15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World

[RiverLover]

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

...Just as a preface, I want to say no one was a bigger Bill Clinton fan than me back in the day. He and Al Gore both walked on water. Clinton was my first vote, my very proud first vote...

It wasn't until Jan 2009 when a casual comment by a very smart lady starting a small bank mentioned that it was Bill Clinton who caused the 2007/2008 banking crisis by ending Glass-Steagall woke me up & forever ended my low information days. I went home & started googling away. One thing led to another (& another) thing he did under the cover of clever rhetoric & media cover which I had no idea.

Now, today, I believe he is responsible for a majority of what is wrong with America today. He's the reason I wanted so badly for Elizabeth Warren to run for president & to be our president....& for Hillary not to be.

Here's the article~

15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World

Many Americans do not associate Clinton with his dark legacy.

By AlterNet Staff / AlterNet
June 22, 2015

Bill Clinton remains one of America’s most popular presidents. A national poll last March by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found 56 percent of Americans had a clearly favorable view of Clinton. That’s long been true for African Americans—from novelist Toni Morrison famously calling him the “first black president” while in office, to books explaining his appeal after his presidency ended.

Clinton has used this popularity to build his enormously ambitious global foundation, collecting $2 billion in assets for many anti-poverty and health initiatives, as well as building a personal fortune from speechmaking estimated at $30 million or more. In recent years, most of the public has forgotten what Clinton did as president, even as he has steadily been in the news.

But for more than a year before Hillary Clinton launched her latest presidential campaign, Bill Clinton has been selectively telling media outlets that he made some mistakes as president and might have acted otherwise. He's even tried to recast actual events and been taken to task by fact-checkers who recall his leading role in what became major crises, such as the 2008 global financial implosion....

What follows are 15 ways Bill Clinton’s presidency did not serve America or the world, and in many ways deepened and perpetuated the problems we face today. This article was prepared by AlterNet staff members Janet Allon, Michael Arria, Jan Frel, Tana Ganeva, Kali Holloway, Zaid Jilani, Adam Johnson, Steven Rosenfeld, Phillip Smith, Terrell Jermaine Starr and Carrie Weissman.

1. Prison-loving president.....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

2. Punitive welfare reform....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

3. Wall Street’s Deregulator-in-Chief....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

4. Gutted manufacturing via trade agreements....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

5. No LGBT equality: Defense of Marriage Act....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

6. Expanded the war on drugs....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

7. Expanded the death penalty....SNIP'd a lot of good, referenced info, please read if you have time...

8-15~

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world

They missed The Telecommunications Act which allows Cable & Cellular monopolies to merge & end competition & fair pricing from small competitors. Just another way he pissed on FDR's legacy to make America a more republican place to live, while calling himself a "Democrat"~

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant overhaul of United States telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. The Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a major change in American telecommunication law, since it was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment.[1] One of the most controversial titles was Title 3 ("Cable Services&quot , which allowed for media cross-ownership.[1] According to the FCC, the goal of the law was to "let anyone enter any communications business—to let any communications business compete in any market against any other".[2] The legislation's primary goal was deregulation of the converging broadcasting and telecommunications markets.[3] However, the law's regulatory policies have been questioned, including the effects of dualistic re-regulation of the communications market [4] [5]

wiki

And another (my #17) missed~ He made it so Corporations could tie CEO pay to stock prices for writing off executive pay for lowering their taxes~

...The story begins during Bill Clinton's earliest days in the White House. Soon after his election, he worked with Congress to limit corporations' ability to deduct executive compensation from their taxes, as they do for ordinary workers' wages and other expenses of doing business. A limit of $1 million was set for deductions for executive compensation. There was a big exception, though. Compensation that was dependent on the firm's performance was exempt from the threshold.

...As a result, the new limit didn't prevent executives from receiving ever fatter paychecks -- but they got the money in stock and options, rather than in cash. Clinton and Congress had failed to solve the problem.

"My cynical opinion is that they were trying to look like they were doing something," said Steven Balsam, a professor at Temple University.

Some, like Warren, say the provision was worse than useless. In a speech last week, she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.

"This tax incentive has encouraged financial firms to compensate executives with massive bonuses – bonuses that too often reward short-term risk-taking instead of sustained, long-term growth," she said. "We can close that loophole and stop pushing companies to reward short-term thinking."

Lynn Stout, a law professor at Cornell University and an outspoken skeptic of today's corporate governance, says the Clinton-era shift led executives to try to boost stock prices in the near term by laying off employees and spending less on research and development. These measures, according to this line of thinking, made firms more profitable in the short term because their costs were lower, which resulted in high stock prices, but less able to generate value in the long term for investors and the economy....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/27/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-ceo-pay-but-elizabeth-warren-thinks-he-made-it-worse/

Can't believe that, like Alternet, I forgot this doozy,...#18~

China's Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised
Manufacturing & Technology News
June 15, 2010

It has been 10 years since the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton paved the way for China to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong, according to an analysis done by Robert Lighthizer, former deputy United States Trade Representative during the Reagan administration and head of the international trade department of the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & From LLP.

Bill Clinton, the country's most ardent booster of opening trade with China, looks especially imprudent 10 years later. During a press conference on March 29, 2000, Clinton said that granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO, would be a great deal for America. "We do nothing," Clinton said. "They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships there. They allow us to put our own parts there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China any more. This a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences."

It didn't quite work out that way. Since 2000, the trade deficit with China has surged by 173 percent, from $83 billion in 2000 to $227 billion in 2009. The United States has lost more than one-third of all its manufacturing jobs -- 5.6 million; U.S. wages have declined; the country has suffered a financial meltdown; it has spent $14 trillion on economic stimulus, only to experience the highest unemployment rates in generations and annual federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion. These trends are not "likely to end," says Lighthizer.

Granting PNTR to China would "increase U.S. jobs and reduce our trade deficit," Clinton promised....

