Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

At the end of the day, nostalgia for the Clinton era will put Hillary over the top

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:42 PM
Original message
At the end of the day, nostalgia for the Clinton era will put Hillary over the top
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 07:45 PM by billbuckhead
I think at the end of the day people will vote for the tried and true winning formula of Clintonism vs experimenting with the unknown. I think only Gore can offer a competing candidacy. I think this idea also applies to the general election where a many independents and smarter Republicans will vote for the safe choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. It was Bill, not Hillary, who was president in the 90s.
Being the president's wife does not automatically make you qualified for the job, nor does it make you entitled to all the credit from your husband's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. They ran together in 1992 and will again in 2008
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 07:49 PM by billbuckhead
Hillary's the closest thing we have to Karl Rove. I remember telling people back in 1991 that when you throw a brick at the Clinton's, they throw a concrete block back. I have always seen them as a team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dugggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. Obviously you are not married or have a bad marriage
Are you kidding me? Bill & Hill have been married
for 30+ years. They have been partners in all policy
issues.

YOU GET TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bill Clinton? The most violent president of the late 20th century...
Ah, the nostalgia is intense...

When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”
— John Pilger, Squeezed to Death, Guardian, March 4, 2000

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2394


The bombing has doubled since last year, and this is not being reported. And who began this bombing? Bill Clinton began it. During the 1990s Clinton rained bombs on Iraq in what were euphemistically called the "no fly zones." At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing as I've mentioned, perhaps a million people, including a documented 500,000 children. Almost none of this carnage was reported in the so-called mainstream media.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130258

These ARE the good old days... :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. More violent than Bush the first, Raygun, NiXXXon?
Raygun who sold weapons to both sides in the Iraq-Iran war starting even before he took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Death tolls for Bush I and Reagan? Nixon was up there -
the last 4 years of the Vietnam war killed as many as all of the years preceding it and there were 4 million total killed in Indochina (including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia).

Still, Bill Clinton can swim in the deep end of the pool of blood with Nixon...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ah yes...the lovely impact of NAFTA, DOMA, Telecommunications Act, China free trade deal...
...and of course, the love years with Monica and Bill and the interviews with his wife where he denied cheating on her, who I pitied then...

Ya just had to love to Dot Bomb Years too! Wow, what a great time...

:crazy:








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. *sniff * *sniff*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. actually, it was a great time, and the OP makes a good point
you, on the other hand, don't seem to have a point any more, outside of attacking the Clinton's at every opportunity. Which is too bad, because there was a time when I thought you were one of the better posters on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Puleaze...
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 09:56 PM by zulchzulu
I am not going to stop pointing out how I think the Clinton legacy was actually as bad as the Reagan legacy in many ways. I'm sorry you disagree, but after doing a lot of research and soul-searching about those years, I have honestly come to that conclusion.

I have seen all the cut and paste stuff about how great Clinton was to some, but, like Reagan and the way Republicans see him as some mythical hero, I see through the garbage. And frankly, I'm sick of re-runs of the Clintons and especially how bad it would be to have to lose the White House again with the horrible choice of another Clinton to get the Republican base to get out and vote. They will vote in overwhelming numbers and the race will be one of the ugliest races in memory.

I don't "attack" the Clintons at "every opportunity". I merely point out to fellow Democrats that we can do a LOT better than to just sit back and watch the train wreck without even a fight. And if the OP thinks that people will wish for the Clinton years, they must have very short memories.

You can put me on Ignore if you wish. I will not be silenced for what I and many others believe.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I wouldn't say Clinton was as bad as Reagan, but I will admit that he only looks good to me
when I compare him to what came after, but not enough to make me wax nostalgic about his presidency.

I would prefer we not nominate, much less elect, another DLCer and what worries me if Hillary gets the nomination is that it will not only get the Republican base out, the Democratic base will stay home and we'll not only lose the White House, but the House and Senate as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I've visited the Clinton Library in Little Rock
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 10:22 PM by zulchzulu
Yes, there were some good moments...but when you take the full view from a mile up historically, it's not so great. My opinion of course...

As for waxing for the days when a President could speak in complete sentences over the King Idiot we have now, yes, it is something to think about. But, to me, that's like comparing a decent meal at a restaurant that ends up giving you food poisoning over a meal at a restaurant where worms were crawling out of the chicken entree... standards have been lowered.

