somehow the fact that the Bushes have been on 6 of last 7

[jacksonian]

presidential tickets means Clinton shouldn't be pres?

Total BS emotional argument, geared at non-thinking people who think little about folks other than a name. There are plenty of reasons not to like Hillary, but Clinton does NOT = Bush. They are different, things entirely. Hillary does not even = Bill.

Say whatever you like, but the Clinton admistration was the most prosperous, most peaceful years in any large modern society in history. There has never been an example of better government of a large complex nation in world history.

Admittedly, that does not say much for the history of government, but it is the truth. Nobody has ever done it better, and I challange anyone to offer an example of a better, more fair system of governing. Let's keep in mind here what Obama is trying to accomplish is to be better than the best ever, which he might just do - but the benchmark to exceed is Clinton's.

And the woefulness of the Bushes' governing on this count is irrelevent. DON'T MAKE THE PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.

[shaniqua6392]

1. I would not have a problem going back to those days.

More jobs...Ability to actually save money in the bank....less taxation....higher tax returns....cheaper gas and utilities, etc. My life was better and I made less money then. Now I just work more hours and can not save a dime. It is not her fault that there were two Bush's in office. It is irrelevant to me. That was not within her control. If there had never been a Bush in office, she would just be someone running for prez who had a husband who used to be prez. Big friggin deal.

[KittyWampus]

2. More Bank Deregulation, Larger Military Spending, Larger Gap Between Rich/Poor, Media Consolidation,

Outsourcing, Govt. Privitization, Election Theft.

If you actually looked even a bit below the surface, you'd see that Clinton largely left intact the corrupt power structure left behind by Reagan/Bush.

[jacksonian]

6. I never said it was perfect

because it wasn't. But nothing in history was ever better. Keep in mind what can acutally BE accomplished is much less that what you like to accomplish.

I still want an example of better times on so large a scale. America in the 90's was the richest, most educated, most egalitarian large society. Ever.

We might be able to do better, but let's admit things were good, and a lot better than now.

[blm]

22. Deep-sixing BCCI report led directly to Bush2 and 9-11. Were the CONSEQUENCES of

Bill's actions there good for America in the long run?

[blm]

3. Why was a Bush even possible after a few Dems had BushInc cornered by Jan 1993

on IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations that had many matters still pending that should have resulted in long jail sentences?

Bill Clinton deep-sixed the BCCI report and never cooperated or gave access to documents that Bush1 had stonewalled throughout his term.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

There would never have been a Bush2 possible but for Bill Clinton who sided with protecting the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush and his powerful cronies instead of with the truth that would have prevented a Bush2 presidency and would have prevented 9-11, war in iRaq and soontobe war with Iran.

Why are YOU desirous of continuing that protection? Clintons protect Bushes. They always have and always will.

[jacksonian]

7. it's the media, baby

I'm not campaigning for Hillary. But Bush does not equal Clinton. It was a different world back then, it did seem then that patching things up with the other side and mending cooperation would work. If the Repugs had any true values it would have. Clinton vs. a hostile congress did require a certain amount of smoothness not relevent today.

And wake up. The entire political establishment has been protecting the Bushes with a passion, Clinton merely swam in that sea. All I'm saying is that no country has ever done better and you will cannot build a more perfect world not recognizing what is good about this one.

[blm]

9. Except BushInc was at its WEAKEST point in Jan1993. Truth would have prevented Bush2

And truth and the release of documents would have prevented 9-11, Iraq and future war with Iran.

Siding with the protection of Poppy Bush's secrecy and privilege did WHAT for our party, our nation and for the world?

Should decisions that have such dangerous consequences like that CONTINUE ?

[jacksonian]

11. I agree, but it's still 20-20 hindsight

In 1993, with legislative agendas their first concern, a vindictive fight is not what the people wanted. They wanted to work with people.

Naive, right. We can see that now. But really in 1993, nobody expected Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decisions would ever happen, and the path seemed better if we all just played nice.

Which, I might add, sounds like Obama's stumping today. Obama wants to rule, and I don't hear any fire in the belly of "convict the bastards" coming from him. Because, as he puts it, reaching across is how to govern.

[blm]

12. Baloney. Truth brings a country together more than gestures. Clinton had NO INTENTION

of the public or investigators accessing the truth because Jackson Stephens and Poppy Bush needed the truth deep-sixed.

Who was a longtime backer of GHWBush?

Who was a key figure named in BCCI report?

Who staked Bill Clinton's political career and his primary race?

Who staked WalMart?

Who brought BCCI into this country w GHWBush?

Who needed BCCI report deep-sixed?

[jacksonian]

14. well then show me Obama's drive for justice

because the case against the Repugs is about a million time larger now than then.

And look who stakes him. Clintons evidently bad, but Obama does the same only more right. I don't get it.

[blm]

16. Nope - Obama advocates for open government and transparency and with

John Kerry at his side that bodes well for those of us on the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic Party.

Those of us who KNOW what the truth has been over the last 4 decades are well aware that Kerry is the lawmaker most responsible for uncovering and exposing the corruption. Too bad he had other Dems working to protect BushInc all along.

[jacksonian]

18. I have never seen a politician run on the close up gov platform

so what. His stump speeches rally don't hold Bush legally responsible for anything, even less talk of that than Kerry did last time - even though now there's more scandals on the table.

[blm]

19. He's been INCREASING the volume on open government.

And in Boston on Monday Kerry said accountability is due and its coming. I believe Obama will allow that access to documents that Clinton never would.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. And the Clintons AGAIN will give us more of the same.

An outgoing, corrupt Republican administration, a hostile congress (believe me, if Hillary heads the ticket we WILL lose congress) and complacent Dems going along to get along (Pelosi, Reid) and refusing to hold the republicans accountable AGAIN --

Have you REALLY heard any "convict the bastards" coming from HER? She talks about withdrawing from Iraq with honor - sounds SO much like Nixon's "Peace with Honor" that kept that war going for 4 more years - but has she said anything about prosecuting the liars that started the war, the war which she voted for and supported for 3 years before she figured out that the people really didn't like it?

[islandmkl]

4. I think the initial argument is not in favor of Hillary....

the line of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton successions poses other fundamental questions about our two-party system. Call someone who is adept with statistics and get the probabilities of such an occurence based on U.S. population of qualified age to become President. There is NO two-party system, and only as a matter of convenience to the power-elite do they bother to offer us a two-family system. Might as well keep it all in the family(s). It ain't about Hillary. Obama is their guy, too. Get a clue...they have us playing heads or tails...but they get their silver dollar back no matter who chooses correctly.

[jacksonian]

10. BS argument

just because it so worked out that a former pres' wife is political herself, for the first time in history, is not significant except as to the value of her political abilities.

It's the Bushes who gamed the system. Believe me, no half-witted "C" student, coke-sniffing, AOWL, business failure son of a Dem, Clinton or anyone else, will ever be Pres. Hillary make not deserve the nomination in the final analysis, but she deserves to try and be listened to. Unlike a certain family who games the political process.

Sure the system is corrupt. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A NON-CORRUPT GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T GAME POWER. You work, though, with the facts as they are. Best is still best. As I said, this really points out how bad government has benn forever.

[islandmkl]

13. we are probably not in much disagreement...

i guess my base concern is "how did we get to this point?" It is not merely a result of anyone's political abilities when they are pushed to the top of the game by the power structure. Hillary=New York? Rockefeller=W.Virginia? Romney=Massachusetts? J.Bush=Florida? etc. I guess they just ended up there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Yeah, sorry, I can't abide this sort of thinking.

"Richard sure was a great king, his little brother John would be a great replacement."

No thanks.

At best it's nepotism.

[jacksonian]

8. nobody's talking about annointing John

but the fact remains Richard (Bill), to use your example, was the best king (pres) ever.

That is not something to just toss aside.

In other words, all history has it wrong and doing better is so easy. I don't think so. But John (Hillary) is only worth what (s)he preserves of this - and the other contender for the throne needs to recognize the same - things were good. Likewise Obama is only worth what he can preserve and better.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. You just don't see it, do you?

The 90s was NOT a golden age. NAFTA. Telecom deregulation. 'Welfare reform'.

It LOOKS good, but the fact is what drove the 90s was the tech boom, the fact that computers went from 8088 dual floppies to internet and 4gig hard drives in less than 10 years.

Bill just rode the wave.

[jacksonian]

20. I see plenty - you're right it was not paradise

but I repeat - name a major society ever, in the enitre history of the world with better times, a richer economy and more peace than during the Clinton administration.

Go ahead. Please name one.

I can understand wanting better - but you have to be realistic about what can be done.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. How about 3rd century Rome.

It was THE uncontested superpower. Pax Romana was the law of the world. Generations passed with huge portions of the the empire never knowing warfare or poverty.

Makes Bill's 8 years look kind of paltry.

Your hyperbole does not reflect any deep knowledge of history.

How about the US, 1860's - 1898. Thirty years, between the Civil War and the Spanish/American war, in which the only warfare was brushfire Indian wars. America was the booming economic powerhouse of the world.

There are MANY periods that were richer (for the standard of wealth of their own times) and more peaceful for longer than the 1990s.

I, OTOH, did not fare well in the 90s. My personal experience was of crisis, economic hardship and divorce. It was no golden age, for millions like me. So tone down the hyperbole.