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615/WTO.html

[leftofcool]

1. Bill Clinton hit piece! I didn't know he was running for President again.

[RiverLover]

9. The value in studying historical facts is that it allows us to know what happened & how, & then

we're able to move forward & not repeat the same mistakes. History in his case, though, is being buried. Forgotten. Paved over.

To many, what Bill has done & who he is today & as president, doesn't have anything to do with his wife. I don't agree.

For others, they're how I used to be, low information. They only see the bubble of good economic times during his tenure & think we'll be getting that again with his wife.

Don't worry, your Hillary will most likely be our next president. And nothing will change.

[Thespian2]

28. K & R

I agree with you, RiverLover...except I think Hillary will be worse than Bill ever hoped to be...she has such a long history of toting water for the Filthy Rich...

[RiverNoord]

39. I don't see this is a 'hit piece' at all.

We'd all be better off if we spent more time critically evaluating Democratic politicians and past officeholders. Finding reasons to criticize Repubs is pathetically easy. However, if you can't examine potential shortcomings of those in your own political party, the only change you will see will be opportunistic, solely based on how to win elections. Policy becomes irrelevant, and all you can say is that 'at least they're better than the other side,' which is no basis for selecting political leaders.

If the 2016 Presidential election ends up Clinton vs. Bush, which, dear Lord (I'm an atheist, but sometimes...) I hope doesn't happen again, neither candidate will bring up the fact that one's husband is a past President, and the other's brother and father are past Presidents. Neither would want to open that can of worms, which means the only past(well, not quite) President whose policies will be discussed will be Obama's. We'll be strongly encouraged to forget 1988 to 2008. Not as though anything important happened during those 20 years, really...

[RiverLover]

51. ^^^ So True!

Depressing, but true.

(I like your screen name. )

[RiverNoord]

54. Right back at ya :-)

Although mine is probably less meaningful than yours... It came from a nice print I bought years ago displaying some windmills along a river at sunset. Supposedly it was the River Noord in The Netherlands. I've never verified that, but I liked the name .

[merrily]

72. When someone calls your OP a hit piece without even attempting to refute a jot,

you know you have a well documented OP.

Calling facts a hit piece is misnomer, at the very best.

[peacebird]

76. +1000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. Never forget...the Clintons have been wreaking havoc on this country for too long and are partly responsible for the ills Bernie talks about that has the populace energized.

Go Bernie!

[jtuck004]

120. This. 20x over. Except that what it really does is let us hold up the record and say, "See, we

are making the same mistake".

Over and over.

[Paka]

18. However decided one could only post pieces about candidates?

Are we so narrow that during election cycles we can't look beyond?

[merrily]

73. Anything that might reflect badly upon Hillary is, by fiat, allegedly out of bounds.

However, see Reply 71 and the items linked in Reply 71.

[merrily]

71. Someone who approved his policies, even participated in them, is running, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778959

Besides. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778412

Those are real chill factors.

BTW, this is the Populist Group, not the Fake Populist Group.

[HFRN]

106. by your logic, it's not fair to examine the Bush legacy

while evaluating Jeb, to see if people want more of it - or not

[JudyM]

142. It's fair because Hillary stated her intention to use him as an advisor. Nt

[SamKnause]

2. Thank you for posting.

[jtuck004]

3. "Failed" < More people in poverty, more near poverty, less owners and more people indebted to the

bank$ter class all the time...

Should read "still failing", to be more accurate. Time to stop.

[RiverLover]

12. Still failing would be more accurate.

You're so right. Its frustrating we can't get away from these republican policies, because both sides are enabling them.

We all need it to stop. Democratic voters need to wake up.

[raouldukelives]

31. We get the best representation corporate investors can buy.

It freaking sucks but the cold, hard truth is that the abandonment of democratic principles and the loss of our democracy has far less to do with disaffected voters than it does with quite effective lobbyists.

As long as people keep paying to put the desires of multinational corporations and the conservatives, bigots, dictators and sheiks that own them ahead of democracy, well, they will.

They control our media, they control our education, they control our natural resources, they control our body politic.

All because many people, even many who rightly know that the more they support them, the more money they make them, the less liberty we will all have and the less chance we will all have of making things better, for anyone, ever again. Doesn't really faze them.

For them, the ends truly do justify the means. One is better off rich and guilty than poor and innocent.

[merrily]

70. Been failed so long, it looks like win to us.

(Apologies to Richard Farina, who wrote "Been Down So Long, It Looks Like Up to Me.&quot

[Cryptoad]

4. I read that on Red State Dot Com,,,,,, LOL....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. I'm not surprised you hang out there.

Or that they wouldn't reprint that one simply because it provides some reality that they can actually align with for a change.

[Cryptoad]

26. Attacking Democrats is not change...

Thank Goodness everybody doesn't share your reality. Bernie is our hope for change,,, not whipping all the Democrats that are not progressives.

[merrily]

112. And you can refute it? If not, what's your point?

Since the OP is a composite from several sources, your claim that you saw the same thing on redstate seems false. Can you provide a link?

BTW, this is a protected group and, not that it matters--truth and falsity are what matter, but the OP did not cite a single RW source.

Overall, I would say your post is, at best, inappropriate for this group.

[Chasstev365]

5. Deregulating the Telecommunications Industry

Bill Clinton signed a bill that allowed the rise a Faux News Network and 10 Conservative radio programs to every 1 Liberal program on the airways. This use of propaganda has enabled crazy right wingers to get average Americans to vote against their own interest in every election since and has moved scared Democrats so far to the right that FDR, JFK, and LBJ would not recognize their own party. Way to go Bill!

Sanders 2016!

[RiverLover]

10. Thank you. I didn't see how the telecommunications Act tied in with FoxFiction. /nt

[OnyxCollie]

20. The Telecommunications Deregulation Act put me out of a job.

Thanks for killing my career, Bill!

[merrily]

74. Obama hired Genachowski, who worked for Faux, as his first FCC head.

And, as his second, an industry lobbist, who replaced a populist acting head.

New Democrats.

[zeemike]

6. Fooled and fooled again, that's me too.

But a fundamental error is saying he was responsible.
It is not the president who wants and pushes for these things, it is the power behind them...the president and congress just sells out to them.
That corruption is our big problem, and only honest politicians can solve it.

[RiverLover]

11. Very good point.

There are so many great posts here in this group that detail those powers behind the curtain.

[jwirr]

41. In at least one of the points Bill says he could not have stopped the override of his veto. How true

is that? I don't remember that but I do remember the trade offs in trriangulation.

[merrily]

79. A few things:

Bill Clinton AND his apologists often cite a veto-proof majority.

If you look below the surface, however, you will usually find that the Clinton White House lobbied very hard on those bills to ensure a veto proof majority that Clinton could cite if and when the legislation hit the fan, as did repeal of Glass Steagall in 2008.

An allegedly veto proof majority vote does not require a President to sign a bill. He was still free to veto bills he did not wish to give his imprimatur.

There is no way of knowing if a veto proof majority will turn into an override vote if a President actually does veto. Usually, at least some votes will flip after an actual Presidential veto, especially votes of members of his own Party and especially if the President lobbies as hard against an override as the Clinton White House lobbied for these bills.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/vetoes.php

http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

To me, this is one more way in which the Teflon President tries to have it every which way and to shun responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, like lobbying Democrats until he did get so-called veto proof majority. If he really disapproved of bills he signed, he should not have signed them. Conversely, if he signed them, he is responsible for having signed them.

[jwirr]

104. Thank you. That is how I remembered it but did not know how he did it.

[zeemike]

87. Tell me about it.

Normally I avoid groups like the plague.
But there are some great posts here with none of the bullshit.

[merrily]

93. That is supposedly the purpose of a safe haven, to enable discussion that

does not continually get disrupted or deflected by agenda-driven memes (true or false), etc.

However, while the hosts of the Hillary Group are 100% on board with that, the hosts of the Sanders Group and the Populist Group have varying opinions on the matter. I wish hosts had the ability to hide posts, but our only option is to block. And, if one host blocks, any host can unblock. So, it can get silly.

[zeemike]

97. Well intellectually I am against any form of censoring speech

But practically I know for sure it must be done.
But even that can be abused, which in some groups it is.

[merrily]

116. I've been going down this thread post by post. I'm sorry to contradict

your earlier post, but there is plenty of bullshit on this thread--and it's not from people who should be posting in this safe haven.

[zeemike]

121. No problem with contradicting me.

I have not read this whole thread. And I take your word for it...your word is usually pretty good.
There is a lot I skip due to name recognition. But just as many must read ones.

[tularetom]

56. It's not an error to say he was responsible

Sure, he was a puppet whose strings were being pulled by the big boys, but he lied to the voters who put him in office. And its quite obvious from what has happened since he left the white house that he was rewarded quite handsomely by his puppet masters.

He may not have been the brains behind the operation, but he was the tool that they used to pull it off and he knew it. In my opinion he is as deserving of our condemnation as the guys who employed him.

As is every legislator who helped him by passing the crappy sellout legislation he initiated. R or D.

[zeemike]

68. Well of course you are right.

But sometimes the front guy can provide cover for the ones behind it if we focus our attention on them and ignore the real power behind them.
The problem is never solved until you find the source of it.

[zeemike]

84. Well it's true I have greater disdain for the sell out than the buyer,

But if you punish just the sell out and ignore the buyer the problem is never solved because there are plenty of greedy people waiting to take their place.
Until we have honest men in place that will not sell out it will continue. And if we have honest men in place they can make the corruption illegal.
Which is the biggest reason I support Sanders.

[merrily]

75. Selling out is its own sin, though.

Prospective buyers get nowhere without willing, even eager, sellers.

It says it all when someone spends a lifetime supposedly in public service, leaves office supposedly deep in debt, yet raises funds for a Presidential library AND still ends up with a personal reportable fortune of over 110 million dollars only 8 years later.

After many years in public service, the most money Sanders made was selling his filibuster in book form. And the filibuster is a public record anyway. I think people just wanted to support him by buying the book.

The job of big business is, essentially, greed, aka, "getting further ahead" if you are an individual within the organization and maximizing profits for stockholders. The job of a lobbyist is to get government to help those greedy individuals within business. The job of an elected official is to serve the public as a whole. So, only one of the three is a betrayer, as shown by the legislation and rules that define corruption by "public" officials so very narrowly.

Moreover, when we shift the blame, or any part of it, to people who are only fulfilling their well known job descriptions, we not only blur the lines, but we also disempower ourselves. I don't know about you, but I don't own 5% of any large corporation, that being the minimum that the law says is a controlling share. Therefor, I don't get fire directors or officers of any big business (or of associations of small businesses). The only ones I can even hope to influence are elected officials. Coincidentally, they are also the only betrayers of their job descriptions.

Don't blame the bear (or the bull) for shitting in the woods. Blame the one who bullshit you into voting for him or her.


That's how I see it.

[zeemike]

82. And I think you see it clearly.

The sell out has become normal now, even expected. And an honest person is seen as a threat or a fool.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. I might quibble with 'majority'

but his era certainly did create a lot of problems down the road that most low-info voters probably assign to Presidents after him. Thing is, people want to always assign things to Presidents simply during their time in office, like they magically started affecting everything on day 1, and their influence totally stopped when they leave office. But they always bequeath at least a small time frame to those after them, and a much larger influence the more they actually do. Clinton and his Republican Congress did a lot of things that took time to work their way into the fabric of America, and so Presidents after him got blamed for the problems he caused, while he simply got credit for the bubbles he and Greenspan worked up, knowing that they would pop in some other President's term.

[RiverLover]

14. Excellent post.

Thanks.

[jwirr]

43. And those bubbles are why my daughter thinks he was such a good economic president. False front

economics.

[merrily]

78. Similarly, Presidents don't necessarily create all the good things that happen while they are in

office. If a couple Presidents before you raised taxes and fees, for example, that public income redounds to your benefit when you take office. That was true of Eisenhower and also of Clinton And then, if you also "end welfare as we know it," first created by FDR (much like Glass Steagall), badda boom, badda bing.