As you mentioned, losing the White House and empowering the Republican base to get out and vote and take back the House and Senate are absolutely unacceptable but possible with a Clinton nomination. I firmly believe that in five months when the first votes are cast, people will take that possibility into account. We will then look at the Clinton nomination as a last goodbye for the Clintons...they have their millions from connecting up with outsourcers in India to move to some island off Madagascar.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I hope you are right about what happens when the first votes are cast
This rush for early primaries and caucuses has made me ill as it's obviously designed to help well financed, establishment candidates by wrapping up the nomination before any "2nd or 3rd tier" candidate can make an impression on the voters.

I keep wondering what the DNC is going to do if, between the time the nomination is wrapped up and the convention it becomes clear that the presumptive nominee will go down in flames in November. If that happens, and the candidate won't withdraw, will the convention rules get changed so that delegates aren't pledged on the first ballot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. the notion that the nomination of HRC will cost us, not only
the White House, but the Senate and House of Representatives is beyond absurd. Do you think the 2006 elections were a fluke? All polling, demographic trends, fund raising, etc., are pointing to continued and expanding Democratic victories in 2008.

Perhaps we should rename DU "Chicken Little Underground".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I know several people who aren't activists, but who always vote Democratice who say if
Senator Clinton is the nominee, they won't be voting. Other people on this board have reported the same thing. I'm spending my time convincing them that even if they don't vote in the presidential race, they have to show up and vote in the others. It's working with some, but others are not impressed with the performance of the current Congress and are seriously questioning whether there is any point in electing more Democrats.

Again, these are people who are not activists - which make up the majority of the voting public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. it was a great time if you were upper middle class.
if you were'nt, uh... not so much. still wasn't as bad as now though, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. the Clinton years were a good start on fixing the mess
Reagan/Bush had made. Who knows where we would be if Gore had been allowed to serve? Bush2 has reversed all the gains made by Clinton.

I'm not upperclass. I was just a blue collar worker during the Clinton presidency - but my circumstance improved dramatically during those years - (most of which has been lost under Bush). The Clinton economy was at least a step in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is what I fear.
I wish people were looking forward instead of backward. I'd support Hillary to replace Reid as Senate Majority Leader, but I think she has to prove herself more on the issues before I support her for President. The Clinton strategy of triangulation makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine where she really stands on an issue. Majority Leader is a good measuring stick of how well she'd fight on the issues. I'm willing to give her a chance, but I'm not willing to risk being screwed over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Prove herself against who? Biden? Edwards? Richardson? or Jesus Christ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. In light of the very scary stories of stock markets across the globe
in a near panic over U.S. mortage markets, I think (sigh), you're onto something. If the economy takes a dive, people will want the Clintons back in the WH. Narrative? The Clintons clean up after the Bushes. But as other DU posters have explained in the past, the Clintons have not been as good at eliminating the Bush disease by making sure those who committed crimes never get a job at the U.S. government again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Remember how bad the economy was when Bush the first was in power?
How many people had given up hope?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. Is it that, or vengeance against the right? Or is it "a woman's turn"?
Very few things happen for just one reason, and the Clinton years were a classic example of the grey area and a multiplicity of influences.

There are many reasons why people support her, and maybe the sheer number of these different reasons will accumulate enough splinter groups to overcome the negatives and the vitriolic, obsessed enemies to put her over the top. The reason I doubt this is that the negatives are so high and the positives spring from a negative source.

Here are her appealing qualities as I see others seeing them:

She's a fighter and she'll "show 'em".

I've heard this a lot and I've heard her described as a junkyard dog who'll fight fang and claw against the forces of opposition. Yes, there's some evidence of this, but FOR WHAT? For incremental moderation that still keeps the corporate power brokers firmly in control? She's an adept political maneuverer, but the theory that she's just positioning herself for that magic moment when she'll really drop the pretense and do what she wants doesn't have much evidence to back it up. She may--if actually elected--walk a narrow course to guarantee her re-election, then continue the path to guarantee her legacy.

She's a woman.

