

Then he dropped out. I was devastated. I believed all of the remaining candidates were flawed and likely to have a difficult time in the general. I remember carpooling home with my neighbor that day and I was telling her how I didn't know who I would support now. As a gay white woman over 30, a large part of me wanted to vote for Hillary if for no other reason than she was a woman. And who was Barack anyway? He should run for President later, I thought.

But then she started in with the negativity. MOCKING Obama supporters - MOCKING many of my friends, for nothing more than having an opinion different than hers. Then starting in on trying to changes the rules that she pledged to uphold - because it would benefit her personally. Then "endorsing McCain". Then LYING, OUTRIGHT LYING about her position on NAFTA, and taking sniper fire. And her willingness to DESTROY the Democratic party chances in the fall by dragging this thing all the way to the convention... despite ALL THE MATH saying it's impossible to do (legitimately). She's hoping to SLIME Obama enough, she hoping to manipulate polling numbers enough, she's hoping to DIVIDE whites and blacks enough... that she can convince enough superdelegates (and regular delegates) to switch to her... undermining the democratic process.

She has LOST all my respect. I cannot believe I supported them and defended them. I feel duped. They never cared... it was always about grabbing power. I'm just glad I finally woke up to their true colors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
158. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
159. I never really paid that much attention until 1998
during Monicagate. And then I was struck by Bill Clinton's ability to lie and throw hissy fits.

He redeemed himself to me for awhile when Asshat took the WH.

But what he sas said and done during this primary season has put him back on my shit list. Maybe for good. It's a real shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
160. they always look good compared to the Bushes and that lot.
but now that they are up against an Obama, their true colours are showing and it is them that most resemble the bush tactics of division and insulting everyone's intelligence and playing dirty.

they just didn't have a good comparison before - now we see them for who they really are and it ain't pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
165. I have been asking myself the same question.
I suppose they are great to have on your team, not so great if they are on the other side. You can read into that what you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
168. 
David Geffen one year ago.

From being against the war from the start to ducking sniper fire to opposing NAFTA to claiming Bill Shaheen called Obama a drug dealer without her clearance, how do you feel this quote played itself out over the last 12 months?
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 Thu Oct 19th 2017, 12:49 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