[cantbeserious]

13. WJC - The Best Moderate Republican President Of The Last Century - Third Way DLCER To The Core

eom

[merrily]

80. DLC FOUNDING member AND salesperson, along with Hillary Clinton.

[cantbeserious]

132. Roger That

eom

[RiverLover]

134. ^^^This

is what I wish everyone knew. Its so tragically ironic that at this time in history, when we need real change more than ever, for our people, for the planet, the Democratic Party is fully supporting one half of the team who led to our nation's current state of plutocracy.

United States of Corporations.

DLC, Third Way, "New" corporatist "Democrats". They all need to go be the rethugs they are, but instead we usher in one of their founding members.

Its beyond infuriating.

[FlatBaroque]

15. I recall being a staunch defender of the Clintons during Monica

and I recall being so proud that Bill was so defiant. Now, every time I see him wagging his finger......

[merrily]

81. Thing is, he was lying through his teeth as he was wagging that finger.

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

[tymorial]

103. Of course he was.

IT didn't matter that he lied. He was a democrat. People routinely place party over their sensibilities. This isn't a condemnation of your support but a reality. Senator Byrd was a KKK member. If he was a republican, democrats would still be vilifying him. Democrats supported Clinton because he was a democrat and one of our own was being attacked. It is hypocritical and yet we would do it again. People on the right do the same thing. We support those who we perceive to be our own.

[merrily]

107. My support of whom?

It's not as simple as that, anyway. People are capable of growth and genuine repentance and redeeming themselves to the best of their ability.


Byrd was indeed a KKK member, but apologize profusely and changed, as witnessed by his votes. I don't know if I ever forgave him totally for joining in the first instance, but I recognize the difference between him and Strom Thurmond, for example.

Truman was also a member of some white supremacist group, too, to get votes, he said, but integrated the military via executive order, sans Congressional vote or other cya measure, knowing it could cost him the next election.

On the other hand, we have no evidence that Strom Thurmond actually joined any white supremacist group, but he did challenge Truman in 1948 because of that integration and never so much as acknowledging his mixed race daughter.

Now, is any the above based on my alleged party loyalty, or is it reality-based?

[MisterP]

122. nontroversies are a great way to whitewash bad policy:

if the TPP were relabeled "Obamatrades" and screaming hordes of illiterates beat on any Asian they got their hands on DU would fall neatly in line behind it

[FlatBaroque]

123. So very true.

That's why I felt so used and slimed when the true nature of Clinton's policies came to light.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. I am waiting with great anticipation

on your hit piece on FDR. My guess it won't happen because your agenda is obvious.

[RiverLover]

22. I ADORE FDR. I am a proud FDR Democrat. (see my profile) It's why I don't like The Clintons.

I don't know if you are confusing me with someone else, but I can paste many many many articles on FDR & posts of mine here at DU outlining the enormously great things FDR did for our country.

He's the best thing to ever happen to our country. he's responsible for making our country great. Or it was until his policies began to be slowly dismantled.

And the Clintons, and Obama, have done much to reverse the FDR course.

Wow.

Here is just a sampling of posts of mine praising FDR~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026124870
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5956058
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6539038
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6294920
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6547400
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6547387
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6829149
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6646754
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6573892
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6573867
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6573860
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6559043
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6536082
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6302468
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6125012

[OnyxCollie]

23. I wrote my thesis on the Japanese internment.

FDR fucked over 120,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals to benefit farm corporations, who profited from government subsidized dummy corporations to harvest the crops and sell them back to the farm corporations for cheap.

But the history books say FDR was the bestest President EVAH, so who you gonna believe?

[RiverLover]

30. One act in a time of war, when we had Japanese spies in the US & no way to track them &

you want to base his entire & profoundly transformative presidency on that?

...Another part of the answer is that the Roosevelts were, in fact, uniquely bold figures in American history. Franklin and Eleanor combined two things that are notoriously tough to bring together: big ideas and action. They had the ability to get things done, to experiment and tinker and move things around until they worked. Franklin set a north star, grounded in progressive values, for massive reforms to America’s corporations and banks; labor law and protections; and the social safety net. Eleanor’s boldness extended to the world stage, where she was a leader in the creation of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to the most difficult intersections of race and class in mid-century America.

Along the way, they made mistakes – sometimes profound ones. (It is deeply meaningful to me, personally, that Eleanor pressured Franklin strongly to oppose the internment of Japanese Americans.) But when they succeeded, as they often did, they did so in ways that permanently reshaped the country and the world for the better.

In today’s politics, broken promises are accepted with weary resignation, and weak compromises are often viewed as the best we can hope for. Just imagine the popularity of a president today who could lead a program like the Civilian Conservation Corps: enacted only 32 days after FDR’s inauguration, the program ultimately employed 2.5 million young men in more than 4,500 rural camps nationwide, planting 3 billion trees that remain integral to our landscape today. And imagine how much more confidence we would have if we saw in our elected officials FDR’s kind of political leadership, which, over the course of his presidency, drove the design and implementation of hundreds of solutions to deep systemic problems, from Social Security and Glass-Steagall to the Federal Music Project. These big ideas not only worked (mostly), but also persuaded the country to believe that talk would lead to action and action would lead to results....

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/ken-burns-s-new-documentary-reveals-human-side-roosevelts-and-our-deep-connection-thei

[OnyxCollie]

63. Both parties had anti-Asian planks in their platforms.

For decades, laws were passed that allowed the Japanese to be exploited for economic gain.

That the Japanese were interned for military necessity is not supported by the evidence. (Neither does the massive domestic surveillance going on now help to find terrorists; in fact, it makes it harder.)

You know, when PNAC said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" as the impetus to increase military spending, that wasn't the only thing they were emulating.

BTW, do you have evidence for your claim that there were Japanese spies in the country, or are you just reciting the Official Conspiracy Theory?

[merrily]

83. Does internment mean the New Deal did not save the nation from the tubes?

Does the New Deal mean the internment was good? No. Neither negates the other.

Was there ever a perfect President?

For example, historical heroes Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. JFK kept us out of war over Cuber (sic), but escalated in Vietnam--in which Truman got us embroiled. LBJ gave us Head Start and the rest of the Great Society and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, but....Vietnam again.

This is why we need to focus on policies. not personalities or motives. There is no denying the internment was heinous and shameful beyond words. There is no denying that the New Deal was both genius--he had to invent most of those wheels, like the SEC and the Bankruptcy Act of 1934, Glass Steagall, etc., not mimic the past--and there is not doubt that his measures--done with incredible speed--saved the country and many lives as both were swirling the drain.

It really bothered me when certain posters expected mere mention of the internment to be a complete answer to anything Obama did wrong. This country is about well over 300 million people, not about whether Obama is as good as FDR or vice versa.

[OnyxCollie]

86. The New Deal was a revolutionary accomplishment and FDR deserves commendation for that.

It was "acceptable" during the time to exploit Asians.

Now the 99% are the Japanese, and we have the NDAA, the Holder Doctrine, Too Big to Fail, and the ACA.

[merrily]

90. I do not excuse the internment of any group, even a little, no matter what.

When it came to race and xenophobia, FDR was awful, IMO.

For one, he interned the Japanese and also Germans and Italians. However, for the second thing, he interned many more Japanese than he did Germans and Italians. For another, he declined to move on equal rights because he thought it would cost Democrats elections. He was right, but that is beside the point, just as it was beside the point for Kennedy to fight Nixon on health care because Kennedy did not want a Republican President to get credit for it. Certain things SHOULD trump party loyalty, IMO.

The racism was OK then argument doesn't move me because from the 1600s forward, there have been decent people who objected to racism in all its manifestations, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. With googling or doing other research, I bet many during FDR's time were speaking out against internment and other forms of racism. We know his own wife tried hard to persuade him on certain issues.

However, as I said, I am not focused on whether FDR, overal, is better or worse than any other individual. I am focused on policies. Therefore, I can condemn his racist policies wholeheartedly, while bowing before his New Deal.

[OnyxCollie]

92. Claiming that the internment was due to racism

is what Michael Parenti calls a "liberal complaint" analysis; basically a good system marred by flaws in human character.

Racism was simply the cover to sell it to the public, kinda like the way "bad intelligence" was responsible for getting the US into the Iraq war.

Oops! Fucked up. Damn that bad intelligence!

Edit to add: You know who else was responsible for allegedly spreading racist rhetoric to influence FDR? "Conspiracy Entrepreneur" California Attorney General Earl Warren, who would later become Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Chair of the Warren Commission.

[merrily]

94. I think you may have misunderstood that part of my post.

[tazkcmo]

126. That's hilarious.

Why do facts bother you?

[stonecutter357]

17. you seem desperate!

[RiverLover]

19. No, just resigned.

Ignorance will continue & another Clinton will be in the oval office because most Americans just don't know. As the article says, most Americans are in the dark about his administration's actions & the ramifications that still exist today.

[stonecutter357]

21. another Clinton will be in the oval office

good.

[RiverLover]

42. BTW, I like your signature line. It might interest you to know~

Big Oil and Pro-Keystone Groups Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation
All that money doesn’t sit well with environmentalists.
By Clare Foran
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/big-oil-and-pro-keystone-groups-gave-millions-to-clinton-foundation-20150218

As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations
http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464

Why Isn't the Oil Industry Worried About Hillary Clinton?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121191/oil-lobby-weighs-hillary-clintons-environmental-record

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

[merrily]

91. Please don't assume all posters are interested in actual facts and issues.

[merrily]

101. Jury results.

> On Sun Jul 5, 2015, 08:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
>
> Please don't assume all posters are interested in actual facts and issues.
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=9183
>
> REASON FOR ALERT
>
> This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
>
> ALERTER'S COMMENTS
>
> No comments added by alerter
>
> You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 5, 2015, 08:51 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
>
> Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
> Explanation: No comments by alerter. So I am suppose to guess what is a violation here.
> Ok, there is none. Leave it.
> Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
> Explanation: I believe people should have the right to bury themselves if they so choose.
> Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
> Explanation: Here, lemme fix this for you, Please don't assume all posters are interested in actual facts and issues, take for instance the idiot who alerted on this post and couldn't be bothered to give me a fucking reason to hide this because the just want a poster to have a hidden post.
> Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
> Explanation: What? This is getting ridiculous.
> Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
> Explanation: No explanation given
> Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
> Explanation: No explanation given
> Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
> Explanation: No explanation given

The last time I saw jury results on an alert on one of my posts, the vote was 0 to hide and one juror noted it was the worst alert he or she had ever seen in years of posting.

[RiverLover]

138. They are really trying to purge here. Unbelievable that was alerted on, merrily!

Thank goodness it was a fail. Should have been 0-7 Leave...

[merrily]

139. yep

[jwirr]

44. Hardly desparate. Looking for truth. Can you deny any of the article is untrue?

[stonecutter357]

58. .

benghazi

[merrily]

95. IOW, no you can't.

[stonecutter357]

96. emails and stuff

[merrily]

98. All of which is fact free and none of which has a thing to do with refuting the OP.

So, again, IOW, no you can't refute a thing in the OP.

Come to think of it, I've never seen you post a single fact or refute a single fact.

[stonecutter357]

99. unban me Thanks.

64% Says It All

[merrily]

100. More fact free. You were never blocked here, where I am a host; and I never blocked you anywhere.

And where you are blocked, I have no power to unblock you as I am not a host of that group, only this one.

You get an email when you were blocked and it told you who blocked you. My name was not on that email. So, what does it say about you that you continually accuse me of having blocked you?

Moreover, I was not a host of that group when you got blocked and therefore could not possibly have blocked you. I have mentioned that to you before. What does it say about you that you saying the same thing anyway?

I am not a host of that group now, as you can easily check. So what does it say about you that you demand I unblock you from another group when I have no power to do that?

