The thought of eight years under The Clintons depresses the hell out of me

[Armstead]

I can't put it any plainer than that.

It struck me today, while pondering the likliehood that after all we've been through, it's all boil down to Clinton Deja Vu.

It'll be an empty meaningless campaign, followed by eight years of nothing government.

The same old, same old, same old, same old.......

Politics of division. Small answers to big problems. Meaningless cliches. Truth as a flexible commodity. Soap opera and psychodrama from America's Fun Couple.

Corporations will continue their takeover. The Democratic Party will be split apart and lose what is left of its soul under the DLC. The GOP will regroup and fire up the same old cannons.

GRIDLOCK.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The thought of eight years under John McCain or Mitt Romney depresses me even more.

Much, much more.

[Armstead]

4. I would hope that it doesn;t come down to that choice.

[neutron]

75. BREAKING: NYT: Obama Compomises Nuclear Leak Bill

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

NYT February 3, 2008
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause. <snip>
He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.” <snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon....

[neutron]

76. Krugman TORE UP Obama's Economic plan

Responding to Recession
by Paul Krugman

<snip>
Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?
In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.
<snip>
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

[neutron]

77. self delete

self delete

[ForRusty]

12. AMEN. If they have a D next to their name, cast a ballot.

Common sense for the win. Holy crap. It's as if people would rather see a Republican in the White House. If it's her or another person with an R next to this name do the country a favor and vote for her.

Holy crap the stupidity of some of our members astounds me.

[Armstead]

21. I'd rather see a democratic Democrat

Bill Clinton was the best moderate Republican President we had in a long time.

[ForRusty]

24. I'd rather Bill Clinton as President again then a Republican.

If they have a D next to their name it doesn't matter who they are. D>R. You either support the Democratic candidate or you defacto are aiding the opposition candidate.

[Armstead]

26. Instead of allowing the Democrats to become more like the Repubs....

I'd rather see the Democrats actually get back to what they are supposed to be. Liberal progressive populists who stand up for the majority, and reduce the power of Wall St, and Bug Corporate Monopolists.

[ForRusty]

30. Hasn't it ever occured to you that politics is compromise?

It's why there isn't an amendment to exempt the equal rights amendment from being construed to equate same sex marriage with a constitutional argument. Instead, we have DOMA.

That's an example. If it comes between any Republican and any Democrat I am voting for the Democrat. Face reality. If you had your way my Congresswoman, a lady elected in the 2nd district of Kansas in 2006, would be a blaring liberal and she'd have her ass kicked in the coming November. It's about compromise. What terrifies you is that the Clintons are good at it, it's why Bills Presidency was successful with a Republican congress.

[Dr.Phool]

40. Compromise is working together for mutual agreement.

A lot of our Dems in Congress and the Senate (aka Blue Dogs, DLC, and New Democrats) think it means roll over and get screwed.

[ForRusty]

45. Again, we wouldn't have a majority without the Blue Dogs.

So... QQ? What do you want Congresswoman Boyda here in the 2nd district of Kansas to do? Be so Blue she looses in November, which is all ready a possibility that may happen.

[Armstead]

41. Compromise has to work two ways

I don't see much compromise having come from the other side.

Instead, Democrats are always told we have to give up our the liberal instincts, bith by the GOP and by the conservatives within the Democratic leadership.

[ForRusty]

47. Er.... This is endless. But change is happening. Let's agree to that. :) nt

[John Q. Citizen]

44. If Hill gets the nomination, better get used to President McCain. Too many people already hate her.

If it was only the bush 29% ers, that would be one thing. But it's not. It's many many more.

It's Dem lefties,
It's independent lefties,
It's Independent centrists,]
It's moderate Repos,
It's corporate Repos,
It's the media,
It's the fundies,
It's the right wing independents,
It's gun owners,
It's libertarian independents
It's a sizable number of black Democrats
and the list goes on.

She will win the Dem party faithful vote and that's it. She won't do better than 43% max, what Bill Clinton did in 1992. The only thing that could save her is a Ron Paul 3rd party run, or a Bloomberg Independent run. But that's wishing for a miracle. Bloomberg won't run with McCain in because they have a lot of the same indy voter appeal. I doubt Ron Paul is going to leave the Repo party and screw up his house seat.

[calimary]

69. Oh! Thou thief of the words from my mouth!

The thought of eight more years of republi-CONS in the White House is utterly sickening. Moreso than the dreaded Hillary could ever be.

[aquart]

2. BOO!

As opposed to Barry who will let you buy him a house.

[Armstead]

7. Got any cattle futures to trade?

[Jim Sagle]

23. Karl Rove, is that you?

[Armstead]

43. I gave a response that the post deserved

I'd say bringing up Obama's house is Rovian too.

