Friday, 04.11.08
The Clinton Legacy
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images News
An interview with Bill Clinton
March 2003
Read the transcript of James Fallows' interview.
An email exchange with Tony Blair about Bill Clinton
March 2003
Read James Fallows' correspondence with the former Prime Minister.
Bill Clinton and his consequences
February 2001
P.J. O'Rourke, Glenn Loury, Roy Blount Jr., and others look back over his presidency.
After he made yet another campaign-trail blunder, Hillary Clinton has told her husband to back off. Many in the Democratic party, even those in Bill's corner, would like him to back off, too. The debate about his political legacy is effectively over, and no one but a handful of prominent Democrats will argue that his presidency was salutary for the Democratic party. Present circumstances reinforce that judgment. Bill has been pilloried for his conduct in this campaign. We've seen his bad side -- temper tantrums, parochialism, arrogance, promiscuity with the facts -- and none of his good side. His post-presidency cocoon, gilded in no small part by the American taxpayer, seems to have left him ill-prepared for the modern news cycle. He's certainly no longer his party's best political strategist.
It may be too late to rehabilitate Bill Clinton the Democrat. But Bill Clinton the president? The Earned Income Tax Credit, arguably the largest anti-poverty program in recent memory; the innovations of welfare reform; NAFTA; the crime bill; willingness to fight against his party at times; low interests rates; real wage growth; deficit reduction; the tech boom; full employment. On the other side: NAFTA; welfare reform; willingness to fight against his party; Lewinsky; Rubinomics; regulatory dismantlement of the financial markets -- ah well. Looks like there's still an argument there, too.
PhilanthropistJennifer Senior profiles the "metabolically prosperous" former president in his numerous new capacities. |
Jet-setterDavid Remnick tailed the ex-President during his overseas jaunts and found him "buzzy with a sense of accomplishment." |
SuperhumanJames Fallows reports on Clinton's supernatural vigor, saying he "would clearly run again if he could." |
Man with regretsCharles Krauthammer says that Clinton, far from having a legacy, is desperate to build one. |
(39)
Let us not forget, this is not a Bill Clinton campaign, this is a Hillary campaign. While this may hurt Bill in the short run, people will always remember he won two elections back to back, and unlike GW Bush, he actually won the popular vote twice. He brought back a party that was averaging 113 electoral votes from 1968-1988. To Miande above, winning his two elections were big achievements, as he got a Democrat like Al Gore, less charismatic than a cardboard box to win the popular vote, and a Dukakis could almost take out an incumbent wartime president. He made the Democrat brand viable again. I think he is irrational when it comes to his family, in a way he is not when it comes to just him or other congressional candidates. He lets this spill into his campaigning, and the media plays gotcha with it, as with everything else Clinton with reforming the travel office, women who claimed to have sex with him, Vince Foster, etc. While Congressional Democrats did lose during his term, it was inevitable. The Reagan Revolution caused it, as southerns and former Democrats voted their instincts now with a Democrat in office. Over the long run, the only reason we can even run now is because of him. It was six years after Reagan left that the GOP got congress, just as with Clinton and us taking it back. Clinton made us competent on economy, foreign policy, the budget, crime, and welfare. We should look at the big picture at his political legacy, not the short term on.e
Jay two words for you "Ross Perot"
your pal bill never got 50% of the popular vote
Marc
With all due respect, you are not being honest. The three Amigos from the Atlantic, Marc, Ross, and Matthew have sold out. By being advocates for Obama, it is difficult to take your comments seriously. When journalists lose their objectivity in a political campaign, their work is tainted. You are also a political commentator for the CBS Radio News Network. Your remarks about the superdelegates were self-serving. A disclaimer about your ties to Obama should have been read.
Under Bill's watch congress lost control of both Democratic houses for the first time in 40 years. It was hardly inevitable but oddly understandable. The sex and financial scandals were endless and Clinton sent US forces into combat situations nearly twice as many times as the four preceding presidents combined had over 17 years. He also allowed Bin Laden to walk away. As the internet bubble began winding down, Bill and Hill made their merciful exit from Washington with a moving truck full of unauthorized White House items. They have eventually returned roughly half of the furniture, gifts, china etc.
The snafus on the Clinton campaign trail foreshadow the real crisis that lies in wait should we end up with the misfortune of a third Clinton presidency: we'll never be able to tell who's in charge, and when two captains wo/man the same vessel, you can only expect disaster.
Is Bill throwing the election? Almost like clockwork, when things start to settle down and Hillary starts creeping up in the polls, Bill Clinton slides in these comments meant to "help" her, that are most inappropriate and give her lots of bad press... Does he really want her to lose? He's so politically savvy it's hard to believe he's saying these things by mistake.
"The Reagan Revolution caused it, as southerns and former Democrats voted their instincts now with a Democrat in office. Over the long run, the only reason we can even run now is because of him."
You're forgetting something called the Republican Revolution in 1994. That came directly out of Hillary's failures on health care. It was a direct backlash fueled by a lack of certain political skills. The Republicans winning the House for the first time in 40 years was not just a deux ex machina that came out of nowhere. By 1994, most Americans had a negative view of Reagan's presidency. In fact, Americans only started to view those years positively around 1999 because Reagan's Alzheimer's took such a bad turn that he won sympathy. The 1980's simply weren't a good time for most Americans.
I think Bill's approach to this campaign shadows his general approach to everything. Which is to do everything in his best interest now and worry about the consequences later. But sometimes sorry just doesn't cut it anymore. His only hope is to get back to the white house to be at the center of the favor machine to get people to like him again.
Hillary Clinton has been tone-on for this entire campaign. If her husband is too passionate about her winning, so be it--His efforts to help her win are well-justified. And to the partisan anti-Clintonistas on this site--buena suerte. If Hillary loses the nomination, Obama can't win enough swing states in the "winner-take-all" electoral college to give us a democratic president. A vote for Obama is a vote for failure.
Margaret, are you a little confused (or drunk)? First, the democrats didn't lose control of the US Congress in 1994 because of "scandals"--the Ken Starr-created scandals came in 1996-1998. Second, Clinton's military offenses (unlike the current Bush, the prior Bush, or any other president, living or dead) were overwhelming successes. Do you remember when Clinton successfully invaded Bosnia, 0verthrew the genociadal government, and not one American military person lost his life--HINT: This is called success. Third, how dare you say that Bill Clinton allowed bin Laden to get away? Bill Clinton, at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, sent US bombers to take out bin Laden at a factory. The filthy republicans, led by Tom DeLay, accused the president of "Wagging the Dog". The republicans fought to end this campaign against bin Laden, and, because of this, the republicans successfully killed 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Defend this, Margaret--Your party has a lot of explaining to do.
Speaking of drunk Kelly, you really have to lay off the sauce. Please. You mumble: "Do you remember when Clinton successfully invaded Bosnia,..."
Uh, no. Because he didn't. Nato, with the US in the lead bombed Serbia from 20,000 feet to drive the Serbian army from Kosovo and didn't lose a man. The UN had some largely failed missions in Bosnia. The Serbs abused the UN peacekeepers time and again. Maybe there were some, some, Americans among the peacekeepers, but in the end it was sanctions and international pressure that drove the Serb army from Bosnia.
Invading Bosnia? Maybe you're thinking of Somolia. Bill kind of invaded there but then chickened out.
We need the Clintons, in total, to get off the political stage. Time for change, not anymore of their misbehavings.
Add to Clinton's already tarnished reputation for lying, perjury and arrogance -- encouraging racism in South Carolina and elsewhere. That goes for Hillary also, with Geraldine Ferraro as surrogate playing the affirmative action resentment card.
Disgusting, revolting, and the Democratic Party should expel the both of them and let them run as independents.