Yes, that'll attract many who wouldn't ordinarily vote and sway others who would ordinarily vote Republican. There are probably some idiot males who'll abstain from voting or vote against the party because of this, but the numbers will probably be negligible. Who knows? Perhaps there's more anger out there in reactionaryland and many downtrodden women will vote for her just out of rage at the skunks who've been making their lives hell. If I didn't have such major policy and character issues with her and the stakes weren't so high, it'd be a nice experiment just to see...

Oooh, we'll really rub the conservatives' noses in it.

This will be revenge for the Bill Clinton wars, and all of the incomprehensible people who have unqualified love for his mythical populism thirst for this beyond any reason. It's akin to the vengeance lust that compels those who worship Al Gore's potential candidacy. Vengeance is a powerful motivator, although certainly not very far up on the moral scale. Anger will enlist a lot of people in the cause, but will it pull in enough?

Aaah, all those other candidates are too radical.

Quite frankly, this is the only reasonable appeal I can see; if one is truly middle-of-the-road and trusts the corporate system, she's your gal. THAT at least makes some sense upon analysis. (I guess the woman issue does too, but if that's the impetus when realizing the perilousness of her chances or the stodginess and economic unfairness of her policies, it's a bit of a sell-out. We're long overdue for a woman or non-white president, but that doesn't justify taking the first reasonable streetcar that rumbles by.)

I see her as a tactician and a careful manipulator. It's not that I think she's a "bad" person, but I do think she disdains the need for economic fairness and for all of her ability to schmooze and connect with people, I don't think she's really on the side of true social change. Not only does this rankle my sense of fair play, it's something NECESSARY for the future of the country: our society and economy are great because the workers made a lot of money and spent it; if the system continues to be rigged for the "have mores", it's going to collapse. This isn't so much morality or altruism on my part, it's simply survival instinct. Having spent so much of her life positioning herself for the moment when she'll actually do something, will she actually DO something? She's like a fine instrumentalist who can't compose, has no vibrato and has meticulous and mathematic timing but no finesse of phrasing; in the end, this person is a technician and not an artist.

In the end, we're generally left with instinct and feeling that we try to interpret through facts and evidence to no avail. I don't trust her. Much as I do think she cares in many ways, much as the concept of a village is in tune with my communal take on life, there's something that rings hollow here.

Still, she'd be unquestionably better than any of the dicks from that other party. I just think we can do MUCH better, and I am SERIOUSLY doubtful of her electability.

It's long past time for gay marriage, but that killed us in '04. (It allowed the right to get close enough to steal it.) It's also long past time for a woman president, but I don't want that (or a juvenile revenge for Bill's persecution) to kill us in '08. Think of the Supreme Court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. well said
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 01:27 PM by marions ghost
if we want "true social change" I don't think Hillary's our gal.

"...this person is a technician and not an artist." Exactly --we need big picture vision for this country, not just a good work ethic and plays well with others.

If there weren't so many candidates who seem to have more of this vision for big changes--ie. Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama-- then we'd have to settle for Hillary. In less turbulent times we could just be satisfied with a good administrator. She's entirely qualified, but we need someone who is going to really turn this ship in a whole new direction. Democracy is on life support now. I'd rather not hark back to the Clinton era, but move beyond it.

Edit to say: Hillary was certainly right about one thing--she was not exaggerating about "the vast right-wing conspiracy." I like the way she brought that up at the debate.;-)
But then she has compromised in so many ways...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. Nostalgia for Bush 41 gave us Bush 43. Junior ain't Poppy, and Hil ain't Bill.
The Presidency is not some Broadway revival. Let's move forward!

Kucinich for President!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. I was thinking the same thing earlier, but I think it only applies to her support now.
I don't think this will translate to votes later on. It might, but I don't think so.

I definitely think you're wrong about the general. Democrats voting for Clinton because of the nostalgia is one thing, but Indys and especially Republicans will not vote for Hillary just because her name is Clinton. I think that's a little naive to think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
20. what nostalgia? NAFTA? DLC? sorry, can't say I have experienced any nostalgia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
21. Clinton's mushiness helped us lose Congress in 1994
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
22. Nostalgia my ass! This is the reason why America is in this mess.
A bad combination of Clinton + Bush. America has had too much to drink and now we are raging alcoholics. This has to end.:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
24. I want change, not Clintonism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dugggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
26. B I L L A R Y
Nuff said. They are twins. And yes, people
remember the good times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
27. Then you can be sure of a 3rd party challenge. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
29. It ain't over, baby. I'm looking forward.
Nostalgia doesn't float my boat anymore.

