For the Bill Clinton bashers

[question everything]

I was going thru old issues of TIME and Newsweek and found this opinion piece. From May, but since there are still DUers who love to trash Bill at every opportunity, thought to bring this one along.


Thursday, May. 15, 2008
What Obama Owes the Clintons
By Peter Beinart
TIME

(snip)

As it shows Clintonism the door, however, Obama Nation should remember something: without that pair from Arkansas, it wouldn't be here. The 1990s weren't always pretty, but for Democrats, they were deeply necessary. Because Bill Clinton threw his body into the line, wrecking the Republican Party's intricate defenses, Obama today has the political room to run. For starters, Clinton deracialized American politics. He didn't deracialize it completely, of course. But knitting together a coalition of blacks and whites is easier today because Clinton restored the Democrats' credibility on economic issues and took three of the most racially toxic issues in U.S. politics--crime, welfare and affirmative action--off the table.

When Michael Dukakis ran for President in 1988, crime was perhaps the biggest issue in the campaign. It splintered his coalition, pitting blacks who saw the death penalty as racially unfair against blue-collar whites who demanded a hard line against crime and too often associated that crime with blacks. Today, by contrast, roughly 1% of Americans say crime is their top issue, and no one even knows what Obama's position on the death penalty is. For Obama, that's an enormous boon, and Bill Clinton deserves a lot of the credit. His policies--especially his bold proposal for 100,000 new cops--helped bring down the crime rate. And by embracing the death penalty, he eliminated one of the GOP's best wedge issues. That embrace was ugly at times, as when Clinton flew back to Arkansas during the 1992 campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded man. But it was politically shrewd. And because Clinton did it then, Obama doesn't have to now.

Clinton also removed the word welfare from America's political lexicon. In the mid-1980s, when pollsters conducted focus groups with Reagan Democrats, they found that when they talked about government help for the needy, voters saw it as welfare: taking money from whites to give to undeserving blacks. That attitude was hugely unfair, but it was a political reality. Clinton changed that when he reformed welfare in 1996. By making it brutally clear that people who didn't work wouldn't get much help from Washington, he made it harder for Republicans to tag Democratic antipoverty programs as handouts to "welfare queens."

(snip)

If Clinton had been more principled, if he had been less of a panderer, if he had tried to be purer than his political opponents--if, in other words, he had been more like Obama--he might have opposed the death penalty, vetoed welfare reform and unambiguously defended affirmative action. He might also have gone with his liberal base, not Wall Street, and chosen economic stimulus over deficit reduction in 1993. And had he done those things, Barack Obama would probably not be in a commanding position to become the next President of the U.S. So as they bid Clintonism goodbye, Obama fans should show a little gratitude. If Bill weren't the person they revile, Barack couldn't be the person they love.

Beinart is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1806811,00.html

[iamthebandfanman]

1. wow thatll change their minds

oh wait, that wasnt the intention of this thread... its just to fight with people some more...


jesus, go troll for anger somewhere else would ya ?

[Yes We Did]

15. Here.... This Helps.

[MrModerate]

2. C'mon . . . just because the OP respects Bill Clinton doesn't mean s/he's picking a fight . . .

I too detect a pretty high piffle count in the cited article, but I do think the following is true: if there hadn't been the example of Clinton's more-successful-than-not presidency, Obama would have had a substantially harder time convincing undecideds that a Democrat could govern at all. Of course, following G. Bush would have given a leg up to Homer Simpson, for that matter.

It's possible that even in the absence of Clinton history that Obama would have beat McCain anyway (that was one really.crappy.campaign the old guy and his pet harridan ran) . . . but I'm far from sure.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Do we "Owe" the Clinton's too, or have they been compensated

for the public service they have and are rendering?

If we haven't paid them back enough, how much do we still owe? :shrug:

[Skwmom]

163. Well. Bill is making millions in "speaking fees," so I'd say he's been more than

compensated. But what the heck, it beats getting the money in a suitcase.

Obama has been left with a mess to clean up and Clinton played a major role in creating that mess. More re-writing of history. The Clintons are gearing up for their next Whitehouse run. Bill wants his third term.

[camera obscura]

4. Do you know who Beinart is? He's a MAJOR hawk who says Dems should support the Iraq war & the surge

http://www.cfr.org/bios/12510/peter_beinart.html
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/01/lisa-i-want-to-buy-your-rock.html

He is one of the most poisonous, useless idiots the party has. Why anyone would publish his tripe is beyond me.

[wyldwolf]

19. Beinart recanted his backing of the war long ago.

[camera obscura]

38. "Admit It: The Surge Worked" -- January 18, 2009

[wyldwolf]

41. "I think that the surge succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" - Obama, Sept. 2008

[camera obscura]

47. Context. Obama was saying conditions made the surge succeed beyond his estimates.

Breinart was chiding liberals for being... well, too liberal, as is his wont, and telling them to stop resisting the Republican talking points.

[wyldwolf]

50. the motives of the two are irrelevant

Fact is, they both said it worked. Context - of course that's why Obama said that. The reason the Surge was put into place as a strategy was because of the conditions in Iraq. :shrug:

And obviously Beinart was perfectly within his right to chide liberal for not admitting what Obama did.

[camera obscura]

52. Context does matter, because it distinguishes neocons from realists.

[wyldwolf]

63. once you fall back on that tired cliche revolutionary rhetoric, you've lost

[camera obscura]

73. LOL, neocon and realist are revolutionaly rhetoric? Someone call Colin Powell.

[wyldwolf]

74. sure, when you simplify the argument down to "neocons v. realists"

[blm]

35. Beinart was for war, but didn't wield the influence Bill did in urging Dems to support Bush on his

Iraq war decisions, even defending Bush vigorously throughout his summer2004 book tour.

Beinart is a hawk and a neocon sympathizer very much in the DLC camp the Clintons represent.

[Skwmom]

164. Oh come on. That's not fair.

The Clintons are intent are re-writing history. Enough of the facts. Are you trying to hurt his chances at a third term?

What a quandary. Team Obama must be afraid to criticize Clinton for fear that the Clinton gang will pile on Obama. But Obama has been left with a major mess, courtesy of Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Getting out of this mess, if we can, won't happen overnight.
I'd bet money that in the future the Clinton gang will constantly tell us that the Clintons are the solutions to all our problems (hence, the re-writing of history). Shhh... we don't want people to know the role that Bill played in creating this mess.

Listening to Bill Clinton and reading recent articles it seems like the campaign for the third term has already begun. As of now I'd put my money on a 2012, rather than a 2016, run.

[question everything]

75. No. I judge stories I read on the merit

unless of course, it is a typical RWer of "me good you bad."

This is why DU sometimes is the mirror image of the freepers. Instead of commenting on a story the reactions are often this guy is one of ours that gal is baaad.

Yes, I like Bill Clinton. I have often posted here that were it not for him we would have had a very hard time correcting the tilt of the Supreme Court since it was he who appointed Ginsburg and Breyer (to which there will always be someone claiming that they are not leftist enough. Enough by whose criteria?)

He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since FDR and the economy expanded during his administration across all income levels. Yes, it may have happened anyway, but he was in charge and he takes the credit.

And I think that Beinart offered an interesting analysis.

[firedupdem]

5. President Obama stands on his own. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

6. I don't think that Bill Clinton was a "panderer"

He was/is a slightly left-of-center Democrat from Hope, AR.

He moved to the center after the disaster of 1994, but he still was not Pub-lite.

Compare his ideas against our current 250+ majority in the House, and he would still be considered "center-left."

[silverojo]

7. Clinton's "welfare DEform" left people with no help

The only way you can get assistance is to be pregnant or with dependent children.

So if you're disabled (and unable to get on SSI/SSD) or smart enough NOT to bear children you can't afford...you're literally kicked to the curb.

Meanwhile, government-funded childbearing continues unabated.

This is a horrible injustice, and Clinton should NOT be forgiven for it.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. Federally measured poverty fell precipitously after "welfare reform"

:shrug:

[karynnj]

12. Yes - but you had a booming economy that likely had more to do with that

Clinton benefited from the tech bubble.

[wyldwolf]

20. the tech bubble being responsible for the 90s economy is another rightwing talking point...

... that has found it's way to the left.

[karynnj]

28. It is NOT a rightwing talking point

and you do not have to be a economist or financial expert to know that that was a very real part of what happened. Many many people bought those stocks and as they exploded in value, fueled a life style they could not otherwise have afforded by selling some of their stock for much more than they bought it for. This was in essence a consumer generated stimulation package. Your spending is different if when you see you have - say $2 million - rather than $400,000 in assets. (Yes, I know there are people here for whom both of these numbers look incredibly high.) This is why companies that sold luxury products also saw their stock grow at incredible rates.