[ursi]

3. I am with you ...

[Whisp]

5. a clinton win will be a guarantee that another bush mess

will be cleaned up, as she said at the debate.

He will never be held accountable under a Clinton.

I have no idea what Barack is thinking on this, but it's A FACT that Clintons clean up Bushes' crimes.

[Armstead]

10. Yes they cleaned up by sweeping evertything under the rug

First, they let the Bush Reagan group go uninvestigated.

Then they allowed the same trickle-down policies of the GOp to continue with a few kinder and gentler modifications.

They're really good cleaner uppers.

[Whisp]

35. Anyone in America can grow up to be president, littly Johnny...

that is if you are a Clinton or a Bush.

I can't see how this does not greatly disturb some people here more.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Extremely depressing. America is so self limiting

[BeyondGeography]

8. No way on earth the country stomachs the Clintons for eight more years

if ever a presidency has one term written all over it, it's Hillary's.

They will have exhausted all but the plump woman who doesn't have an iPod by 2012.

[Dr.Phool]

11. Then it's Jebs turn to fuck it up some more.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Yet another reason to break up the Bush/Clinton cycle right now

because Jeb will run in 2012 and you don't want a Democrat named Clinton facing him.

[Dr.Phool]

9. It's enough to make you wanna curl up in a fetal position.

And die of "American Idol", or Britney Spears poisoning.

[enid602]

13. ???

Would you have said all of this eight years ago?

[Armstead]

17. Yes, to be perfectly honest

I was sick of the Clinton Sell Out by the 96 campaign.

Sure Clinton 1 beat the hell out of Bush 1 and Bush 2.

But only by comparison. We could have done a hell of a lot better.

[joshcryer]

14. The thought of another MSM selected candidate depresses the hell out of me.

[splat]

15. How could the first woman president ever be the "same old same old:?

There is no precedent at all.

[Armstead]

19. Different package, same old DLC Wall St. garbagio

If gender were all that matters, perhaps we should go for Libby Dole.

[Cha]

42. That sounds really disingenous, splat.

this isn't about gender, remember?

[splat]

56. A black and a woman are huge realities you dismiss as race and gender

To be able to vote for the first woman presidential candidate would indeed be historic. It's about time.

[Armstead]

57. If you like Hillary's policies and record, vote for her

But I hope you base it on more than just her gender.

IMO Edwards would have done more for working women by dealing with systemic economic issues.

[splat]

59. I was originally for Edwards, but I think Hillary would be a better prez than Obama

I also find the man crushes from the pundits and bloggers sort of creepy.

[Cha]

60. hilary lost me in 2002 when she

voted for the IWR against all pleadings from her constituents..I don't care if hilary is a woman or not..that shit doesn't fly.

[zulchzulu]

16. Don't worry. They will never get in again

If the Clintons are the nominee (which is what it would be), we will handily lose to the Republicans and probably the House and Senate as well. So there is no need to worry that the Clintons will be in the White House for eight years.

[BootinUp]

20. This is not 1992. The conservative revolution has ended. nt

[Armstead]

22. Unfortunately, the conservatives won.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4333840&mesg_id=4333840


We have a chance to change that, but I don't see the Wall St. oriented Clintons changing course this time.

[ForRusty]

25. Would you rather a Republican be President over Hillary? nt

[BootinUp]

28. No, the current state of the country and public opinion

says it was a failure. And since Hillary's positions are very close to Edwards in many respects, I really don't see a justification for anguish at the prospect.

[ForRusty]

32. Thank the Gods for sanity. All the Democratic candidates are essentially the same ideals and plans.

It's just a popularity contest.

[Armstead]

34. The center -- including the Democratic Party -- has been pushed far to the right

Corporate values and behavior that would have been considered outrageous and unethical in the middle decades of the 20th Century have become business as usual today.

That's not where the people are, but that's what we get fed as the only choices these days.

The Democrats refused to push back during the 80's, 90's and 00s.

Frankly, sometimes it seems that Ike was more of a liberal than the current Democratic Party.

[ForRusty]

39. I disagree.

I think were making gains and going the way that needs going. However, I don't think were going to get all the things we want done with a 51 seat, barely, majority in the Senate and a 16 vote majority in the house, assuming the other 15 or so Democrats don't change votes and since many are blue dogs they may. It's compromise, I've said this before. Change and politics is compromise. It's doing what we can when we can. And I think were changing things even as is. Personally, get me a near 60 seat senate and I'll be giddy all night.

[Armstead]

50. Bush lost control of Congress and he still keeps getting what he wants

The Democrats had a majority in 2002. Bush still got everything he wanted.

The Republicans have a minority now, and we're still stuck in Iraq and allowing the GOP in Congress to roll over us.