However, why don't you try respecting this group, to the degree that the hosts of the Hillary Group expect of posters, and just stay out of protcted groups with which you disagree?

[stonecutter357]

131. why are you voting for a gun nut?

and unban me thanks.

[merrily]

133. I'm not. The NRA rates him D- to F.

Try to add something to the discussion instead of trolling.

[aka-chmeee]

24. Where the hell am I? RU or CHU? /nt

[RiverLover]

32. When I read the repub policies Clinton enacted, I wonder if its also posted somewhere on a RU site.

I imagine that's why so many republicans like him.

[merrily]

109. You are in the Populist REFORM Group, not the Please Give Us More of Same Group.

If you equate that with being Republican, you probably should not be posting in this group.

[MisterP]

125. so your reaction to having all the ways Clinton was like the Republicans

is to ... dummy spit and accuse us of being Pubs? is that right?

[Gman]

25. What a complete crock of horse manure

Reads like a left wing version of Fox News. Lots of stuff completely out of context.

Clinton was the best president in my lifetime. Crap like this is total bullshit.

[DrBulldog]

35. So apparently you are still in the uninformed voter stage.

Some people take longer than others, I admit.

[Gman]

62. LOL! Were you even born yet????

Did you have a job and support a family in the 90's? Your comment screams no to all of the above.

[jwirr]

45. Well I feel sorrry for you because he is not the best president in the lifetime of many of us. FDR

is the best president in my lifetime followed by HST and JFK.

Bill was the best showman in my lifetime. He could talk a good line but he played with the Rs more than he did for the people.

[redstateblues]

49. Hmm. I wonder why the Bernistas are now going after Bill Clinton's

presidency. It was an awful 8 years of peace and prosperity!

[jwirr]

50. False front prosperity and it was not peaceful - just better than W.

[JDPriestly]

57. Because we can have the peace and prosperity and live in a decent society in which

corporations are simply a good way to organize business and not political rulers. That's why. Corporations have been placed on the level of human beings. That's just utterly wrong. Corporations don't cry. They don't bleed. They aren't born. They don't die of heart attacks or from guns or bombs.

Yet in recent years, corporations have been elevated to the level of humans.

It makes the Declaration of Independence into a joke.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . . .

http://www.earlyamerica.com/declaration-independence/

Corporations are created by state law, not by a Creator. Corporations do not have unalienable rights. Their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are created by statute, not by virtue of their being born.

The very idea that corporations have the same rights as humans is contradicted by the fundamental laws of our nation and states, yet we have a government that has acquiesced to the Supreme Court's erroneous ruling that corporations have human rights.

And now, we have a president who wants to saddle us with the TPP, which, like our other trade agreements, will impose on us international arbitration courts in which corporations can challenge laws that we as a people enact through our elected representatives.

The Declaration of Independence was written in part to protest similar courts:

He (meaning the English King) has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/declaration-independence/

Although thanks to the dot.com boom, the Clinton years were good economically, some of the laws passed during that time planted the seeds of the 2008 crash and the irresponsible policies of our banks. What is more, the NAFTA agreement set up in addition to the courts set up by the WTO and other agreements, the international courts that allow corporations to challenge our government in courts outside of the influence and reach of American citizens.

That's OK in my view if the issues to be decided involved HUMAN rights, dignity or such criminal matters. But the issues to be decided in these international courts that do not answer even indirectly to American voters concern our environmental, labor and economic laws. And corporations have no right to challenge American citizens, humans, with regard to the laws about labor, the environment, health, and our economy. Corporations are not human beings. They have only the legal rights we give them.

That the Clintons, both Yale Law School graduates and Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate cannot understand the danger in agreements that give corporations that kind of power is just beyond me. It is just incomprehensible.

Are they just bought out.

We have the opportunity to hire (elect) a president who seems to understand the difference between a corporation and a human being (even though he isn't a lawyer and has never filed corporation papers for some lifeless pile of money) and that is Bernie Sanders.

And we need to talk about the mistake we made in electing and supporting Bill Clinton in the past. The future of our country depends on this.

[d_legendary1]

67. Peaceful? What about Kosovo, the dot com bubble, and the rise of clear channel?

Need I remind you of this:

[merrily]

85. Actually, it was neither, unless you deem extraordinary rendition and bombing a pharmaceutical plant

peace. Plus the Al Qaida buildup and the first attack on the World Trade Center. If you really want facts, you should read here more (and post fact free memes here less).

The prosperity was not all of his creation, either. Two Presidents before him raised taxes and fees. Nor did the alleged prosperity extend to the those shut off from safety nets, who now open gofundme accounts, because they can't apply for welfare when desperate. The escalation of the greatest disparities between the poor and the wealthy accelerated during his administration. Why do you suppose that was? And has continued to accelerate since. Why do you suppose that is?

However, this is the Populist Reform Group. Your post is far better suited for some other part of the board. Please don't be so disrespectful. As you well know, the Hillary Group doesn't tolerate posts like yours. This group should not have to.

[INdemo]

88. One person posts about Bill Clinton's Republican moves and you think its all

Bernie Sanders supporters... I just read it and I can assure you I had nothing to do with this hit piece.Obviously somewhere there is a Republican's opinion involved also in this so called research.

[RiverLover]

135. Why is it a "hit piece" when its all true?

Don't you think we should know about these things so we don't make the same mistakes?

[Gman]

61. I wish I could say FDR

But then I'm old enough, thank you! Regardless, after 16 of the previous 20 years under a GOP prez, it's really very hard to fault him for working with the R's. We were lucky to elect him when we did. Don't know what things would be like after 16 years of Reagan/Bush. BTW, we never went to war. (That's not EVEN implying we did by choice under FDR, for the record).

[Historic NY]

119. But following up behind the great pretender and Bush 1

he did do a hell of a job cleaning up the spew....no one President was ever perfect. When looking at the facts he left this country in a lot better shape then when he took office. No Democrat held the WH for 16yrs until he came along.