I'm starting to get into the 'what if' line of thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
30. phhhffft! bwa....
you owe me a new keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
33. You are mistaken
Sure, the Clinton era looks lovely compared to Bush. Most regimes would look good compared to Bush. But that doesn't necessarily convert to nostalgia votes for Hillary.

Clinton is still remembered in many circles for attacks on the people like welfare "reform", don't ask, don't tell, the health care disaster, NAFTA, the advent of the working poor, and how the gap between the rich and the rest of us rose to a record breaking chasm. Just to name a few.

Hillary is going to carry the albatross of her husband's corporatist policies. This is a doubly heavy burden, since Hillary herself agrees with these positions and is doing what she can to reinforce them.

Nope, a lot of people will take a look at Hillary and decide that no, they don't want another corporatista Clinton in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
34. you betcha ...
Clintonism (aka triangulation) was like a breath of fresh regression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terri S Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. I don't think so.
I've talked to some people who aren't particularly into politics and they say they want Hillary because they want Bill back in the White House. They remember their lives being better than now..budget surplus and all. So to some extent, right now at least, I think that is what is driving the poll numbers. But people are not taking into account how deeply many Dem voters dislike her..and how so many Repubs viscerally hate her. Everything that was wrong with the Clinton administration is going to be drug up again. I think more people on the left will go out of party..more than did for Kerry. I think if she's the nominee, it would actually ensure a Repub victory. If she is the nominee, obviously I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
36. The OP is right! The Clinton accomplishments go on forever...
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 01:24 PM by Perry Logan
This is what they'll be nostalgic for:

the longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993

AGAINST TERRORISM:

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html

FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:

Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. Launched pilot projects in low-income communities across the country to redevelop contaminated sites into useable space, create jobs and enhance community development.

President Bill Clinton sought permanent funding of $1.4 billion a year through the Lands Legacy initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide significant new resources to states and communities to protect local green spaces and protect ocean and coastal resources. Won $652 million for Lands Legacy in the FY 2000 budget, a 42 percent increase.

Launched effort to protect over 40 million acres of "roadless areas," which include some of America's last wild places. Dramatically improved management of our national forests with an ambitious new science-based agenda that places greater emphasis on recreation, wildlife and water quality, while reforming logging practices to ensure steady, sustainable supplies of timber and jobs. Balanced the preservation of old-growth stands with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities through the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Adopted a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other light-duty trucks, producing cars that are 77 percent cleaner -- and light-duty trucks up to 95 percent cleaner -- than those on the road today. Set new standard to reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline by up to 90 percent. Once fully implemented in 2030, these measures will prevent 43,000 premature deaths and 173,000 cases of childhood respiratory illness each year, and reduce emissions by the equivalent to removing 164 million cars from the road.

# Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. Defending the standards against legal assaults by polluters.

# Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as the previous two administrations, with cleanup of more than 90 percent of all sites either completed or in progress. Secured $1.4 billion in FY 2000 to continue progress toward cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by 2002.

# Providing Safe Drinking Water: Proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure that our families have healthy clean tap water. Required America's 55,000 water utility companies to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water.

# Established EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that provides grants to States to finance priority drinking water projects that meet Clean Water Act mandates. To date, the DWSRFs have provided $1.9 billion in loans to communities.

# Awarded nearly $200 million in Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and grants for over 100 safe drinking water projects in rural areas of 40 states. USDA grants and loans target rural communities plagued by some of the nation's worst water quality and dependability problems.

# Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communities from potentially dangerous microbes, including Cryptosporidium, in their drinking water.

# Ensuring Clean Water. Launched the Clean Water Action Plan to help clean up the 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways still too polluted for fishing and swimming. Secured $3.9 billion since 1998, a 16 percent increase, to help states, communities and landowners in reducing polluted runoff, enhancing natural resource stewardship, improving citizens' right to know, and protecting public health.

# Strengthening Communities' Right to Know. Strengthened the public's right to know about chemicals released into their air and water by partnering with the chemical industry and the environmental community in an effort to provide complete data on the potential health risks of the 2,800 most widely used chemicals. Nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to communities, while expanding the number of facilities that must report by 30 percent.