[ForRusty]

53. 2002 was a ONE seat majority. Holy Raptor Jesus.

Do you know what cloture is? What filibuster is? Maybe then you'll have an idea about how slim and really, how useless, that majority was then and is now. We need more Senate seats, then you'll see more change and the like. I don't think, and I don't think any rational person does either, that we will loose Congress in 2006. But we desperatly need to expand our Senate majority.

[Armstead]

55. I agree wee need a bigger majority

My point was, however, that for years and years and years the excuses are always that the Democratsd don;t have enough power to get anything past the Republicans.

But during those same years, the Republicans always seem to find a way to get what they want, whether they are in or out of the White House and in a majority or minority in Congress.

[ForRusty]

58. If we don't have a decent enough majority then we don't have the power to get things done... nt

[depakid]

73. Curious- the Republicans haven't had a "decent majority"

Yet look at all that they've gotten done.

Even when they didn't have the presidency!

Yep, compromise all right. Provided that it furthers the far right agenda. And ONLY then.

[LVjinx]

61. No

The conservative cycle has ended. They've ground themselves into extinction. Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage - these people HELP democrats with their very existence. Coulter and Limbaugh helped win the 2006 cycle for us with their poisonous rhetoric, and they are almost certain to help us win 2008 too. They have no idea how repugnant they are, and how their comments alienate even voters who might have agreed with the general premise if they had only framed it in a different (read: non-offensive) way.

They've marginalized themselves even within their own party. They compromised away their "principles" (or what they call principles) to keep Republicans in power even when they didn't like them. Now the Republican party >expects< their vote. They aren't the masters of the machine anymore - they've become its slaves.

And, ironically, it's Karl Rove who neutered them. His obsession of achieving and maintaining a permanent GOP majority, no matter the cost, led not just to a democratic but a conservative backlash. In short, conservatives don't like what the republican party is selling any more than progressives do.

Yet, without the republican party, conservatives have absolutely nothing. They're finished.

[Armstead]

62. The economic conservatives have won resoundingly

with the help of the Clintons.

That is what I find so depressing at the thought of more of the same brand of Corporate Democrat.

The Anne Coulters are a sideshow. They are not what real conservatism is about.

Economic conservatism -- also known as neo-liberalism -- is anathema to what liberalism and progressive politics stand for. They believe in the supremacy of "free markets" as the sole arbiter of action and values.

The Clintons are active proponents of this system.

I posted an interview that explains very well the systemic imbalances and unfairness behind the neo-liberal philosophy espoused by the Clintons.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4333840&mesg_id=4333840

[LVjinx]

63. Ah..

I presumed you were referring to social conservatism. I forget there are degrees of everything.

[BootinUp]

67. A politicans actual policy proposals change with the times though

I agree the Clintons are fiscally conservative Dems. But things like trade policy and regulation can be changed in the wink of eye based on what is working and what is not. In the 90's those policies they proposed did work. People were doing well. But things get out of balance over time, and a President cannot "always" prevent that. The repukes hammered deregulation in the 80's and Americans bought it because there was "some" truth in it they had experienced themselves. So, the pendulum moves in a direction for awhile. Clinton could not stop that pendulum. No one could.

[Avalux]

27. Their hatred for all things Clinton has not. n/t

[BootinUp]

29. I think many will be surprised

at how well the Dems will do in Nov with Hillary as the nom.

[Armstead]

36. I think the Democrats could do very well

But primarily because Bush and the GOP have been so atrocious.

[Emit]

37. I think you will be surprised

I recently posted two threads showing who's up to what and essentially who will be attacking Clinton in the GE if she wins:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4342776&mesg_id=4342776
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4341528&mesg_id=4341528

These asswipes play for keeps and they are motivated by negative reinforcers, as are most Repug voters.

[BootinUp]

49. Those don't scare me.

C.U.N.T. LOL, you think that is going to be an org that Americans pay attention to? They are nutballs, and Stone gets more credit than he should.

McCain does not worry me as much as Romney. I think in a GE McCain will be exposed as having several problems. Health and Age, War Monger, Too Conservative, Too Unpredictable.

[sandnsea]

31. No shit

I've been horrified at the thought for months, and watching them do their divisive campaigning recently, even more horrified.

[dkf]

33. ditto

[Azathoth]

38. Oh come on, eight years of Clintonian partisan warfare will be a delightful respite

from the 8 years of partisan warfare we've had under Bush.

[Armstead]

46. That may be true

There will be a whole new crop of creative excuses why nothing can be changed.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Yeah, but if she's the nominee you just gotta suck it up and...

vote for her.

Whining won't help-- it will be her or the other guy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I heard it already-- the future of the nation, dynasties, inbred HillaryHate, DLC, war, blah, blah, blah...