[JDPriestly]

55. FDR was the best president in my lifetime.

I feel sorry that the presidents in the lifetimes of young people today were so bad, so rotten. But then you maybe had Reagan, the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Actually Obama is a better person by far than Clinton. He may not speak strongly enough about what he believes is right. He may not stand up for his principles with enough strength, but he is a great person.

Clinton -- I liked him and worked hard to get him elected. But we can do a lot, a lot, a lot better than either of the Clintons.

Listen to what Bernie Sanders is saying. We need to make a lot of changes in our country. These trade agreements are pulling us down. They aren't really about trade. They aren't about low tariffs. They aren't about helping lift up the poor in other countries. They are about power to the corporations and dismantling our Constitution which acknowledges our rights and replacing it with arbitrary, corporate tribunals.

We can do so much better than the Clintons and their Citigroup friends. So much better.

[Gman]

64. I don't disagree with anything you say

However banks and corporations are not the only issue and that's all I hear from Sanders supporters. Foreign policy is a big issue with me. I've no doubt Sanders is capable in this area. But I do believe Hillary is much more qualified. Russia will be an even bigger problem, ISIS, et al. And manyore unforeseeable issues. Sanders seems to have her best on domestic business issues. Hillary has Sanders best on foreign policy. They seem about equal on everything else.

BTW, the prez has nowhere near the power people want and think he has. The biggest power is behind the scenes. Even in FDR's days.

[JDPriestly]

66. The president's power depends in great part on his personality.

A good book on that is The Bully Pulpit by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Maybe you have read it?

Sanders on foreign policy. He has been in Congress since at least 1992-1993. I like that fact that he is the ranking member of the Budget Committee and is on the Veterans' Affairs committee. Those two committees probably make him very realistic about the costs of our foreign and military policies. A lot of Americans think of our country as one with never ending resources. That is on the one hand true on the other false. We have the technological resources to make of our financial and physical and geographical resources enough for our people. We do not have the resources to control the world or mold it as we would like.

We can, however, set an example for the world. And I think that is where Bernie Sanders is superior to Hillary Clinton.

Sanders is popular because he is focusing on the economy. As Bill Clinton's campaign said, "It's the economy, stupid." Obama has done well with the economy considering how bad it was when he started out.

While the president does not have limitless power, he does have the power of appointment and the power of the bully pulpit. Obama made a lot of mistakes in his appointments to positions that decided our economic policies. I think Sanders would make fewer of them than Obama has or than Hillary would. Clinton reappointed Greenspan and was too influenced by the big banks like Citigroup. He made a lot of mistakes. Sanders would be wiser in that area.

Today, economics is the biggest weapon that countries are using in terms of foreign policy. I think Sanders would do best in wielding that weapon. And if you use economic power well, war and other diplomatic issues become less difficult.

That's why I back Sanders. Or part of why I back Sanders.

[merrily]

110. Gman, I complimented you recently about having made a classy self deletion, an apology

and a hasty departure when you realized you had posted in a protect group. You said protected groups should be respected. Yet, here you are accusing a member of this group of having posted manure and bullshit. that post would be just under the hide radar in GD or Politics I don't get it.

[Gman]

124. Yes you did

and I appreciate it. But I don't see why this would be the same kind of "protected" as a candidate group. I'm a Democrat and I think this OP was completely over the top and undermines the party in general. I think that's what it was intended to do.

Clinton was the best president of my lifetime. If someone tries to distort history, it should not be allowed to stand.

[merrily]

127. It's a protected group because the owner of this board decided protected groups

should exist on HIS board and this group was created as a protected group by agreement between the board owner and the people who signed up for a protect group for the purpose of discussing populist REFORM of the Democratic Party.. Forgive me for pointing this out, but you don't get to overrule the owner of the board and the people who voted for a protect group to decide whether this should be a protected group. It already is a protected group, per decision was made by Skinner before this group came into being.

It's irrelevant that you are a Democrat. We all are. You can use strong words like bullshit to argue with people about the New Democrat administration of former President Clinton all you want in real life and in other places on this board, but not in this forum.

Under the name of this group is this message:


This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

In sum, the decision whether this group is protected has already been made by the board owner and the participants in this group and is not up for review by you.

Please respect that, whether or not you agree with Skinner's decision to allow this as a protected group.

[Gman]

128. Ok,

Thanks for keeping me honest.

But I still don't agree with the OP b

[merrily]

129. VERY classy response. Thank you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. Context is everything.

1. I cannot believe "Democratic Underground" has become the place for re-writing history to place democrats in the worst possible light.

2. This hit piece is one-dimensional, blaming everything that happened on Clinton. Of course we would never blame Obama for everything that happened, because we understand the wall he is up against with the Congress. Well, Clinton also presided over that wall, that did everything they could to make sure he would fail.

3. Regurgitating right wing talking points is not helpful in learning the lessons of the 90s.

[RiverLover]

34. This is the actual history, that the Clintons & their Clinton propaganda machine don't want people

to look at.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Evergreen Emerald]

36. It is a shame that you are so willing to believe the bullshit

That is the problem with America today. Liars spew their talking points, and people with agendas are willing to believe them. Pretty soon, the lies becomes "fact." That is why the republicans blame the government shut down on Obama. That is why the republicans are the majority.

[RiverLover]

38. It's what happened. He did repeal G-S, he did enact NAFTA, he did crush welfare, he did all of it.

Its sad you don't look at historical fact. None of us like it, but to bury your head in the sand allows these types of republican policies to continue. And our country to continue on its path towards being equal to Mexico.

[redstateblues]

46. It's pathetic that the Hillary haters have now decided

That her husband's Presidency was a failure. I wish I could vote for him again.

[merrily]

114. You are not welcome to describe members of this safe haven group as Hillary haters

[merrily]

113. I call bullshit. Either refute the OP or not. And again, this is a protected group. You are not

welcome to accuse the OP of having posted lies.

[Kip Humphrey]

40. Please provide facts: which bills cited in the hit piece were passed by overriding Clinton's veto?

I want to understand how Clinton fought against this laundry list of republicon inspired disasters.