There were at least these affects:
1) State, Federal, and local where it exists, income taxes rose due to tax on those capital gains. This is why the budget gap closed much faster than the Clinton team anticipated.

2) The gap between the haves and the have not accelerated.

Now, you can argue that those tech stocks did not become inflated way beyond there real worth or you can argue that there were no gains taken as these stocks went up - but both things are true.

I was not saying that it was JUST the tech bubble - I said he benefited. That bubble was from 1995 through 2001 according to some sources - and the welfare plan was enacted in 2006. The affects I mentioned obviously increased over time as "wealth" increased. The other thing is that that welfare act works far better when the economy is thriving and jobs are available. In times like this, it is part of the problem.

[wyldwolf]

29. sure it is.

No matter how many times it gets posted on DU, some of you refuse to see it - the economy was clicking BEFORE the tech boom. Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995...BEFORE the tech boom.

And, because of Clinton's committement to new technologies (Thank you, Mr. Gore, too) he was responsible, in part, for the tech boom.

While the right wing and sadly now the left wing only focuses on the tech bubble in the stock market (which actually happened after the economy had already starting humming along), they neglect the breadth of Clinton's economic accomplishments. Political hubris is the most obvious reason for this denial. Clinton proved many important points. The two most obvious are you can balance the budget and grow the economy.

Most importantly, this was part of Clinton's plan from the beginning. It was not a "happy accident" or the long-term result of Reaganomics. In fact,it was Clinton's undoing of Reaganomics that was a strong part of the reason for his success.

First, let's start with the balanced budget, which was part of Clinton's plan from the beginning of his Presidency.

The following is from On the Edge, by Elizabeth Drew, page 60:

Following the election, Clinton realized there was little he could do about raising spending for his investments if he didn't tackle the deficit.....He gradually came to see that the debt posed a threat to what he wanted to do to spur competitiveness and economic growth, as well as to revive the economy, and was using up capital that could otherwise go to public and private investment.

(from page 73)The result was an economic program that was bold by conventional standards and did seek to reverse Reagonomics and redirect the country's economic resources from consumption to longer-term investment, and at the same time to take a major bite out of the federal budget deficit. Clinton proposed deficit cuts of $493 billion over 5 years; increased spending, most of it on longer term investments such as job training, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, education, and promoting high-tech; tax increases of $246 billion over five years; and net cuts in federal spending of $247 billion.

Clinton's economic team of Robert Rubin, Lloyd Bentson (RIP), Leon Panetta and Alice Rivlin were all deficit hawks. All continually argued for a balanced budget. They won. Clinton came to realize the importance of balanced budgets.



But, why is a balanced federal budget so important?

It prevents crowding out. This is a fancy way of saying money that would finance the federal budget deficit is instead invested in private capital. Let me use the current situation as an example. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US had a $318 billion budget deficit in 2005. That means $318 billion dollars was not invested in the private economy, but instead invested in US government bonds. The larger the deficit, the less money available for private investment.

Psychology and uncertainty. A budget deficit detracts from individual's confidence in the market and the overall economy. As individual's look to the federal deficit, they understand that at some time the government must pay back the money it borrows. That means the government will probably have to either raise taxes (more likely) or decrease spending (far less likely whichever party is in control of the government). Deficits create psychological uncertainty. The larger and more persistent the deficit, the less happy people are and the less prone they are to take economic risks.

Interest rates. The government is the largest borrower in the credit markets. The treasury market is the base interest rate for other credit market borrowers. If the government has to increase the amount of debt it issues, it has to ask for a higher interest rate. The reason is simple supply and demand. When you sell more of a good, you usually have to drop the price (price and yield are inversely related). Therefore, if the government issues more debt, it has to ask for a lower price and higher yield. The inverse is also true. Lower interest rates helps anybody who wants to borrow money because they will borrow at a rate based on the US Treasury curve.

Let's coordinate three sets of data to illustrate the point. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficits/surpluses for years 1993-2000 were (respectively and in billions) $-255, -$203, -$164, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128. So, the budget deficit continually decreased from 1993-1996, the budget surplus increased from 97-99 and the budget showed a surplus in 2000 although this was lower than the preceding year. In other words, the record indicates a clear path towards balancing the federal budget. This was not the result of a happy accident; it was deliberate.

One of the prime reasons why the 1990s economy was so successful is the incredible amount of confidence this gave private investors. They could look at Washington with confidence, knowing politicians managed national finances were maturity. There was no talk to the deficit - was it too high, could it be maintained at current levels, will they ever get around to fixing it etc..... Simply put, investors had a sense of certainty and confidence about the economy. This encouraged them to take risks which helped everybody.

From an overall jobs perspective, the Clinton team created 22,759,000 from January 1993 to December 2000. This breaks down to 2.8 million jobs/year. The labor participation rate increased from 66.2% in January 1993 to 67% in December 2000. The unemployment rate decreased from 7.7% in January 1993 to 3.9% in December 2000.

In addition to the beneficial effects of balancing the budget, Clinton's economy was geared toward helping the middle class attain a better life. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly pay for non-supervisory workers increased from $10.63 in January of 1993 to $14.26 in December 2000 for an increase of 34.14%. Over the same period, the inflation measure increased from 138.1 to 174 for an increase of 25.99%. Therefore, the inflation adjusted hourly wage increased 8.15%.

Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995, 33,400 in 1998 and 39,900 in 2001. Over the same period inflation increased 28%, making the total inflation adjusted gain 15%. Average income increased from $44,000 in 1992, to $47,500 in 1995, to $53,100 in 1998 to $68,000 in 2001 for an inflation adjusted increase of 23%.

[karynnj]

31. As I said, I did not say that it was the only thing

I said it helped. In addition, the economy was coming out of a recession in 1992 - part of it was the business cycle, but it is also true that Clinton did many things right. look at the increase in the slope of those 3 line segments in your last line. The first 3 years had a combined increase of about 8%, the next 3 about 11% and the last 3 about 28%. The average also does not show the increases for most people - the median rather than the men would better show what happened to the income of most people.

It was a good economic period - and I never said otherwise. But it was not the welfare act that had much to do with that.

[wyldwolf]

33. you're right. You did say he benefited from it.

However, as I demonstrated, the economy was humming along without it.

[question everything]

81. An excellent analysis that deserves its own thread

(unless you've done this before..)

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Tell that to my tech stocks. eom

[wyldwolf]

40. tell that to my career path in the 90s that had nothing to do with the tech bubble

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Well, since your personal experience is universally applicable

I guess I've been told. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

44. as are your tech stocks. lol

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Yeah. Ha ha ha. That was my retirement.

Celebrating people's misfortune is so cool.

[wyldwolf]

49. who's celebrating people's misfortune?

This discussion is about whether the tech bubble was responsible for Clinton's economy.

I say it was not.

What your tech stock has to do with the discussion isn't clear.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. So previous welfare recipients made mad cash during the "tech bubble?"

[OwnedByFerrets]

145. The key phrase there is "federally measured"

I dont believe ANY numbers coming out of Washington because they are skewed for the regime in power. Just like inflation and unemployment numbers have been skewed for dozens of years.

[Beacool]

21. Welfare from cradle to grave is no solution either.

Some people did need a push to learn a skill and work for their welfare check.

:eyes:

[Lilith Velkor]

65. It's better than mandatory wage slavery

If you have to work for it, it's not a welfare check.

Besides - since when is parenting not work? :eyes:

I'm for abolishing wage slavery ASAP. Even though you most likely disagree, think for a moment how much nicer your job would be if everyone there wanted to work, instead of being obligated to.

[Beacool]

115. My belief is that people should not receive welfare for life.

As they used to when there were 2 and even 3 generations of welfare recipients. I'm all for training and childcare for the mothers of small children. But, everybody should go out and work as long as they are mentally and physically able to do so. For example, the nutty woman with her 14 kids is already receiving $1,800 a month from CA and who knows how much she will now get from them. Meantime, she chose to have these kids through in-vitro knowing full well that she didn't have the financial means to support them. CA is in an economic crisis, why should the tax payers support this woman and her brood?

[Lilith Velkor]

126. She tried to make money off the media sensation

Maybe the taxpayers should have thought of that before getting all indignant about her asking for $2M for an interview.

And if the kids all get taken away like everybody seems to want, guess who pays? That's right, the taxpayers. $500 per kid per month would go to some pedophile Jesus freak to fuck them up for life when it would cost them NOTHING to just give their mom her 15 minutes and move on.