But it would still be her or the other guy are the only two choices come November, and all the bitching, moaning, and complaining won't change that.

So, just suck it up if she's the nominee.

[Armstead]

51. It's my party and I'll cry if I want to

I realize I'll have to suck it up.

Been sucking it up for 30 years now.

But I sure as hell don't have to like it.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. We've all been sucking it up. I don't make the rules, so...

I don't expect to have my way very often.

[Armstead]

54. I'd settle for a hint that things are moving in the right direction

That would include a Democratic Party that was not ashamed to be liberal.

[kid a]

64. its immpossible for that to happen - she can't win against mccain -

[splat]

65. McCain won't win; 100 years of war? No way

[ErnestoG]

66. Don't be so sure.

That tawdry chest beating beligerence still appeals to a TON of Americans, and I wish Hillary thought about that when she cast her vote to support Bush's war plans. She was enabling a military policy that would have consequences a hundred years from now.

[David Zephyr]

68. I think you are not alone.

Up until December, I saw the Hillary campaign as something to behold and I was impressed with what I saw.

And then, Bill Clinton began to appear more and more and, of course, everyone now knows how ugly he got. And that's when I began to think about and remember Monica, Ken Starr, Dick Morris, Webster Hubbel, Jennifer Flower, blue dresses, impeachment, DOMA, "don't ask, don't tell", NAFTA, GAT, off-shoring throughout the 1990's and all the division, all the bickering, me trying to excuse Bill's lousy behavior in the Oval Office to my mother who never bought any of my justifications...

And it just hit critical mass for me. I think if Bill had not gotten out front and red-faced and talked about Jesse Jackson, I might not had had those painful reflections of my defending his shabby behavior for nearly two years. But I did reflect and I also woke up and smelled the coffee how 50% of the country simply hates this couple and what an obstacle that would be going into a general election.

John Edwards and Barack Obama had positive progressive outlooks and, you know what? I decided that I wanted to be on that side, the side of hope.

You are not alone and I think that the recent polls coming out tonight for Sunday's consumption show that Obama's last minute surge is something historical. Armstead, I think that a lot of Americans are feeling the same way you are. They don't want to fight those old battles again.

The American people are just worn out with, what you called, the same old, same old......

Out of 300 million Americans, we can find leadership from beyond the families of the Bushes and the Clintons.

I do think that Hillary would make a good VP, but not president. We'd lose and I don't want to lose anymore.

[BringBigDogBack]

70. You got it.

[krkaufman]

71. Continued Clinton tweaking of the Right Wing free market Reaganomics.

I pray I'm wrong, but if we're supposed to count Hillary's time in the White House as experience, then that experience shows we'll have "market solutions" and that we'll just have to get used to the inevitability of globalization.

[Armstead]

81. Exactly. I wish more attention were paid to that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4333840&mesg_id=4333840

[Perry Logan]

72. Anti-Clintonites are a depressive lot. And they want everyone to feel the same way.

[Armstead]

82. Ah more psychobabble.

Yes we don't like your candidate so we have psychological problems.

[Tatiana]

74. Many people feel as you do.

I copied and pasted the following main topics under both candidates' respective issue pages. I won't comment other than to say that there are some differences as far as main agendas go:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/">Hillary Clinton

1) Strengthening the Middle Class
2) Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care
3) Ending the War in Iraq
4) Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming
5) Improving Our Schools
6) Fulfilling Our Promises to Veterans
7) Supporting Parents and Caring for Children
8) Restoring America's Standing in the World
9) A Champion for Women
10) Comprehensive Government Reform
11) Strengthening Our Democracy
12) Reforming Our Immigration System
13) An Innovation Agenda
14) Creating Opportunity for Rural America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/">Barack Obama

1) Civil Rights
2) Disabilities
3) Economy
4) Education
5) Energy & Environment
6) Ethics
7) Faith
8) Family
9) Fiscal
10) Foreign Policy
11) Healthcare
12) Homeland Security
13) Immigration
14) Iraq
15) Poverty
16) Rural
17) Service
18) Seniors & Social Security
19) Technology
20) Veterans

[Little Star]

78. The eight years under Clinton, were the best for my family,

in my life time! I'll buy the new and improved version of Clintonism with out hesitation.

[JCMach1]

79. Yeah, the '90's were so awful...

:grr:

[travelingtypist]

80. Not if we work hard...

If we can get the DINOs out and replace them with real
progressive Democrats and keep the Clintons with a Dem
House and Senate, I think the Congess can really do some
stuff. It's up to us.

[demo dutch]

83. The thouhgt of 8yrs of McCain depresses the hell out of me!

[moondust]

84. 12-16 years of anybody in the top news story every day is too much. n/t