Clinton had a golden opportunity for meaningful immigration reform and he squandered it. His legacy is an out-of-control immigration system and all the problems that come with it.
Kelly: Lay off the sauce when you post a comment. Bill Clinton committed multiple felonies (lies under oath, obstruction of justice), was disbarred, held in contempt of court by a federal judge, paid Paula Jones to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, etc. Ken Starr did not create scandals, Bill Clinton's illegal behavior created them. Ken Starr was not the culprit, Bill Clinton was. All he needed to do was tell the truth; something his makeup will not allow to happen.
Back at the start of Hillary's campaign I proposed the theory that Bill would act like he was helping her while actually undermining her efforts. I suspected that it would even take Hillary a while to catch on. My hypothesis was that Bill would consider her presidency as a lose-lose situation for him. If Hillary did badly she would tarnish his reputation. If she did well she would take credit for his successes and again reduce his reputation. I was dismissed when I made these comments. He is too good of a politician to make these mistakes. Hillary might wish that he stayed with Monica.
In point of fact, Clinton did not win the so-called 'popular vote' even once, if by 'winning' one means polling a majority. GWB in 2004 was the first to win the popular vote since his pater in 1988. Clinton's percentage of the popular vote in 1992 was less than that of Dukakis four years earlier.
bill clinton never received 50% of the vote. george w received over 50% in 2004. clinton had no foreign policy achievemnts, he did nothing against terror. i think he will be seen as quite average.
Sandi, good point. It seems like he must want her to lose. Interesting theory.
It seems to me that the real Clinton legacy comes in three distinct forms or packages:
1 - 9/11 was a predictable response to the loss of American will during the Clinton years. From temper tantrums (Yemen) to appeasement (China) he demonstrated what the people directing the terrorists most wanted to see: America as hollow man backing rapidly away from the Reagan/Bush worldview.
2 - Enron et al was a predictable response to the absence of moral leadership in the whitehouse. A fish rots from the head - and when the Clintons abandoned decency, others were freed to follow.
3 - the current mess that is the Democratic party. It should stand for liberal, humanistic, views - instead it exiles Liebermann and has become the party of Dean, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama - facist elitists with no concept of public service, no shame, and indeed no moral sense at all.
It's amazing whenever anyone refutes HRC's campaign or tactics as ridiculous, misguided, corrupt or arrogant WITH FACTS, HRC's supporters respond with insults ("you're an obamaniac" or "a vote for Obama is a vote for failure"). Anything HRC does or says is justifiable and understandable to her supporters(her Bosnia lies, her b.s. about Obama and NAFTA, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton's ties with Colombia, her canoodling with Scaife, etc.) but anything Obama says or does is suspect and a sign of his falseness or inexperience (his Wright speech, his lead so far, his comments about "bitter" blue collar workers, Samantha Powers comment, the lack of his involvement in the Rezko scandal, etc.) If you are truly voting objectively for the BEST candidate and refuse to be swayed by preconceptions then do as I did and chart HRC and Obama side by side with pros and cons on the following: Character, Campaign management, Actual accomplishments (not by proxy), Campaign promises, Handling unexpected or unfavorable problems, Consistency, Electability (note that even though there is a perception that being half-black could hurt Obama with some white voters, being HRC is not a boon either for those same voters because of what she represents to them thanks to the rightwing attack machine).
In my assessment, Obama came out on top and that's why I'm going for him.
I'm an independent who usually votes for the Republican or Libertarian candidate, but viewed objectively, I think there were many positive things about Bill, which Hillary doesn't have. First of all, Bill was very bright. I don't think Hillary is nearly as intelligent. Second, Bill had charisma and warmth. Hillary really has to work at it to project this. Third, Bill was willing to compromise in order to get things done. Hillary, like Dubya, has a tendency to dig her heels in. This was disastrous with her in her failed health care initiative, and it was disastrous with Bush in his not being willing to get rid of the Rumsfeld strategy sooner and go with the Petraeus one. Fourth, they both have a temper, but Hillary comes across as more vindictive, plus, and this is sad but true, it's less acceptable for a woman to display her temper in public.