# Expanded the community right to know about releases of 27 persistent bio-accumulative toxins (including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs). These highly toxic chemicals are especially risky because they do not break down easily and are known to accumulate in the human body.

# Secured $83 million in FY 2000 for two major new efforts to restore salmon in the Pacific Northwest: $58 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which provides resources for states and tribes to protect and rebuild salmon stocks; and $25 million to implement the historic Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, which established two regional funds to improve fisheries management and enhance bilateral scientific cooperation between the two countries and provides funding to buy back fishing permits in Washington.

# Expanding Wildlife Refuges. Added 57,000 acres, including lands along the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River, to the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to protect salmon habitat in Washington.

# Forging Partnerships to Protect Habitat. Completed 255 major Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), compared to 14 before the Administration took office, to protect more than 20 million acres of private land and over 170 threatened and endangered species. These voluntary agreements protect habitat while providing landowners the certainty they need to effectively manage their lands.

# Strengthening Protections for Wildlife. Signed legislation that strengthens protections for wildlife by mandating that the most important use of our nation's wildlife refuges is giving refuge to migratory birds and other animals reliant on this rich system of natural habitat.

Protecting our Oceans and Coasts

# Creating Comprehensive Oceans Policy. Directed the development of key recommendations for strengthening federal oceans policy for the 21st century and appointed a high-level task force to oversee the implementation of those recommendations. Convened a National Ocean Conference in June 1998 that brought together government experts, business executives, scientists, environmentalists, elected officials and the public to examine opportunities and challenges in restoring and protecting our ocean resources.

# Strengthening Our National Marine Sanctuaries. Secured a funding increase of over 100% to better support national marine sanctuaries -- homes to coral reefs, kelp forests, humpback whales, and loggerhead turtles. Supporting the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions to explore, study and document ways to better protect underwater resources.

# Preserving Coral Reefs. Issued an Executive Order to expand protection of coral reefs and their ecosystems to address issues of coral reef management, expansion of marine protected areas and increased protections for coral reef species.

# Protecting Marine Mammals. Led negotiations resulting in a multilateral agreement to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Issued new standards to protect the endangered northern right whale from injuries from ships by instituting a first-ever ship reporting requirement in two areas of right whale critical habitat. Fought for creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an area of more than 12 million square miles off the coast of Antarctica.

# Banning Ocean Dumping of Toxic Waste. Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The U.S. was the first nuclear power to advocate the ban.

Introduced "Better America Bonds" to generate $10.75 billion in bond authority over five years to preserve open space, improve water quality and clean up abandoned and contaminated properties known as brownfields. Local communities can work together in partnerships with land trust groups, environmentalists, business leaders and others to develop innovative solutions to their community's development challenges.

# Provided leadership critical to successful negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.

# Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money. Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001, reducing emissions and reliance on imported oil.

# Growing Clean Energy Technologies. Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies, which can convert crops, trees and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and materials. Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons a year -- the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

# Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earth's climate system. This record research budget continues strong support for the "Carbon Cycle Initiative" begun last year to improve our understanding of the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed lands in capturing carbon.

# Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances. Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. The new standards will cut the average appliance's energy usage by 30 percent and save more than seven quadrillion BTUs of energy over the next 30 years, more than seven times the annual energy consumption of the entire state of Arkansas.

# Promoting federal Energy Efficiency. Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year. Forged new partnerships with industry to develop and promote energy-saving cars, homes and consumer products with the potential to save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills and significantly curb greenhouse gas pollution.

http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/gore.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loveangelc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Boo.
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 01:28 PM by loveangelc
Cant we get or try something new please? I thought the 90s were great from what I remember, but if Hillary Clinton is elected that means a Bush or Clinton will have been President all my life and Im just going to be honest about it, Im not happy about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RFKJrNews Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Ah yes, the `90s...haven't we been there already?
(Yawns)…a lot of us just aren’t feeling that excitement for the old tried-and-true ticket this time around. Another Clinton (or Clinton/Gore?) administration after 8 years of King George II’s reign feels like going backwards.

We’re not ready for a 90s nostalgia craze just yet, at least not when it comes to our politics.

But the music sure was good!:)





* Ready for a change yet? Please SIGN THE PETITION to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the race for the White House! http://RFKin2008.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC