About this, 'Clinton fatigue,' thing...

[niceypoo]

We heard this from the republicans and the MSM all through the 90s. Might I point out:

1. Clinton was in the 70%'s approval while impeachment was going on.
2. Clinton was at 68% approval when he left office.

The general public didn't buy into it. They weren't fatigued by Clinton, not by a long shot. They loved him.

The republicans were fatigued by their own endless, fruitless attempts at going after Bill, and by their own rabid hatred. The general public was fatigued by all of the frivolous, nonsensical, investigations into christmas card lists and 20 year old land deals and other trivial nonsense by a desperate, frothing republican right. The corporate media bought into the whole mess.

Had either Gore or Kerry had taken office the same thing would have happened. There would have been instant frivolous investigations into every trivial matter under the sun, and cries of impeachment from a frothing right. Face it, no matter which democrat wins, the right will go bezerk with their smear machine.

If find it sad that the Hillary bashers basically turn to ancient failed RW talking points to use as ammo against the target of their irrational hatred (yes, hate is irrational).

[Captain Hilts]

1. And so many here take the bait. Amazing. nt

[Mythsaje]

2. Oh, geez.

We have plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary that have nothing to do with RW talking points, even though her supporters love to debate us as if they do.

Hillary's a marginal improvement over what we have now, that's for sure. But she's bought into far too many of their ideas to be a comfortable fit for a lot of us.

The best thing I can say about her is that we'd get competent cabinet members and the chance for a Supreme Court Justice who isn't batshit crazy.

As for the rest of it...we'd get more pro-business, anti-labor, pro-war, supply side, lobbyist-embracing policies to tide us over until the next election.

Woo hoo...


edited to fix a singular/plural error.

[mzteris]

3. and if a Republican gains office,

what do we get then?

[Mythsaje]

5. That argument won't work...

I've said it like a billion times... I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. But I think she'd be a mistake.

[mzteris]

11. it's not an argument

it's a question.

You may vote for her if she's the nominee, but others have said they won't.

I don't like all of her policies/stances. But then again, I don't like all of anyone's policies/stances. This is NOT a "single issue" election. It really can never be a single issue election. If you find yourself agreeing with someone 100% of the time about 100% of things - you either have no brain or they're a very good charlatan.

(Using the generic "you", not You, you. 'k? :hi: )


FWIW - I currently support the DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. Period. Whether they lean left, right, or middle - as there ARE Democrats who ARE left, right, and middle. And sometimes a combination of all three. And I don't want to give fodder to those who will use whatever mud we sling at each other - against us in the GenElec, ya know?


Besides, I think Hillary understands that she has to play VERY TOUGH to the Independent crowd. More tough than she - in actuality - may be. Does that make sense?

[Mythsaje]

13. I've considered that last statement of yours a time or two myself...

It's possible she'll go the other direction as fast as possible should she gain the Presidency, particularly if she has a strong Democratic majority in Congress. Once she's no longer tied to their purse-strings and their political agenda.

But I don't like what I'm seeing now.

And, yeah, I don't like reading that people will NEVER vote for her. This is more important than just a stand for idealism. We need to beat the Repug candidate, whoever it is. We need at least competent leadership, if not necessarily progressive leadership. I think she'd give us that.

[dflprincess]

25. If Clinton is the nominee

we get a Republican president whether she wins or loses.

[mzteris]

44. bull f'ing sh*t

that is the biggest load of crap.

You think she'll put a Alito or Roberts on the freakin' BENCH?

You think she'll continue to gut education and social reforms?

You want a gd republican - you guys are going to GET ONE if you keep eating our own.


SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES!

(Regardless of whether you agree with their every single breath.)

[Clintonista2]

46. Fear mongering

I wouldn't expect any less.

[niceypoo]

4. I have no problem with opposition of Hillary

Its the devolution of the arguement that I dont like. And the vitriol.

[Mythsaje]

8. I don't see the point in vitriol...

I'm willing to state flat-out the reasons why I don't like certain candidates, or why I may like them but think they'll never fly. Spewing venom is not only pointless, it's counter-productive. I couldn't give a rat's ass about RW talking points. THEIR reasons for disliking her have nothing to do with mine.

[Demit]

6. You are going to have to allow for people having opinions that aren't based on irrational hatred.

That itself is a rightwing talking point. And I'm fugging tired of hearing it.

[niceypoo]

7. I have no problem with opposition to Hillary

If its rational

[Demit]

12. Oh? Well, I have a problem with people automatically calling critics 'Hillary-bashers'

That too is a rightwing tendency, to strike out at people who are critical of their heroes.

[L0oniX]

27. It's not only a rightwing tendency, It is what a lot of people do when they don't like...

what the other has to say, they resort to insults and put downs. It's like they are still in high school. I think a lot of people carry this on long after they get out of school. It's obviously not just a repuke thing since I see it going on here too.

[niceypoo]

30. I havent seen a single post here critical of Dennis Kucinich

So, you agree that hate is irrational? *lol*

[saracat]

9. I do not "hate " Hillary but I do not feel to dislike her for her actions

or what she represents is "irrational".I find those who would "anoint' her because she is a woman and a Clinton to be "irrational".And the argument used to describe "Clinton fatigue" is not accurate. Many simply do not wish to see this country governed by a dynasty of two families, Clinton and Bush.There is nothing wrong with that reasoning either.You are basically saying those that do not support Hillary for any reason are crazy.Sorry but she is just one of many candidates.And there are many reasons to support or not support any of them.And most of those supporters are not using RW talking points to make their cases.They have their own opinions.

[BeyondGeography]

10. You need to look at more than approval ratings

Gore did in 2000, and the numbers told him to distance himself from the Big Dog because Clinton fatigue was very real. From late October, 2000:

<The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll indicates 58 percent of Americans approve of the job Clinton is doing as president. But after surviving impeachment more than a year ago, Clinton trails Gore in the number of people who view him favorably.

Overall, 17 percent of all voters say they would be more likely to vote for Gore if Clinton were to campaign for the vice president. But 40 percent said they were less likely to vote for Gore with Clinton stumping for him, and 40 percent said that would have no effect.

Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.>

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/24/clinton.factor/

In fairness, there is fatigue with any incumbent after 8 years, and a VP needs to distinguish himself as his own man. Even Reagan made himself scarce during the 1988 campaign. But Bill's moral failings made things harder for Gore, who couldn't even campaign on Clinton's legacy of success, as Bush had in 1988.

The above numbers don't lie; more than four times as many independents said they would punish Gore if he used Clinton as a campaigner than those who said they would reward him with their vote. Gore wasn't stupid; Clinton fatigue/dismay/disgust was real back then no matter what the technical "I approve of the job he's doing" numbers said, and we all paid a price for it.

[Mythsaje]

15. I'm still not convinced that those polls were accurate.

I think it was a mistake for Gore to distance himself from Clinton as much as he did. I had my issues with him, but I didn't like that maneuver at all. The suggestion came from people who have a very spotty record for giving decent advice.

[BeyondGeography]

16. The "suggestion" came from poll after poll that told him to stay away

and the margins weren't even close.

[Mythsaje]

17. Well, I can only speak for myself...

though I do wonder how many of them were "push" polls.

I had my issues with Clinton...but I wasn't personally pleased how far Gore went to avoid "contamination."

Despite his faults, he was a popular President.

I think those polls, and that advice, was wrong. Personally speaking, at least.


I didn't vote for Gore, though now I wish I had. I was probably too influenced by both the corporate media and personal influences at the time. But Gore's choice on that matter bothered ME.

Not that anyone came around to ask me my opinion.

[BeyondGeography]

18. I was screaming for Gore to get Clinton to campaign for him

but I didn't know what the numbers said. In the end, I was pissed at Gore for being too tentative about everything in the campaign until the last weekend, when he gave as good a performance as any candidate I've seen, and I was pissed at Clinton for giving the other side as much ammunition as he did.

In retrospect, I can't believe Gore didn't carefully consider his use of Clinton, especially as the race was so close. I thought he was wrong at the time to distance himself, but if I were looking at any polling data that resembled that Gallup poll taken two weeks out from the election, I would have done the same thing.

[Mythsaje]

20. Well, in hindsight, it's hard to say how it would have hurt anything.

He won, but lost. :shrug: I doubt it would've effectively made a difference if he'd actually lost lost, all things considered. And who knows, maybe the polls WERE wrong. Maybe that would've caused a slight jump in his approval from an unexpected direction.

It's all conjecture at this point.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. IMO, Gore's fault came in not associating Bush with Clinton's enemies

Clinton's approval ratings were at 70% when the Republicans went after him over Monica because the country had firmly decided that even though he was sleazy, they were sticking by him. It was also due to the fact that they liked his opponents even less.

I don't know if you're familiar with the West Wing, but there's an episode where the White House provokes the Republican controlled House of Representatives into investigating them so that they will have an enemy that they can demonize as playing partisan politics. Clinton's White House did just that to Newt Gingrich and the 1998 election results showed that it worked very well.

Gore's mistake was allowing Bush to come in and say that he would "restore integrity to the White House" and not use that to associate him with Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Tom DeLay, and all of those other enemies of Clinton that America had grown to hate.

[JTFrog]

39. Gore didn't make a mistake. He won the election.

Bush's bought and paid for judges stole the election. Period. Why does everyone forget this?

[applegrove]

14. I agree. These are GOP talking points. Clinton does well during every debate.

There is obviously more room and interest in how she will lead the Dems to victory if she wins. We haven't seen it all by a longshot.

[Faux pas]

19. HRC is a right winger running under the Dem banner as far as I'm

concerned. If that's a rw talking point, I'll eat my hat.

[Mythsaje]

21. Ah, but at least she's not a batshit CRAZY RWer.

The neocons are so far right they're hanging off the side of the world by their fingernails. The whole damned dialogue is WAY to the right. Hillary's merely a symptom of that.

The only serious "left" candidates in this fight are polling so low it's scary.

"RW talking point" or not, I think it's clear that Hillary's only "left" in comparison to Bush.

[niceypoo]

22. The Republicans, particularly the neocons, are sociopaths

They feel no empathy, guilt, shame or other basic human emotions. It doesn't bother them if their actions cause 50,000 deaths while making them rich. They will cheat, lie, steal, commit atrocities and use people to get what they want.

Here is a good description of what sociopaths are....it describes the republican leadership and their noise machine to a tee:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html">Profile of the Sociopath

I have a hard time with any insinuations that Hillary is a sociopath, and I would like to see an iota of evidence to that end.

[Mythsaje]

23. I don't think she's one of them by choice so much as expedience...

She's bought into a lot of their ideology, at least up front, simply because it's the easier row to hoe. Whether she'd be as easily led once in office, especially if given a strong Democratic congress, is another question entirely.

She's undeniably farther right than any of the other Dem candidates, particularly Kucinich or Gravel.

I'm just going off my own perceptions, for the most part, but she's undeniably the Dem candidate offering the least chance of real change when real change is precisely what we need. As I've said a hundred times, if she gets the nod, I'll support her. She's an improvement over what we have now by any measure.

[Faux pas]

31. If the righties are so unpopular now, why are the true lefties

polling so low? The only conclusion I can come up with is nothing is true and EVERYTHING is hype and propaganda. hrc is not the answer to the question or the solution to the problem.

[Mythsaje]

33. Part of it is that most people haven't turned their focus in that direction yet...

They KNOW Clinton's name. But the others? Not so much.

[Faux pas]

38. That is disheartening and sad to me. I'd hate to think that just

having a known name could/would tip the scales to the right (dark) side again. I can't stand the thought that people are that stoopid. I hate that politics is just a game and we are the pawns. :banghead:

[Mythsaje]

34. Self delete

Dupe

[wyldwolf]

26. and people who think that are raving leftwing nutjobs as far as I'm concerned.

[Faux pas]

32. Oh ouch, that hurt.....

NOT. LOL what a maroon.

[wyldwolf]

42. but it is true...

:)

[Mythsaje]

35. Are you saying you don't believe she's right of center?

Are you that confused? Or just not much of a lefty yourself?

[wyldwolf]

41. umm, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Or are YOU that confused?



http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[Mythsaje]

45. I don't buy that one at all...

The political compass one strikes me as more accurate. On this model, Kucinich would be off the left side somewhere.

[SaveElmer]

24. It doesn't exist...

The latest retread strategy to try and convince Democrats she is unelectable...this will fail like the others...because it isn't true!

[niceypoo]

29. Agree totally

EOM

[Mythsaje]

36. Right, because there aren't any Democrats who have issues with her.

Good to know.

[illinoisprogressive]

28. Like it or not, it is very real. many people are just tired of them and the Bush's

[cleveramerican]

40. I just want somebody else

... not RW talking point. Just my sincere desire.

[Perry Logan]

43. Since we've only had one Clinton Presidency--which was excellent--"fatigue" seems a little premature

The "fatigue" may come from exposure to fifteen years of incontinent slander against the Democratic frontrunner.

It's simple neurology: you cannot possibly hear that much hatred against one woman, repeated that often, and not be affected.

[ShortnFiery]

47. You have euphoric memory. Clinton brought us NAFTA and Welfare Reform.

Just because the Stock Market grew stronger doesn't make The Big Dawg "great."

I'm burned out by dynasty: No more Clintons or Bushes. :thumbsdown:

[Broke Dad]

48. I'm suffering from Clinton fatigue and its catching

We can do better.

ABC!

ABC!

ABC!

[karynnj]

49. Those were the job approval numbers - not the favorability numbers

In 2000, what I remember was that the CW was that people thought he did a good job, but a significant proportion of people wiewed him negatively because of personal issues. This caused some people to recommend that Gore take credit for what the two of them did professionally, but to keep him as low profile as you can keep Bill Clinton. At most, they said he could help get out the vote in Democratic strongholds.

Click on the favorability charts - here
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton1.htm

We know the result of what Gore did do. Since then various Clinton allies have floated the idea that Gore would have done much better had he used Bill Clinton. In fact, it is impossible to know the result from a path not taken. Would he have stolen too much of the limelight? Reminded too many people why Bush could run on decency and honor? or could he transfer some popularity.