Now, there were flaws with the Clinton presidency, just like there are with any President. An argument can be made that he didn't go after bin Ladin as aggressively as he should have, that he let the military shrink too far, and that he didn't control his impulses. I remember telling a friend - if he had to cheat on Hillary, couldn't he have done it with an older, married woman who would have an incentive to keep it quiet, and in a location besides the Oval Office? In other words - do it discreetly, not with an employee, and not in the workplace... and then of course he lied about it...
I think Bill's assault on Barack is an attack of his younger self with a bigger heart.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/willray
I think one of the differences between how the Clintons are perceived today v. 1992 is that the media is not in the tank for them this time, rather they are in the tank for Obama.
The days of objectivity on the part of the media are long gone. Therefore, in 1992 Clinton could count on the media hiding his pecadilloes and glossing over the unsavory aspects of his history. Even with this help, he didn't get a majority of the vote, only a plurality which was less than 50%.
Today, the media is fawning over Obama and is not inclined to pass on reporting the infantile and bullying aspects of the open mouthed Bill. I'm sure the bad side was always there during the 1992 and 1996 campaigns and in between, it's just that the media didn't do their jobs. Now they are doing their jobs, sort of, with Clinton, but not doing their jobs with Obama.
I have never sensed more hubris from a candidate as much as from Sen. Barack Obama. First of all, everything and anything he did, he claimed it to be historical. When he declared his candidacy he was imitating what President Lincoln had done. Then, he claimed he was MLK and even JFK. But he did not even show up at MLK’s 40th death anniversary in Memphis, he turned his back─ while Sen. Clinton and McCain attended, but the media including MSNBC tried hard to splice him into the commemorative activities footage; giving the false impression that he was present in Memphis, although he did not bother and busy campaigning in Indiana. But nobody give a hoot about anything he does. He’s so well propped by his friends in the media, and the media treats him the way Russian TV treats Putin; Sen. Obama has no faults; he can do no wrong! If Sen. Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton makes a slipup, oh, you won’t hear the end of it, whatever she or he said becomes instantly the headline news. And you’ll see their slipups played hundreds of times! And who’s covering up for him and propping Sen. Obama up? Who’s placing him on a very high branch like Humpty Dumpty? Sen. Obama’s support comes from the Washington media people, Hollywood and others who just loves image but nothing else. These are the people who stare at their blackberries all day and have no real idea what’s going on the real world. I can tell you these people are so removed from reality and haven’t the foggiest what the real issues that we face or have a real sense of what matters to the working people who are struggling to raise their children in this country. We the working people remember how good it was to have a Clinton in the White House! There was change and hope for us in those days. Our lives changed for better and there was hope for our children. Sen. Obama can’t compete with that kind of record of the Clinton years. So he had to slight working people in America! He has to call them stupid and small townies! But we know better. President Clinton left office with an astonishing 450 Billion surplus. Since we know our country has been devastated and struck down by one crisis after another during the seven years under President Bush; he never cared for us, he turned his back on working people and gave big tax cuts to very rich, he was an ideologue who believed that “the market” is going to do everything right. I know these ideologues went to Washington to dismantle our government. They ideologues believed that our government was evil! And what Abraham Lincoln had said about “A government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall never perish from the earth,” was it just gibberish? But I think all they had to do was look in the mirror, if they wanted to find nonsense. Now we know how the devastation that they had brought about; now we have a good idea how many catastrophes brewing everywhere we look. Sen. John McCain tells us he wants to do the same as President Bush. He wants to keep doing what’s got us here and ruined us in the first place? Does that make any sense to you? Two difficult and costly wars raging, (Have you noticed that Sen. Obama is changing his tune about the Iraq war?)economy collapsing, dollar stumbling to historic lows, food, gas, shooting through the roof; huge housing crisis deepening, vast and devastating consumer credit crisis looming; it seemed that everything around us falling apart, form bridges, to the airlines, financial institutions… you name it list goes on. The Bush administration has destroyed everything for all practical purposes. They long abdicated the governmental responsibility of oversight and management. Their vision of our country was embarrassingly narrow-minded and provincial. They squandered the greatness our country while waving the flag. They were incompetent and corrupt lot. But remember, these guys ran great campaigns, just like Sen. Obama is doing right now. And to do that these people got lot of support from the media remember? Remember how they ridiculed Al Gore? They said were against taxes, they wanted get the government off the people’s backs. But under these guys our government got larger than ever before and ever more incompetent, fumbling. PBC estimated that Iraq war will cost each household in the country 30,000 dollars per family! That’s the biggest tax increase ever! Meanwhile our country’s standards have fallen so badly; we are now 41th in life expectancy, 40th in infant mortality! South Korea, which is small county in Asia, graduates more engineers than we do. India, China and Russia graduates five, six or seven times more engineers than we do. The statistics will shock you. The truth about what’s happening to our country will break your heart. But our media doesn’t care to inform you the truth about what’s going on and since it’s dominated by people like Oprah? Our country faces a grave situation. And of course we are becoming like a third world country, the gap between the rich and the poor have increased alarmingly! I don’t think Sen. Obama have the experience or the expertise to deal with our huge problems. We need the “Clinton model” back in our government and in industry to get us out of this shocking mess. Make no mistake about it; this is a very critical election! Granted, Sen. Obama is a charming man with a great image and poise that the media people love; he looks good and sounds good, but believe me that’s least what we need night now. We can’t play the violin while our house is on fire! We don’t need Oprah style feel good fiction. We need no jive talk… about hope and change! Right now we need action, action, and more action. I can only trust Sen. Hillary Clinton in the White House to bring hope to the working class person like myself, prosperity to all us workers who built this country and respect and admiration to America form around world for what our country stands for ─shining beacon of hope that we are for all humanity; just like it was when Bill Clinton was our president! Bill Clinton was one of our best presidents!
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...
DON'T BE DUPED !!!
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.
But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).
I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.
“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith...
This Way To the Egress: WJC is (or was) the P.T. Barnum of national politics: big words, empty tent, aided and abetted by the MSM, who've chosen a new act for the center ring (might even send a thrill up your leg!)
Along with fellow carnival barker Ross Perot - who miraculously showed up only twice in national elections to split the vote in favor of WJC - the circus was in full swing.
Reality? Fuggetit; that first WTC bomb sponsored by that blind Muslim, whatzisname? Might affect the poll numbers; and all of that info about Saddam, the WMD's and what wazzit, 10 or more UN resolutions demanding that he disarm? Too busy havin' phone fun.
And how about all of those last day in office pardons, including the PR terrorists? $ Ka-ching $
Then 9/11 hits - and W gets pilloried for actually doing something about it. After all of this history, all the info at his (and Senators') disposal, can you imagine what might have happened to US if he pulled a Clinton and decided to do NOTHING because he valued his poll numbers more than our safety?
We're damn lucky W's our President, and I expect nothing less from the next (most likely McCain).
JackSmith ... love the rant about being an idiot. I couldn't help but notice that the only thing remembered about Hillary was failing to pass universal health care the first time around ... and standing next to her husband. Anyone who thinks a husband's experience qualifies a wife for the presidency might be ...
Yes, I love the rant because it points out the hollowness which is Hillary's candidacy based on experience.
Bill was always politically overrated. Doesn't anybody remember that he had to bring in Dick Morris after the '94 elections to teach him politics? Or his, and Hillary's, disastrous first two years in office?
Welfare reform; he gets credit? It was fought for by Republicans, Bill vetoed it twice then signed it into law, the midnight signing, 2 1/2 months before the election.
The economy; to keep it short, anybody who thinks one man sitting in the White House, forget who's under the desk, can give a nation of three hundred million people a prosperous economy, should be taking lollipops from strangers and looking for a dictator to run the country.
Bill was and always will be a fool. He and Hillary no longer have the media protection afforded them when despoiling and stealing from the White House. The real Bill is on display, live and learn.
I will give him credit for being good at raising money, bribes, from foreign sources. In this he was a trailblazer.
Johnt hit the proverbial nail on the head. Billy and Hillary were merely foolish puppets of the media elite who successfully duped people into believing the former Governor from Arkansas would be a good leader. He was anything but. Neither Billy nor Hillary can tell the truth because they are so caught up in their own tangled web of deceit.
Reading the many comments about the two Democratic candidates from the distant perspective of Australia, I am disturbed by the degree of vitriol displayed (and it seems more so from the Clinton supporters). Within a few months one will be your final candidate, can you then turn off the hate stuff and support that candidate against McCain? The rest of the world would like you Americans to elect a president who can restore your country's respect. I would suggest you have a good look at the work of our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. I suspect he is the forerunner of a new style of left-of-centre leader in the West; and he actually does what he promises. Good luck, but turn away from the vitriol, it is so last century.
I knew Bill was lying the first time I heard him speak - I wondered why anyone ever believed him. He is still doing it but I guess it works on the dems.
Wake up Jack - Hillary is a self aggrandizing liar who will say anything she thinks you will believe - well, unless she is pinned down by sniper fire - if that doesn't wake you up I don't know what will.
Is funny that Obama is attacking someone's record, given all his present votes on the tough issues in the Illinois state legislature, he should be the last person criticizing someone else's record.
Obama you are just like all the politicians you are chastising for promising so much but delivering so little. South side Chicago is still waiting on those promises you talked about when you were running for the state senate. Crime is still very high, schools are still bad, murder rate is still very high, people still live in dilapidated apartments controlled by your slumlord friend Rezko.
Your luck of oversight has exacerbated the problems that they already had. Of course, I forgot, you were getting some sweet heart deals from you buddy Rezko to help finance your ambitions to even worry about the common folks in south side Chicago.
What is your major accomplishment in the Senate? How many of your bi-partisan bills turned into laws? How many of the senators on the republican side did you bring together? How exactly are you going to bring people together given that you have voted more along party lines with your Ultra liberal friends Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and flip flopper John kerry.
Don't attack the Clinton administration because unlike you, the administration actually created jobs and left the country with a lot of money to pay our bills. You couldn't even help the people of south side Chicago.
I feel the democratic party is being hijacked by the left wingers, the same way the neo-cons have hijack the republican party
It is really sad to see so many disresepectful people these days. I am a 39 year old female who raised my daughter alone in the 90's after her father died when I was pregnant. I will NEVER forget the financial help I received because of the Clinton Administration. I was able to pay for and graduate college, thanks to the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration was the best in my years. To see what the media has done to undermine The Clinton Legacy is so sad. The lack of respect Americans and the media show for our leaders, whether they agree with them or not, has come to an all time high. I think people need to stop being so critical of others who have worked so hard for so long to better this country and I would ask those people to take a good look at themselves and at their hearts and ask themselves, "What would Jesus Do"?
The hatefulness and cruelty towards the Clintons come from those who really don't know what they are talking about. They are just repeating the hate they hear from the prejudice and ratings based media.
We can only pray for them and hope they never find themselves at the end of those kind of unecessary personal attacks.
Obmama lost a number of potential supporters who were sitting on the fence when he began to disparage both Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration. Republicans as "the party of ideas" according to Obama. Of course it's understandable in politics -- though this candidate was supposed to be above politics as usual - that Obama wanted to erase the support Clinton had after leaving the presidency. Those years might shine favorably on Senator Clinton. Obama claims Hillary is working from the GOP playbook -- but his attacks on Bill Clinton - via his surrogates -- have come from that same playbook. Shame on him.
WOW ! Hillary's Religion (cult?) 'THE FAMILY' Very Scary ! Prays To Jesus For The Elite To Rule The World !
(Where's The Media On This ?????)
The media has repeatedly aired the short clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric in attempt to discredit and smear Barack Obama. But what's even more interesting is the fact that the media never discusses Hillary Clinton's religion, which is extremely telling and even frightening. A closer look into her 'religion' gives one a clearer picture of why she is the way she is.In a recent article by Steven Brandt many truths about Hillary's religion, called ' The Family' will make you shudder. The question is....where's the media on this one ?
Brandt writes, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." said Hillary Clinton, to reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Tuesday the 25th. This is an interesting choice of words, since -- while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing -- Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide...
"...an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family's current leader, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
This quote is taken from the book on The Family by the same name which will be published in May... a book which claims to
"...dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not "What do fundamentalists want?" but "What have they already done?"
A long article was written about Hillary Clinton's participation in this organization last September in Mother Jones, and The Family, itself, was the subject of an extensive article in Harper's in March of 2003. And on March 21st, The Nation published an article on Hillary and The Family by Barbara Ehrenreich that was published on The Huffington Post and CBS News' web site.
The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells."...wrote Ms.Ehrenreich.
Is it possible that Hillary's participation in this fundamentalist group -- which apparently preaches the "gospel of military might" -- would help explain her vote in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq? Is it possible her pro-NAFTA stance during her husband's administration comes from its embrace of "the no-holds-barred economics of globalization"? Is it possible that the sense some get that Hillary feels entitled to be president comes in part from this group's belief that "it's only the elites who matter"? I encourage any reporter covering Hillary's campaign to ask her about all this.
At a time when so many people are wondering what sort of effect the Rev. Wright's sermons may have had on Barack Obama, I think it's only fair to ask what sort of effect The Family's fundamentalist mission has had - and continues to have - on Hillary Clinton. We know that George Bush engages in truly fundamentalist thinking. There is no person or new information capable of challenging his belief that what he already knows is right. Is Hillary Clinton like this in some way? I am not sure.
But the opinion I have formed from this is that - while Hillary Clinton may be considered a Liberal by many - on the inside she is a deeply Conservative person... possibly as close to being a Republican today as she was when she was a young woman supporting Senator Goldwater. This helps explain, to me, why she and John McCain are such good friends. They are both drawn to the use of military power and free market capitalism... and to taking money from lobbyists. The other opinion I have formed is that those who say there are no policy differences between Hillary and Barack haven't taken into account how their religious differences might impact the policies they would actually seek to implement as president. (end of article)
So now a few things make more sense about Hillary. In review, she's in a kinda power-hungry cult which is actually run by her fellow Republicans which she is secretly one of ! It also makes sense why she could care less about detroying the Democratic Party. Also, beware of her claim to work toward ending the Iraq war. That is another great lie that she is telling. If you listen to her claims she commonly repeats ' I will start getting troops out within my first 60 days '.....How many ? 3....1000...10,000 ? Don't be fooled. Hillary has no desire to end the war. She'll bring 5 troops home then say that she kept her word.
The media should be called out for not exposing this cult. Problem is, they would also be revealing the truths about their fellow Republican's plan and prayers to 'rule the world' by any means. So it's up to us, regular Americans like you and I, to help spread the truth in spite of the media.....For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA EXPOSING THIS ????? SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE !!! Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
What is the basis for calling Bill Clinton "a political virtuoso"? His first campaign was against the weakest sitting President since Hoover; his second was against a waking corpse. And need it be repeated that he promoted himself at the expense of his paerty? Anyone forget that the Democrats had a congressional majority when Clinton took the Oval Office and when he left, the party was a minority party?
Posted by Miande | April 11, 2008 7:55 PM