[jwirr]

47. But he has always tried to play that his was not a failed presidency. Glass-Steagell alone is enough

to link him to the failure of the economy. That and the bubbles that he did nothing to stop before it was too late. And the bubbles were a false front that made his so called good economy appear to be a good one.

And that does not even count NAFTA.

He did things to make his presidency look good and ignored the effect of his actions on the future.

[merrily]

111. Your post is totally inappropriate for this protected group and something is not a RW talking point

because it criticized a Clinton or because you say so. It's either true, in which case, your post is inappropriate on two counts, or it is false, in which case you should refute it.

[Laser102]

29. Wow! Had no idea Bill Clinton was running again. He has my vote! LOL

[merrily]

115. Please do not troll this safe haven group. Thanks.

[DrBulldog]

33. Now here's the really sad part . . .

. . . it's very likely an article exactly such as this one will be written about Barack Obama within a few years as well.

So that's our eventual perennial choice: let the Republicans screw us or the Democrats betray us. Unless, of course, a miracle happens and Bernie Sanders becomes President.

[jwirr]

48. TPA and TPP.

[LiberalArkie]

37. I was a very proud voter for Clinton. But as more and more of the bills he liked and signed

seemed to be anti-Democrat. It was like he was doing all he could for corporate American and nothing for the workers. I was in South Arkansas at that time working on computers and phone systems. The oil men loved him as did most of my old money clients. I did not understand until I got to the Little Rock area.

[RiverLover]

52. At least you started paying attention while he was in office.

I summarily dismissed anything negative about him as rethug mud & while busy with my life, paid no attention to what was actually going on. Not proud, I was just a 20-something low-info voter. Proud of Democratic values & not realizing our elected Dem leaders were passing rethug policies, playing in the mud with the 'enemy'.

[LiberalArkie]

53. Can anyone tell me what happened between 1992 and 2000 by this chart

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/ceo-compensation-income-gap-epi-report-2014



CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 1965–2014

[RiverLover]

59. Very telling graph, LA. Thanks.

I don't think people get the connection between Clinton's incentivizing outrageously high CEO pay with its inherent incentive for CEOs to advocate for company actions that increase stock prices such as employee layoffs, wage reduction, outsourcing, off-shoring, more part-time employees to dodge benefits.

The graph at least shows very well how CEO pay disparity skyrocketed after Clinton took office.

The implications require deductive reasoning, connecting the dots. Goes over many people's heads, it would seem.

[polichick]

60. Clinton hijacked the Dem Party - that's his legacy.

[RiverLover]

65. I was searching for a way to summarize this succinctly. Boom!

You nail it in 8 words.

Powerful simple truth.

[merrily]

117. Well that, and economic collapse in several countries, including this one.

[RoccoR5955]

69. I wonder if Mrs. Clinton's views would be far from these

Something tells me that they are not. Just a gut feeling, and there is no link to my gut, so there!

[merrily]

118. Your post ignores any number of things and is flat wrong on others. If you can actually refute

Last edited Sun Aug 23, 2015, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

something in the OP, be my guest. But making up rationalizations is not going to cut it.

Moreover, this is a protected group for populist reform of the Democratic party, not a "Defend Third Way Bill Clinton Group." If you do not agree with the goals of the group and are not like-minded with posters and posts that do belong in this group, please do not post here.

[6chars]

130. deleted my post so as not to pollute this forum

Go Populists!

[tymorial]

102. Gee do you think this has to do with Hillary running for office?

[RiverLover]

136. Why yes, it does.

[HFRN]

105. 16 - Radically expanded H-1b visas to destroy tech as an obvious career choice for young people

and line the pockets of billionaire$

[RiverLover]

137. She helped make IT a poor career choice for American students with that move.

And that is just really sad. But hey, they can go work at Walmart, now our country's largest employer. And they raised their pay to $10 whole dollars/hour. Woot! USA!

[fredamae]

108. What a "Dose of Reality" can do.....

"...Just as a preface, I want to say no one was a bigger Bill Clinton fan than me back in the day. He and Al Gore both walked on water."

Same here. I was One Damned Proud Democrat!

But that was before I stopped denying reality and accepted just how many actual "Rats" there are in the Democratic Party!

Death Penalty for Big Time Marijuana dealers? Really?

Clinton's GOP Mission Accomplished (imo)>NAFTA/CAFTA/Trade etc
I happened to work for a state agency providing work search ops back then...I remember looking up one day..in our small, sleepy coastal town to see a Wall of Displaced Workers standing there applying for retraining for jobs that Didn't Exist!
Welfare reform Hurt so many legitimately in need. It was Sickening.

We have to stop focusing only on the "real Purdy stuff" and get real! There are Many More Negatives than positives in the Big Picture-imo.
But even back then...MSM had a "messaging mission".

[KoKo]

140. I Echo......I was a huge Bill Clinton Supporter........

Defended him even after he was out of the WH...until what he "left behind" began to have an odor and repercussions...

The Stuff the RW threw against Bill and Hillary the minute they took office cause us Dems to Rise Up in Defense. The Internet was still young but it allowed us Clinton Supporters to have a voice and we worked hard to defend both Hillary and Bill against the Rabid RW Repubs.

But..then.......as time went by.......

Things Changed.

WE WOKE UP....WE WERE SOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT...and we were DECEIVED.........The NOISE OF THE RW drowned out WHAT was GOING ON ....BEHIND THE SCENERY and the STAGING...

Maybe Bill & Hillary really WERE who we thought they were...but, they got caught up into the Monetary/Dark Side and went with the flow........or the Circles they Ran in were More Appealing than what they were when they started out in the early days.

Fact is...they turned out to be what they are and so there are differences in the Dem Party about what we think the "End Product" did for our Dem Party ......and what it Didn't achieve that led us to Where We Are Now.

Don't want any more of this......

SO........

[RiverLover]

141. SO Yes....Ready for Bernie!

But wow, do we need more people to wake up. More voters(D). The latest poll from Iowa, Hill with a 42 pt lead. Its a steep hill to climb.