But it wouldn't give them the emotional satisfaction of punishing her and her children, would it? Why is money no object when it comes to making people suffer?

[Beacool]

131. I'm not calling for the children to be removed from her home

unless she turns out to be an unfit mother. I'm just saying that anyone who wants to have children should be able to support them financially. Why should tax payers support women who keep breeding without much thought to the welfare of these children?

[Lilith Velkor]

147. Because they don't want to pay for birth control!

As long as they don't, they shouldn't whine about the consequences.

Funny how nobody ever complains about the cost of keeping the fathers of those children in jail, to say nothing of paying the cops to terrorize the poor....

[Beacool]

148. Family Planning provides birth control

and it's free for Medicaid recipients. Besides, how much is a box of condoms?

[Lilith Velkor]

150. I have never heard of Family Planning

Do you mean Planned Parenthood?

Anyway, accidents happen. A baby here and there is not something I sweated back when I paid taxes. Nor disabled people, which is good because I am one now, and plenty of folks told me right to my face that I should die because I'm no longer useful. Don't worry, I don't collect any of your precious fucking tax dollars because I never figured out how to jump the hoops and play the game, and if I had it together that much I'd grift for way more cash.

Which brings me to my larger point, that in order to be *just comfortable* everybody has to run a scam of some sort, working hard and playing by the rules will only get you robbed by some rich fuck who owns a Senator. We have the resources to take care of everybody, we just lack the political will to defy the corporate predator class instead of blaming the victims.

[Beacool]

153. Oh geez, my bad!!!

That's what I meant, I was very busy at work and didn't even realized what I wrote. Sorry!!

:blush:

Of course I don't mean the woman who had a baby or even more than one and is down on her luck. She may have lost her job or the father of the children may have left her. I'm referring to the irresponsible ones who have several children, often by more than one man, knowing full well that they can't afford them but figure that the government will take care of them all. I'm talking about not rewarding irresponsible people, not the average person who has been hit by hard times. That can happen to anyone.

I also specifically said that everyone who is physically and mentally well should work. I don't begrudge anyone with disabilities getting assistance. Like the saying goes, there but for the grace of God go I (or a loved one). If you qualify for disability benefits you should apply for them. Times are tough and if other people are getting them, why shouldn't you too?

I'm also disgusted that someone would have insulted you due to your disability. Do these people have the secret of life and think that they could end up in the same boat? Life is very ephemeral and fragile, as I learn as time goes by and see so many people suffer fates that they surely never deserved.

A big hug and a heart is going your way.

:hug:

[Lilith Velkor]

159. Thanks, B

:hug:

I don't expect you to change your mind on this issue or anything, but I've known a few of those women who have been characterized as "irresponsibly having several children," and they actually don't "figure the government will take care of them all," they just want a stable relationship with a man, and figure having his child will persuade him to stick around.

Or they do have a stable relationship, but the guy gets killed or sent to prison or becomes abusive. Like you said, you never know.

Bill Clinton probably didn't have much choice in the matter, but welfare reform - and escalating the drug war - were fucked up shit to do. He was no friend to the underclass, only the enemy of our enemy.

[Beacool]

160. You're welcome.

;)

I think that these women's reasoning is faulty at best. No man sticks around just because a woman had their baby, regardless of their socio-economic status. Guys that are bums, are bums no matter their race, ethnic group or financial situation. On that the sisterhood can probably agree. We all want a steady relationship with a loving and caring man. But them critters are harder to find than a well paying job on Wall St. right now. LOL!!!

:7

As for Bill, as imperfect and flawed as he may be, I love the guy. Half of the time I want to smack him upside the head and yell at him to grow up, but he's a good person despite it all.

:hi:

[eridani]

120. That's disgusting. Being required to work for less than minimum wage is slavery

Odd that some people think of cleaning motel toilets as a "skill."

[Beacool]

132. Then they should get training and get their act together.

Why should tax payers support these people for life? Poverty is no excuse. There are plenty of people who flipped burgers and held 2 and even 3 jobs while studying and attempting to better themselves.

Anyone who is mentally and physically fit should support themselves. I'm all for giving people a leg up until they get the necessary training and also have at their disposal affordable childcare, but then the apron strings should be cut off.

[eridani]

157. That is nonsense. The average welfare case file is less than two years

They ARE supporting themselves when they can find work. This multigenernational crap is meaningless. People are multigenerational POOR, and they get off welfare whenever they can find work, and back on it when they run out of money. And where did you get the silly idea that welfare recipients are allowed to take college classes or have subsidized childcare? That used to be the case, and it resulted in many women getting real jobs that paid enough so they were never on welfare again. All that got cut out of TANF.

[Beacool]

161. I didn't say that it was occurring at the moment.

I said that it should be happening. They should be helped to get better training and they should be provided with affordable childcare. It's an investment that as a society would pay off in the future.

;)

[eridani]

166. Yes, let's all train for high tech jobs

Then we can all train our cheaper H1b visa replacements and become unemployed again. Have you notieced that there aren't a lot of jobs out there even for very highly trained people? Child care and training subsidies are far more expensive than traditional welfare, and will be a hard sell in our current climate even though both would be good investments for the long term. Meanwhile, let's quit dumping on unemployed moms, OK?

[Beacool]

168. I think that handing out check after check,

year after year is just plain lazy policy. People have more potential than sometimes they are given credit for and I hate to see them not reach it to their fullest.

[eridani]

173. Bullshit. They hand out checks for 2 and 1/2 years on average. That isn't "year after year"

Usually, welfare recipients find something to get them off of welfare for awhile, and then our fucking non-living wage outsourced economy slaps them down again.

[eridani]

167. Yes, let's all train for high tech jobs

Then we can all train our cheaper H1b visa replacements and become unemployed again. Have you notieced that there aren't a lot of jobs out there even for very highly trained people? Child care and training subsidies are far more expensive than traditional welfare, and will be a hard sell in our current climate even though both would be good investments for the long term. Meanwhile, let's quit dumping on unemployed moms, OK?

[Hippo_Tron]

141. Welfare cost maybe $30 billion in federal money a year before Welfare Reform

While I agree with you that in principle people should try to lift themselves up when possible, cutting welfare also hurt a lot of people that couldn't lift themselves up. Instead of worrying about a few undeserving people that cost the taxpayers a small amount of money, shouldn't we be more worried about things like the defense budget that waste exponentially more money?

[Beacool]

149. The Defense budget is an obscene joke.

It's just a different issue altogether. I find welfare for life dispiriting and a way to keep people poor. If they own anything they lose their benefits. We should try to educate people, at least attempt to teach them a useful skill that can give them the chance to earn a decent wage. Not everyone is cut out for a 4 year college degree, but there are plenty of skilled jobs that can be learned in a year or two at the most.

I think that affordable child care should also be part of the package or women with small children won't be able to study and work.

A responsible society tries to educate its people and lift them. Education would open a whole new world to so many people, show them that there is a vast world out there for them to conquer.

[Hippo_Tron]

151. Again, philosophically I agree with you

And I think that most people do. But translating philosophy into policy is a different matter. The problem is that every negative re-enforcement technique you use (such as having benefits expire after a certain period of time) to forcefully nudge people into working will inevitably also cut off people who can't lift themselves up and really truly do need the help. I agree that our programs should be focused more on self sufficiency and that childcare is a big part of it, but self sufficiency needs to be encouraged through positive re-enforcement.

Clinton's Welfare Reform was a political move, plain and simple. It may have indeed been a necessary move that spared us from President Dole, but it was political. Welfare needed reform but not in the way that Gingrich and the Republicans forced Clinton to swallow.

[Beacool]

154. OK, but what do you suggest?

How do you encourage the stragglers to get their act together if you don't institute a cut off date? I certainly don't want to see anyone suffer and go without food or a roof over their heads, but by the same token, how do you ween them out of the system?

Yes, I agree. Clinton's plan was far from perfect, but like a lot that went on at the time, it was the best that he could get out of a Repug Congress.

[Hippo_Tron]

158. I accept that there will inevitably be some free riders who won't get it together

Because that is the case with more or less any social program you offer, some people will take advantage of the system. You have to make a value judgment as to whether or not it is worth kicking these people off and in the process kicking off people who actually need the help. I would rather not have a cutoff date and continue to support those who don't get it together because I can't stand the thought of kicking off people that actually need help.

Out of all of the things that waste taxpayer money, welfare free-riders account for a tiny tiny percentage yet they are the most talked about. In the grand scale of issues I see it as basically a non-issue. When we've dealt with the far larger wastes of taxpayer money like the defense budget then maybe we can talk about welfare. But I think that we as a nation need to drastically shift our priorities in terms of what we get outraged about the government wasting our money on.

I can't tell you how many times after Katrina I heard people complaining about lazy black people committed about $1 billion worth of FEMA fraud. Yet not one mention of how our President committed a $1 trillion fraud called the Iraq War. People need to get their fucking priorities straight and stop seeing the poor as the source of their woes, when the numbers clearly don't show that.

[question everything]

76. The writer does not try to justify welfare reform

rather, to point out that it took the issue of "welfare queen driving a Cadillac" away from the political lexicon by which Democrats were bashed, and Obama did not have to deal with it - one way or the other.

[Skittles]

9. I will love The Big Dog to the end of my days

fuck all the naysayers

[Beacool]

22. Hear, hear!!!!!

There are plenty here who still trash him and Hillary too. Screw them!!!!!!

:D

[Captain Hilts]

56. It's like not liking the Beatles. It's about all the bad music the Beatles rescued us from. Same

with Bubba.

[question everything]

80. That's the spirit!

:hi:

[Beacool]

169. Well said!!!!

:applause:

[Metric System]

10. Call me crazy but this doesn't sound like a positive article. Plenty of back-handed "compliments."

[question everything]

82. I does not aim at complimenting anyone

It just provides an analysis that I found interesting.

As you can read upstream, several here finds it "complimenting" to Clinton and they are upset about it.

[karynnj]

11. The author was a neo-con from The New Republic

Now, it is never possible to see where the road not taken would have led. Had Bill Clinton not become the nominee - it is very likely that whoever did would have won - Bush was at 33% on the eve of the election. Imagine if Tsongus had won. It is very likely that he would have worked with his former peers to implement universal healthcare. He and Nikki would have been much harder to demonize. Of course, sadly before the end of his term - the Presidency would have been turned over to the VP. Imagine if Cuomo would have won - his Presidency would likely have been less conservative and likely at least as productive. Remember Clinton started with 56 Democrats (raising to 57) and over 60% of the House. (In addition, many of the Republicans were still moderate - so he was not worse off than where Obama is.) This was a moment of opportunity for the Democrats, but it was mostly squandered.


Bienhart speaks of the positives Clinton left - but ignores the liabilities. The fact is that Clinton did tarnish his own Presidency and there is no way a man, a drunk until he was 40, could have run on restoring honor and decency in the White House.

This OP shows the truth of the adage that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Bienhart is trying to claim Obama as the heir to Clinton. Similar cases have been made that Obama benefited from actions and ideas that Dean set in place. You can also argue that he ran on a platform that was little changed from 2004 - other than on Iraq, where he was close to the logic and structure of Kerry/Feingold. At least on Iraq, counter-insurgency, and alternative energy/environment, he was very much using Kerry's positions - and occasionally nearly the same words.)

[bottomtheweaver]

170. Great post.

:yourock:

[Skwmom]

13. Media consolidation, free trade, deregulation of the financial industry, etc.

Those are just a few of his monumental mistakes that have helped to destroy this country. Of course, this Time article has put everything in perspective. :sarcasm:

So are we bashing Bush when we comment on his monumental mistakes and the role he played in the downfall of America? Clinton doesn't get a pass b/c he is a Democrat (though many would argue that he's really a Republican who ran as a Democrat).

So Clinton restored the Democrats' credibility on the economy? Well Clinton did prove that a Democratic president would sell out the working class as fast as a Republican president would.

[Metric System]

18. "many would argue that he's really a Republican who ran as a Democrat)." No, not many. Just some on

the far left who have a very narrow view on what constitutes a Democrat. I assure you no Republican considers Clinton to be one of them.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Define "far left". You sound like O'Reilly!!

[wyldwolf]

42. I will

# radical or extremely liberal
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Far left and extreme left are terms used to discuss the position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum. The terms far left and far right are often used to imply that someone is an extremist. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left

Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton is a Republican views the Democratic party from a waaaaay left perspective

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. But what do you say to the Republicans I've heard who DID call Bill Clinton a Republican?

Is anyone left of Bill Clinton an "extremist"? Because in my mind, Bill Clinton's actions--well, some of them--were very Republican in their underpinnings. He admits that he is a fiscal conservative and his deregulatory policies in the areas of telecommunications and the mortgage and lending industries are partly responsible for the mess that we are in. Not to mention the fact that he often defended George Bush's war in Iraq, which most Americans now oppose. So do all those Americans who oppose the war...are they "extremists"?

Is anyone who isn't a pro-corporate DLCer an "extremist"?

[wyldwolf]

64. I would tell them they're full of shit

Because in my mind, Bill Clinton's actions--well, some of them--were very Republican in their underpinnings. He admits that he is a fiscal conservative

Who decides what Republican underpinnings are? You? Quite frankly, you can't find a single thing Bill Clinton did that conflicts with the official line of the Democratic party.

He admits that he is a fiscal conservative

So do many Democrats. "I am what is commonly referred to as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." - Howard Dean.

and his deregulatory policies in the areas of telecommunications and the mortgage and lending industries are partly responsible for the mess that we are in.

That's like blaming the caveman who invented fire for burning down your house. :shrug: It as Bush era policy that allowed the mortgage industry to abuse their practices.

Not to mention the fact that he often defended George Bush's war in Iraq, which most Americans now oppose.

Yes, unfortunate. But to be fair at one time the majority of Americans DID support the war. But again, how is that "Republican?" John Kerry supported the war. John Edwards did. In 2004 Barack Obama said had he been in the senate with the same information, he doesn't know how he would have voted.

s anyone who isn't a pro-corporate DLCer an "extremist"?

Of course not. But anyone who thinks they decide what being a Democrat is - and thinks Bill Clinton is not - obviously has no firm grasp on the state and nature of the Democratic party past and present.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

86. This is what I'm talking about, thanks to FLAProgressive...

"Next up on Obama's plate is a February 23 "fiscal responsibility summit," which will be led by Jim Cooper, Judd Gregg, Kent Conrad and other "entitlement reform" fetishists. On February 24, he's due to give a "state of the union" style speech before Congress, and according to James Capretta today, he'll deliver a budget two days later.

*snip*

As we reported the other day, Orszag is co-author of the Diamond-Orszag plan for reforming Social Security, which calls for raising the retirement age and cutting benefits -- which the White House has been presenting as the foundation of their plan.

And the Wall Street Journal is reporting that "entitlement reformers" have been given the go-ahead on their dream to short-circuit Congressional approval"

READ MORE: http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/17/social-security-medic... /

-------

If the DLC and Blue Dogs would stop demonizing liberals and progressives, then I will think definitely. But oftentimes they have teamed with the Republicans to slime and demean liberals, even though it has been the progressives who have been right about Iraq, the economy and a host of other issues.

What say you?

[wyldwolf]

92. what say me?

I say Obama will never cut benefits. He may raise the retirement age.

But so what? How would that make him any less a Democrat?

And, I'm happy to inform you, "progressives" began demeaning centrists first. Apparently "progressives" can dish it out but can't take it. :)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. Are you serious? There has been a 30+ year war against progressivism in this country

And the remaining Democrats, many of them Southern and Midwestern were part of the coalition that began demonizing liberals. When progressives/liberals voice their frustration with milquetoast Blue Dogs who sell themselves out to the Republicans, we are called "far left" extremists. And again, it has been the so-called "far left" that has been in lockstep with what the American people want.

On the other hand, I agree that President Obama will not cave in to the DLCers and the Blue Dogs on this issue. Thank God he's neither a Blue Dog nor a DLCer.

[wyldwolf]

94. of course I am.

Jesse Jackson started it with his "Democrats for the leizure class" line. :shrug: Historical fact.

I could take it further back when "progressives" tried to undermine Harry Truman. Then JFK.

You have a KOS view of revisionist history. Show me one credible source that supports your skewed view.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. None of what you are saying makes sense. If you don't know the history of the Democratic

Party in America, then there's no hope of having a reasonable or logical discussion with you.

Read "Southern Politics," by Earl and Merle Black. The history is there. The Democratic Party is factionalized according to ideology. The Yellow Dogs were the most loyal to the party; they tended to be the liberals/progressives largely from bicoastal regions of the country (NE and Western States). The Blue Dogs were the remaining Democrats, primarily from the South, who didn't leave the party to become Republicans. The DLCers are largely Center-Right Democrats, proponents of the so-called Third Way or "New Democrats." But their real story is pro-corporate, fiscally conservative in disposition, center-right when it comes to social issues. They also tend to be more hawkish in their foreign policy perspectives. Their central policy is one of triangulation, which often involves capitulation to more center-right political leanings. That is why you hear even many Republicans assert that Bill Clinton was the greatest Republican president we ever had. He was a great president, but me saying that I don't agree with some of his policies (e.g., NAFTA, deregulation of telecom and banking industries), doesn't make a "far left" wacko; it makes me thoughtful and not a slave to my political party.

As for Truman, JFK, Jesse...don't know what you're talking about here. Were there disagreements with these politicians? Perhaps. But is that "undermining," or merely expressing discontent?

The problem with you Centrists and DLCers is that anyone who voices disagreement with your point of view is immediately demonized as "liberal" or "far left" extremists. It's quite fascist to me.

I'm well attuned to political history; I'm a political scientist, for goodness sake.

[wyldwolf]

97. It makes no sense because you'll never see it on "progressive" blogs

Do you dispute that "progressives" snipped at FDR his entire time in office?

Do you dispute that "progressives" ran a third party candidate against Harry Truman in 1948?

Do you dispute that "progressives" attempted an end-around in the 1960 DNC convention to take the nomination from JFK?

Do you dispute that "progressives" rioted at the '68 DNC convention (giving the American people their first good look at "progressives") and then sat out the '68 election?

Do you dispute that "progressives" got their man in '72 and lost in a landslide?

Do you dispute that "progressives" backed Ted Kennedy against a sitting Democratic president in 1980, and again attempted an end-around at the '80 convention to take delegates from Carter?

Do you dispute that "progressives" doomed Mondale's campaign in 1984 by demanding he cowtow to single issue advocacy groups?

Do you dispute that "progressives," even today, right here on DU, use right wing talking point againt Bill Clinton?

Do you dispute that "progressives" doomed Al Gore's election in 2000?

The entire "progressive" movement has been one debacle after another. The electorate continuously rejects you at the polls, and you still think there is some invisible "progressive" majority waiting to rise up and make American a progressive utopia.

Political Scientist? Right.

[Lilith Velkor]

103. I dispute two of those

The POLICE rioted at DNC '68. The Yippies and war protesters were generally radical leftists who would never call themselves a candy-ass name like "progressives."

Al Gore's election in 2000 was doomed by the Supreme Court. Blaming the left for that was only a rationalization of the Democratic Party's "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it" attitude that alienated the left in the first place. Rolling over for Bush didn't exactly help with that, either.

It's a good thing for the party that they found an even better bullshitter than Bill Clinton, who was certainly no slouch. "Progressives" are placated for now.

However, there's still the wild card of the economy to consider. If things go south, as it were, a "desperate" majority just might rise up and make America a socialist country (not to say a utopia, we're too big and too violent for that. But who knows.)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

105. The Repukes are now talking about nationalizing the banks! What's up their sleeves?

[Lilith Velkor]

108. I think they are trying to prepare their base for it

It might be the only way to avoid a total collapse, which the leadership does not want.

Good luck to them with that, since their base is too fucking stupid to understand such things.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

127. Most of these Dems you mentioned are "progressives"

Being snarky and disrespectful towards me doesn't change that fact. Al Gore has become more liberal now than ever, as have both Carter (my beloved former Governor) and Mondale.

The "right wing talking points" that we progressives use against Bill Clinton? You don't elaborate here.

I'm not wasting time with you anymore. I'd rather have intelligent conversations and debates with others who think more critically than engage you with ad hominem attacks. No thanks. I have no time for it.

[wyldwolf]

128. Like who? Let's roll through some facts

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

129. Again, you are on ignore. Bye-bye...

[wyldwolf]

130. Imagine! A "progressive" ignoring a request for facts.

[bvar22]

60. Here is "The Far Left":

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

Who do our politicians really represent?

[Uncle Joe]

146. bvar, that doesn't seem so far, in fact that seems like the actual mainstream!

How can the vast majority of the American People be to the "far left" of the political spectrum and yet this not be covered by the corporate media with a majority of their air time as mainstream thought?:shrug:

[Metric System]

61. See wyldwolf's definition. Oh, and I sound like O'Reilly?!? Ugh. Unlike him I don't consider the

"far left" to be a bad thing. My point is just what wyldwolf wrote: "Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton is a Republican views the Democratic party from a waaaaay left perspective."

[Skwmom]

27. No Republicans? Oh please, he's been adopted by the Bush family.

I remember watching Larry King after Katrina. Bush Sr and Bill Clinton were on. King asked Bush Sr. about the criticism of his son over his handling of Katrina. Bush Sr. turned to Clinton and said why don't you take this. Clinton did, defending Bush and his handling of Katrina.

Of course, they like polarizing people like Clinton and Bush. While the Republicans and Democrats are fighting each other, they can raid the U.S. Treasury. What a setup.

[wyldwolf]

48. Rebuttal - with links

I remember watching Larry King after Katrina. Bush Sr and Bill Clinton were on. King asked Bush Sr. about the criticism of his son over his handling of Katrina. Bush Sr. turned to Clinton and said why don't you take this. Clinton did, defending Bush and his handling of Katrina.

"Our government failed those people in the beginning, and I take it now there is no dispute about it," Clinton told CNN. "One hundred percent of the people recognize that -- that it was a failure." (See interview -- 2:32 )

The elder Bush echoed Clinton's sentiment, telling CNN's Larry King that he is "not satisfied" with the handling of the hurricane's aftermath.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/clinton.katrina/

If you can find a transcript to back up what you said, I'd like to see it.

[Mr. Sparkle]

152. How many of those were pushed by the Republican congress and Senate

which he had to pass in order to work through his agenda. I hate those things just as much as you do, but there was a lot of times where he was plainly strong armed.

[acmavm]

14. Pffffffffft!

[Every Man A King]

16. So he was so bad he was good?

[Yes We Did]

17. Are we bashing Bill again?

News to me.

[polmaven]

23. Imagine That!!!

Who would ever have thought that Bashing Bill would turn out to be such a fun sport?

[WI_DEM]

24. So there can be Clinton bashers but not Obama bashers

every time somebody says that somebody is a "Obama basher" we get this lecture about dissent on DU and how Obama supporters want to stop posts which are critical of Obama. If that were the case why are so many posts on DU critical of Obama?

by the way, The Clinton's helped in 2008 but were not critical to Obama becoming president.

[Captain Hilts]

57. GWBush was critical to Obama becoming president. And winning Congress in '06. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. That article is a load of bollocks.

The triumph of the Clintonian third way was co-opting Reaganite/Thatcherite neoliberalism. Welfare reform was to some extent a failure, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics have for years fiddled the numbers and not counted those not looking for work (often, because they've given up)and not in receipt of unemployment benefit--which pushes the actual unemployment numbers up considerably; per fairly recent estimates, 12-15% of men aged 18-55 in the US are not in work, which is rather more than the official unemployment statistics. The unemployment numbers are also inaccurate in that the estimates fail to account for those who can find no full-time work and are only employed part-time.

As to Clinton's flying back to Arkansas in the midst of the 1992 Presidential campaign to sign the death warrant of a man with severe brain damage who wasn't capable of understanding what was going on...or expanding the morally bankrupt war on drugs with the result that over a hundred thousand Americans were imprisoned for nonviolent offences during his presidency...or for that matter overseeing the financial deregulation and economic recklessness that carried us through to our present fiscal catastrophe...I can't say how I see any of those as GOOD things. If being HONEST about Clinton, instead of being blinded by hero-worship just because he managed to get elected twice, is trashing, then I'm going to keep doing it.

[question everything]

119. The writer does not claim that these were good things

(Clinton going back to Arkansas to sign the death penalty was one reason why I did not vote for him in my primaries.) All the writer says is that these actions removed these issues from the campaign. Remember how Dukakis did not have a good answer about the death penalty? And the Willie Horton ad?

The reality is that most of the voters are centrists. They do not want major changes in the way things are running - until they no longer are. For years, the Republicans would dismiss the Democrats as "soft on crime" or "tax and spend" etc. Clinton neutralized these phrases so that the voters could look at what Obama was offering and not necessarily placing him into a pre-molded box.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Clinton deserves to be bashed for giving the wingnuts the ammunition to impeach him.

I overlooked it with spectacular rationalization as a former Clinton acolyte, but no more. Overlooking that was the epitome of hero worship. That and many of the policies he signed into law (Welfare to Work, DOMA, DADT, deregulation of financial institutions, NATO, etc.) hurt vulnerable Americans, and it is incumbent upon us to remember the whole picture, not just the fuzzy edges.

On edit: Obama doesn't owe the Clintons anything. In fact, back in the day Bill Clinton endorsed and did a radio spot for Obama's primary opponent, Bobby Rush, in the 2004 Illinois Senate primary race. The Clintons have been a rash to Obama from the get-go.

[Beacool]

37. yeah, that must be why Hillary campaigned and fundraised for Obama

when he was running for the US senate. That must also be why he said that he had modeled his first year in office after Hillary's.

Yeah, they are such a rash that he convinced Hillary to take the SOS over Kerry, Richardson and her suggestion to offer it to Holbrooke.

:crazy:

[AtomicKitten]

69. He chose her to keep her pissing out of the tent instead of into the tent

... as she has shown a proclivity for doing. Proof? He put Holbrooke and Mitchell in charge of sorting out the ME because ducking sniperfire in Tuzla wasn't the "experience" necessary to deal with actual incendiary hot spots globally.

[Beacool]

71. Holbrooke and Mitchell were her suggestions.

Hillary knows how to delegate. It's obvious that you don't know her or you would know how she distributes the work load.

Forget it, you'll never see through your disdain for the Clintons.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

78. The were Obama's appointments, Obama chose them and chose to entrust

them with most sensitive foreign policy tasks. That is a fact regardless of how much you want to frame it to suit your narrative.

[Beacool]

107. Nope, Hillary chose them. Obama approved them.

You are the one that chooses to change facts to suit YOUR narrative.

In theory, the secretary of state is a commanding figure uniquely situated to shape world events. The dynamic of the job, however, is often less like a Kissingerian chessboard and more like a game of Whack-a-Mole, in which the department struggles just to manage the crises of the day. Hillary Clinton lacks the lengthy foreign policy resume of secretaries like Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Madeleine Albright--who spent their pre-State Department lives focused on world affairs--but, like each of them, she is clearly lured by the possibility of proactively shaping U.S. foreign policy rather than frantically rushing from continent to continent wielding a diplomatic fire extinguisher.

That's why, well before she was sworn in, Hillary arranged to effectively outsource the immediate work on hotspots like the Middle East and Central Asia. In unpublished portions of a recent interview with The New York Times, released in full by the State Department, Clinton recounted telling Obama in "the very first conversation that I can recall" about the State Department job that she wanted to get "immediately moving on someone for the Middle East and someone for Afghanistan and Pakistan." That ultimately resulted in last month's appointments of George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys to those regions. The Obama-Clinton team is also expected to designate former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross for a similar role focused on Iran.

To some extent, this move has the virtue of necessity. "The idea that she can do all this by herself" is absurd anyway, argues a former top State Department official. But subcontracting the hotspots is about more than lightening Clinton's workload. It also enables Hillary to pick issues of her own, ones where she can take the initiative rather than constantly react to, say, the latest Taliban offensive or rocket attack from Gaza. "You don't want the secretary to have to get down and do the nitty-gritty, get bogged down in the details," says Jim Steinberg, Clinton's State Department deputy. This way, "she doesn't become such a prisoner of the crisis of the moment that she can't advance a long-term agenda." Steinberg said he had just emerged from a meeting with Clinton precisely along these lines. Outsiders agree that Hillary will be looking for a grand mission. "She needs to find a signature," argues one former senior State official from her husband's administration. "What this does is free Secretary Clinton up to deal with the issues that we have completely neglected," adds Nina Hachigian, a former aide on Bill Clinton's National Security Council now with the Center for American Progress.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=055ed693-c4c1-43dc-8a3a-2beabf6c6e62

[AtomicKitten]

111. Good grief. That's not the point. Holbrooke and Mitchell report directly to President Obama.

I realize you are clinging to a thread of something here - that she thunked it up first :shrug: - but what you really are doing is evading the bigger issue, the point, and that is Obama is in charge and appointed two envoys to the Middle East that answer directly to him. Not to Clinton. To him.

That's the point.

[Captain Hilts]

58. Wow! I haven't heard 'blame the victim' shit in years! thanks for the nostalgia trip!

[AtomicKitten]

68. Bill Clinton is no victim. He is a sexual predator that took advantage of a young intern. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

70. Um no. That's not how it worked. Sorry. nt

[AtomicKitten]

84. Your denial is wrong on so many levels.

It is offensive, in fact, to many women and Democrats. His prior infidelities aside, this one episode in particular had far-reaching implications. First of all, Ms. Lewinski was indeed a hoochie mama, a young woman with the emotional/intellectual depth of about a 14-year-old. Clinton was not only much older but in a position of power; for crissakes he was POTUS!

And, worse, he didn't even have the goddamn good sense to take the strange to a hotel. Dumbass/arrogant ass that he was, he did it right there in the White House.

On edit: Yes, he was being hunted as so eloquently laid out by Lyons and
Conason and THAT'S THE POINT! He knew and he did it anyway! Aarrrggh.

And then he lied for some two years, the sordid tale ultimately ending up in excruciating detail and sold in paperback form at the checkout counter of grocery stores.

That was a sorry episode for which he has only himself to blame. And your denial of it, your unwillingness to look it in the face and call its name is what is wrong with this mess at DU.

[PBS Poll-435]

83. Wow

:wow:

[AtomicKitten]

101. OK. Edit: "sexual opportunist" ... also I'll stipulate it is was instead of is.

I am glad to edit my hyperbole, the words I use to describe my point, but it doesn't change my point and my point stands.

[PBS Poll-435]

122. Yeah. That ship has sailed.

Seriously..."a sexual predator?"

wow.

[AtomicKitten]

135. An older powerful man diddling an intern has that predatory stank, but "opportunist" will do.

[girl_interrupted]

90. If Clinton is a sexual predator so was Ted Kennedy & JFK

And Ted Kennedy's dalliance wound up with the death of a young woman in her 20's, Mary Jo Kopechne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne Also, much is known about the affairs of JFK and RFK & FDR.

As for Monica being a "young intern" She was over 21 and had had 2 previous affairs with married men before she even set her sights on Bill Clinton. (“Monica’s Story” by Andrew Morton.) So suggesting she was an innocent babe in the woods is absolutely funny. Not to mention her mother who wrote an expose of her sexual exploits with the 3 Tenors ("Private Lives of the Three Tenors"by Marcia Lewis) This was a family who knew how to muck a buck out of sex scandals with famous people.

[AtomicKitten]

91. I didn't suggest she was but you'd have to actually read further to ascertain that.

So sorry to throw a monkeywrench in your theoretical dressing down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8205925&mesg_id=8208659

* snip *

It is offensive, in fact, to many women and Democrats. His prior infidelities aside, this one episode in particular had far-reaching implications. First of all, Ms. Lewinski was indeed a hoochie mama, a young woman with the emotional/intellectual depth of about a 14-year-old. Clinton was not only much older but in a position of power; for crissakes he was POTUS!

[wyldwolf]

98. your source is hysterical! A link to yourself!! LOL!

[AtomicKitten]

100. disputing what she suggested I said when I said quite the opposite ... LOL!

[girl_interrupted]

104. I did read further

On one hand you state "Bill Clinton is no victim. He is a sexual predator that took advantage of a young intern". On the other hand you state: " Ms. Lewinski was indeed a hoochie mama". So how does one "take advantage" of a hoochie mamma? Seems like a contradiction.

And if so many women and democrats were so "offended" by Clinton's affair, how did they feel about the death of a young woman in Ted Kennedy's affair?


So I'll ask again, if Bill Clinton is a "sexual predator" what does that make Ted Kennedy & JFK?

Forgive me, but I got a laugh out of your statement: " And, worse, he didn't even have the goddamn good sense to take the strange to a hotel. Dumbass/arrogant ass that he was, he did it right there in the White House." Do you honestly believe a President of the United States can just sneek off to a hotel? LOL! Think no one would notice? What do Presidents complain about the most? Their lack of privacy, their inability to mix with the rest of us. Obama has said he will miss just going out for a walk around his neighborhood by himself without agents surrounding and watching his every move. Sneak off to a hotel? I don't think so.

"He did in right there in the White House" yes, just like JFK & FDR, seems great minds think alike. I look it at this way, I'd rather have a Pesident screwing a woman, then screwing the country.

Just the other day I was reading on C&L the exchange between Rick Sanchez & that rightwing nut Marsha Blackburn. "Let's go back a bit and examine what Bill Clinton left for the incoming Bush administration:

"A $230 billion surplus, with a projected elimination of the national debt by 2012. (Bush's tax cuts nixed that idea rather quickly.]

--A total national debt of $5.6 trillion. Barack Obama inherits a deficit projected to be well over $1 trillion and growing for 2009. The national debt now stands at $10.7 trillion, or nearly double what is was in 2000. That is $37,703 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/rick-sanchez-wags-his-finger-marsha-blackburn

I think Bill Clinton did a damn good job considering he had to deal with republican majority in both houses for 6 years. If he had a democratic majority in both houses then, I think he could have accomplished even more. Obama now has a democratic majority, and for all our sakes I hope we can keep it that way for him & the country.

Personally I'll never understand the Clinton bashing, I thought that was just for republicans. But be that as it may, don't worry about the "monkeywrench" you didn't throw one.

[AtomicKitten]

106. Comparing him to Ted Kennedy and JFK doesn't mitigate what Clinton did.

I know you expect it to but they are parallel events; this isn't a comparative outrage-off.

And you are defending him by saying it wasn't possible to for him to get his freak on in a hotel because he couldn't get away. Seriously, you still want to go with that?

Bill was very good on the economy, in fact, he was great.

But he was shit on Rwanda.

My point is it is possible to hold seemingly opposite points in your head at the same time without believing (or in your case insisting) they can't coexist. Life isn't that simple and that goes double for politics.

[girl_interrupted]

110. Doesn't mitigate what they did either

Seems they all belong to the same "club" And I think that's the point you are failing to see. Rather hypocritical to forgive one and not the other. I find it rather odd that you think women & democrats are more "offended" by a bj than a girl being left underwater to die. Then again, maybe it's just you.

As for "holding opposite points in your head at the same time" Let's be frank...you contradicted yourself. Let me put it to you simply...you can't take "advantage" of a hoochie momma who has had 2 previous affairs with married men as being taking "advantage of". Sorry that just doesn't make any sense.

As for a President "sneaking off" to a hotel as being ridiculous, I hope you are kidding, that's not defending someone, it's stating a fact.

As I have stated before, I'd rather have a President screwing a woman than the country. You were the one that made an issue of Clinton's affair, he was this "predator" going after this "young intern" What nonesense.


I never said Bill Clinton was perfect, but I think the good he accomplished outweighed the bad. In fact I doubt any perfect President exists. We will be pleased by some of what they do, but not all, and that is Life... Simple.

[AtomicKitten]

112. I did no such thing. Good grief. You are building a strawman to argue with.

Rather hypocritical to forgive one and not the other.

I did no such thing. WTF? In fact, my only reference to you offering them up in this discussion was to label them parallel events that did not mitigate the discussion we were actually having. You presume everything, apparently.

Let me put it to you simply...you can't take "advantage" of a hoochie momma who has had 2 previous affairs with married men as being taking "advantage of". Sorry that just doesn't make any sense.

Good grief! Please phone a rape counselor tomorrow and discuss. Wow. I gotta tell you this is the one of the most disturbing responses I've read on DU. Please educate yourself on this most serious issue.

On edit: Before you go off halfcocked and start weaving a version of what you think I said, I'm not saying Clinton raped Lewinski. I'm saying your above statement is wrong six ways to Sunday. And then some. Yikes.

:scared:

[girl_interrupted]

114. It has everything to do with the discussion

Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts. You seem very confused. And now you want me to phone a rape counselor? WTF? Why?

I noticed you just edited your post, because yes you did make it sound like Lewinsky was raped which is beyond stupid.

I don't need to phone a rape counselor to know there is a huge difference between forcible rape and someone who just wants to screw around with someone elses husband or husbands, in Lewinsky's case.

Maybe you're the one that needs to make a "call".

If anyone is half-cocked and disturbed, its you.

Lady, you make no sense.

[AtomicKitten]

133. You argued the "she was asking for it" defense and you should be ashamed.

That is the defense used by rapists' defense attorneys and that is nothing short of disgusting to read here on DU.

Please educate yourself on this issue.

I voluntarily downgraded my hyperbole calling Bill Clinton from a "sexual predator" to "sexual opportunist" and on that point I stand firm, your morally bankrupt defense of his actions notwithstanding.

[PBS Poll-435]

123. I certainly love that you call a college graduate a "hoochie-mama"

I think that is bad.


((Unless you have her charts...))

[AtomicKitten]

139. that's what happens when you announce you're bringing knee pads to D.C.

but, again, that still doesn't excuse Bill, a much older man in power, her boss, sampling her wares. His behavior is the kind litigated in sexual harassment lawsuits.

[Beacool]

116. What Teddy did was inexcusable.

Anyone can have an accident, but it takes a totally selfish creep not to report the incident for hours knowing that a person was still trapped in the car. He did it just to save his political ass. The poor girl died a terrible death. She survived 30 to 40 minutes after the crash before finally drowning. Nothing that Bill has ever done came close to being as callous.

x(

[bottomtheweaver]

172. How many hours did it take Bill to fess up?

Or is that clock still ticking?

[bottomtheweaver]

171. Good grief, you're dragging in a CIA hit job to prop up your Clinton support?

The mind boggles, then boggles again. :crazy:

[Beacool]

72. Clinton "derangement syndrome" strikes again.

It always appears on a Clinton thread and it affects the same group of people. I wish that there was a vaccine for it because it's become tiresome by now. They are worse than the Freepers since they should know better.

Who cares anymore.........

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

79. Convenient buzz phrase to summarily dismiss people that don't agree with you. n/t

[wyldwolf]

99. here's a quote for you...

the bots are out in force today... Trashing the Clintons. Same old, same old.

AtomicKitten May-01-07 02:59 PM

[AtomicKitten]

102. Yes, I was you. Only on DU could this metamorphosis occur and I thank DU for that.

I was you. I operated exactly as you do. The same denials, the same defensive moves that almost always become offensive.

But I got better and I got over bending over backward defending and rationalizing all things Clinton. They're on their own as far as I'm concerned. They are politicians and I will discuss them as such from my perspective. I'm entitled to do that here. Just like you are. Get over it.

[wyldwolf]

124. A regression, yes

[AtomicKitten]

134. I stopped knee-jerk defending them and saw them in a critical light and not Clinton First mindset.

[wyldwolf]

136. what you call "knee jerk defense," others call "we've heard this bullshit before."

[AtomicKitten]

137. that's what happens when you persist in white-washing their record and actions n/t

[wyldwolf]

138. that's what happens when you take paronoid fabrications and believe them with scant evidence

It's how the UFO and Bigfoot industries stay in business

[AtomicKitten]

140. You have to open your eyes to see the truth. The proof has always been there. n/t

[wyldwolf]

142. what proof? Your last reply reads like a cult recruitment technique

[AtomicKitten]

143. I don't have time to board your silly circuitous ride today, wolf.

As always, we will just have to agree to disagree, your efforts to personalize this notwithstanding.

[wyldwolf]

144. yeah, the cult leaders often say things like that to the non-believers

[AtomicKitten]

155. What propaganda? Your blanket nonspecific defense IS knee-jerk defending them.

As in my initial post on this thread, please defend:

* Bill Clinton having a sexual tryst in the White House and then lying about it for two years, his testimony to the truth finally ended up being sold at supermarket check-outs across America.

* Welfare to Work, DOMA, DATV, deregulation of financial institutions, NATO, China most favored nation trade status, etc., etc. that hurt particularly vulnerable Americans.

* His failure to act on Rwanda.

* Bill Clinton crosses gay/union picket line: http://www.queerty.com/bill-clinton-to-cross-gayunion-picket-line-20090213/

The fact that you are fine with the above does not make people not fine with it propagandists, and you fail in continuing to argue from that ridiculous nonsensical stance.

[wyldwolf]

156. where did anyone say "propaganda?"

As in my initial post on this thread, please defend:

* Bill Clinton having a sexual tryst in the White House and then lying about it for two years, his testimony to the truth finally ended up being sold at supermarket check-outs across America.

Thomas Jefferson had sexual trysts. The Kennedys did. The only difference is the Rightwing (and leftwing kooks) weren't spending millions in tax payer money exposing it. Success breeds contempt, huh.

Welfare to Work, DOMA, DATV, deregulation of financial institutions, NATO, China most favored nation trade status, etc., etc. that hurt particularly vulnerable Americans.

Welfare to work is a concept the JFK and RFK fought for and Barack Obama and Al Gore supports. Most Americans support it and quite frankly so do I. No problem here and nada to defend

Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA - he knew it would head off any future constitutional amendment. How many Dems have come out against same sex marriage? Does Obama believe in it?

The deregulation of financial institutions wasn't the problem - failure to enforce consumer protection laws were.

What problem do you have with NATO??

Jimmy Carter gave China most favored Nation status.

failure to act in Rwanda

We couldn't act everything. There is genocide the world over we didn't act on. Besides, good "democrats" like Jimmy Carter differ with you on genocide in Rwanda: While promoting his book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," Carter went further in his anti-Israel rhetoric than even most hard-left extremists would go. Asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think - yes."

Carter doesn't even believe there is genocide in Darfur! Looks like you're obsessing on the wrong guy, AK!

Must be odd living in your world, AK! Full of contradictions.

[rvablue]

165. Wow! Eye-opening! n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. What's with all the hero worshipping?

:hide:

[RBInMaine]

39. Clinton is perhaps the most skilled politician of our time. Here's what he did right, and what he

did wrong.

What he did right for Dems was:

1) Showed them how to campaign: TOUGH, clear, focused, well organized, both very good positive and negative messaging, and toward the CENTER of the country which is what we need if we are to win national elections. (Team Obama actually learned from that where Gore and Kerry did not learn as well, and Obama coupled it with even better ground organizing than did Clinton.)

2) Governed mainly from the center, which is also necessary in this country. (Although right now the country seems receptive to a more progressive and populist agenda, which should be seized at this moment.)


What Clinton did wrong:

1) Tried to play nicey nice for far too long with Republicans and look what they did to him anyway. Fine to TRY and work with them, but also know when to say enough is enough and then go for their jugular. The Clinton years only prove how far out in right field the R's are. Incredible.


2) Put one head before the other in a White House bathroom. Just plain stupid. Personal matter yes, but no need of it going on in the first place, and no need of it happening in the White House especially.

Overall, Clinton did a good job, did well on the economy overall, and would have beaten W convincingly if he had been able to run for third term.

[rvablue]

55. I agree with the content of your post but not the superlative in your title

citing points 1 and 2 of "what Clinton did wrong" I think we will come to find that Obama will be the most skilled politician of our time as he has the history of the Clinton mistakes as a roadmap of what to avoid....even without that history, Obama isn't going to engage in any of the activities that ulimately ruined the last two years of Clinton's presidency (which Clinton can only blame on himself, regardless of the RW conspiracy or their smear machine.)

[Captain Hilts]

59. True. Clinton had no one to go to school on. Good point. nt

[RBInMaine]

67. Obama has a way to go before we can judge. Yup, Bill did wrong, BUT the GOP attack machine was

relentless regardless (even though he did a hell of lot to try to work with them and took many positions they could swallow). They tried to destroy him from the day he announced his candidacy in 1991, and NEVER let up. Yes, MonicaGate was silly and WRONG, but nothing compared to the real crimes of the right wing. This is why the R Party is ROTTEN, and while it is ok to hold out an occasional hand for good measure, our general orientation must be to rip into them HARD and OFTEN. They are merciless HARD-RIGHT WINGERS (the likes of Lincoln, TR, and Ike are long gone) and it's time for them to face the music. If we play our cards right, we'll keep them in minority status for shit load of time.

[question everything]

87. This is correct. Lee Atwater set his sights on him immediately

after Bill's keynote address in 1988.

In his book "The Hunting of the President" Joe Conasson details how the Republicans and major media reporters sent to Arkansas were on a mission to destroy him - the former - and to expose a bit hick from the back country - the latter.

[johan helge]

46. I'll always love Bill Clinton

It's difficult to say how good or bad Clinton's tactical moves were.

But whatever the answer to that, I'll always love Bill Clinton, always have. He was the fresh Democratic air in the horrible Reagan/Bush sr/Bush jr years. I always smiled when I saw him on the TV. I knew he was fighting the assholes, and that they hated him for it. Respect, Bill.

[DevonRex]

51. Hmm. I wonder if all those people who say it's creepy to say you "love" a politician

will suddenly appear and tell you that you're worshipping him, or that you're a stalker, etc. Somehow I think not.

And for the record, I have said that I "love" Clinton before, too. And I have said that I "love" Obama. I also "love" ice cream and hockey. :)

[johan helge]

62. Once, some years ago, I actually dreamt

about Hillary! Talking to her, or something. The reason was perhaps that I had seen part of one of her speeches. Her disgust at the Repubs is my most inspiring "speech experience". Come to think of it:

The Repubs often express outrage etc. that they really don't feel. Everything about them - the feelings they express, the reasons they pretend to have - is fake. Dems have the opposite tendency - to hide their outrage, which is real. They should express their outrage - make people see what the Repubs are really like.

[Skidmore]

54. Ah, jeez, thanks for reminding me.

Forgot to face Chapaqua and genuflect today.

[Lilith Velkor]

66. "As it shows Clintonism the door"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JayMusgrove]

77. Why bash Bill Clinton? Last time America had a good brain in

the White House? I don't care about his sexual stuff, (only reason to bash him), he is a fine man who has done fine things.

Now, where are the Bush bashers? Oh wait, they are now bashing Obama, who the elected to office, because he's not perfect and hasn't made the world perfect in 30 days?????????????????????

[progressiveforever]

85. Critcizing Clinton does not equal bashing him

I would never doubt Clinton's intellect- and he is the best president of the last half of the 20th century, but he is too conservative for me. I don't think that is bashing him.

[question everything]

88. I had a thread here the other day, that Bill was going to be interviewed

by Larry King. Cited a quote from the preview. Before that interview even aired, there were people here trashing him.

[progressiveforever]

109. That's a shame

I never miss an opportunity to hear Clinton talk--he's a great mind, just too conservative for my mindset.

Bill Clinton is not the enemy even if I do find him to be a closet Republican at times. If he had not run the campaign that he did in 1992,the Democrats would have been doomed. I am not sure the Democratic party could have survived four consecutive losses. For his victory, I will always be grateful.

[spooky3]

89. very interesting article - thanks for posting

[ecstatic]

95. I don't like the term "owe" in that context

It sounds condescending to me, and I'm probably not going to read the article as a result.

[question everything]

118. You are probably right

In the print edition, the title was called: The Trailblazers. But for the online edition the title was changed. Leave it to the editors to think that this would attract more readers.

:shrug:

[Honeycombe8]

113. Link, please, to supposed "Bill Clinton hater" posts? I haven't seen any.

nt

[question everything]

117. Here is one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8202722

Was about Bill going to be interviewed on Larry King, and the first reply was "Is Bil eating a little crow?"

There are many, look around but this was a thread that I started and was taken aback by the strong reactions toward Bill before the interview was even aired.

[eridani]

121. Well, bully for the upper half of the income distribution. Aren't they all just IT?

Some things that increased in the 90s, which still look good in retrospect because of how shitty it's gotten since then. If you are in the bottom half of the income distribution, the 90s sucked badly. Of course it looks better in retrospect because of how very much worse things became. Still--

1. Homelessness increased

http://www.nhlp.org/html/hlb/299/299conference.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/homelessnesshowmany.html

2. Food insecurity and use of food banks increased

3. Prison population (continuing trend started by Reagan) increased

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/law15.htm

As of June 1999, prisons and jails held 1,860,520 people, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. That's an increase of more than a million people since 1985, when the figure was less 800,000.


4. Income disparity increased

http://pnews.org/ArT/YuR/DiS.shtml

During the years of the Clinton administration, the rich became richer at much faster rate than during Reagan's regime. In Clinton's first term, from 1993 to 1996, the average income of the richest five percent of households rose from $173,784 to $201,220. 46 Even during the Reagan years, the plunderers had not seen their income rise as fast. And in 1997 - the first year of Clinton's second term - it leapt to $215,436. All the statistics reveal that since Clinton has resided in the White House, the rich have experienced a financial bonanza unprecedented in modern times.


As economist Paul Krugman noted, "These widening disparities are often attributed to the increasing importance of education. But while it's true that, on average, workers with college education have done better than those without, the bulk of the divergence has been among those with similar levels of education. High-school teachers have not done as badly as janitors but they have fallen dramatically behind corporate CEOs, even though they have about the same amount of education." Insofar as corporate chief executives pay themselves and thus are able to collectively drive up the level of their own wages, thereby establishing the appearance of a "market-driven" norm, that should hardly be surprising

[GeorgeGist]

125. Well then ...

I can understand why Obama gave Bush/Cheney a free pass; just his way of saying thanks. Poor Scooter.

[Skwmom]

162. Bill Clinton went with Wall Street and look at the end result.

They got their financial deregulation and we got an economic collapse. They got their free trade and we got jobs shipped overseas. Oh yeah, Obama should make sure to thank Clinton for that.

Clinton, Bush, and Reagan have left Obama with a mess.