Where you better off with a Clinton in the White House?

[thegreatcause2]

My life was never better when Clinton was President. Think about it!

[durrrty libby]

1. Cant wait to have them back

[TriMetFan]

2. I agree.

[durrrty libby]

4. Honestly, I think it will be better with Hillary in charge.

[TriMetFan]

28. I was for Edwards....

and with all the bashing here in DU of Hillary, I changed my mind and will be voting for her. I think she will do a great job.

[rodeodance]

49. I will vote for edwards----or Richardson for the primaries.

[TriMetFan]

55. That's Kool.

People should vote for whom they like in the primaries, but in the end we need to stick together and vote for whom ever ends up being the Democratic Presidential Nominee.

[MattSh]

70. Well, yeah, it would be HARD to be worse.

But I'm not about to settle for "not as bad as Bush". I'm really hoping for more....

[emilyg]

68. Yes. I agree.

[OzarkDem]

3. Bill was great

he wasn't perfect, but darn close to it. He and Gore were an excellent team, probably one of the best in history.

And <<hawt>> too!

[RC]

19. Common Cause?

[Double T]

5. NAFTA has been great for the middle class, thanks to Bill.

I'm certain WE can expect more of the same from Hill. WakeTF Up!!!

[BeHereNow]

8. Heh-heh...GREAT post

And don't hold your breath...
BHN

[samplegirl]

10. Not that I am a Hillary fan.....

but very few people know that it was Bush Sr. who signed NAFTA.
The economy certainly was better with the Clintons.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020806-4.html

[pnwmom]

13. Thanks for the reality check. n/t

[Double T]

14. The economy was better HOW? Where WE are TODAY is........

the culmination of #41's, NAFTA Bill's and #43's economic policies; short term thinking actually benefiting VERY, VERY FEW. Looks like the Clinton years weren't so ROSY NOW that WE have the BIG PICTURE. DOT.COMs were really great for the economy, don't YOU think?

[doublethink]

21. Goggle is your friend .....

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/bill-legacy2.html

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

Peace.

[Double T]

43. Sometimes what is perceived is actually quite different than the reality or outcome;

specially when placed BETWEEN two bush administrations.

[BeHereNow]

27. Two words to you on that-

Trilateral Commission.
All is unfolding as planned.
BHN

[Double T]

39. Yes, it is NOW unfolding as planned decades ago.

[BeHereNow]

46. Buh, buh, but..wait, the dems ARE going to save us, no?

:banghead:
Oh wait, I see, these dems
are members of the CFR and TC...
Silly me.

BHN

[John Q. Citizen]

56. And it was Clinton who got it ratified by congress. Partners they were.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

67. Alright, Bush Sr. gave us NAFTA and it was Cheney who privatized our military...

Regan gets blamed for the consolidation of our media outlets. BUT Clinton kept their policies. I don’t know how many right-wingers tell me that Clinton used Halliburton in the same capacity as Bush/Cheney.

Rich Nixon delivered to us HMOs, and Hillary wants us ALL to carry proof that we purchased medical insurance. We need a change in the White House. We have give power back to the people and show corporations that we are the consumers and they should bow to us.

[RC]

78. What's this then?

President Clinton Signs NAFTA

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=701507082&artrefid=761564341&sec=-1&pn=1

More left wing propaganda?

[durrrty libby]

24. Yeah we don't need RW liars. We have our own

[Double T]

30. Sorry, I'm not addicted to Clinton Kool-Aid.

[durrrty libby]

32. Wow how original. Just make that up? We do indeed need geniuses like you

[mondo joe]

6. Hell yeah it was better. And I think it will be better w Hillary too.

[Labors of Hercules]

37. This whole thread isn't really saying much, is it?

I mean, we'd have been better off with a Chimpanzee and a Gorilla in the White House than... well, you get the picture.

Of course we were better off.

[avrdream]

77. My thoughts exactly.

Even my Republican friends are now saying that they were better off with Bill in the WH. Some of them are so money-hungry, though, that they put up with Bill's views on social issues just because the stock market was doing so well during his time.

[DURHAM D]

7. Yes - and I want to know what Chelsea is up to.

She is all grown up now and I have missed out on her past seven years.
Too bad she is too young to run for her Mother's seat in the senate.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

57. Please don't think about Chelsea joining politics.

She could be appointed president right after Jeb.

[DURHAM D]

60. No -

It will be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Clinton.

I wish that Chelsea could be the President in 2020 to celebrate the anniversary of women getting the vote but Obama will still be in office. That works for me - First Lady Michelle Obama leading that celebration and parade. My grandmother (a suffragette) would be so proud.

[Habibi]

9. Well, yeah.

But I was younger.

[pnwmom]

11. Yes. When the worst thing we had to worry about was a blue dress

or a black dress or whatever it was, we were far better off.

[scarletwoman]

12. Honestly, no. The Clinton presidency had no positive effects on my life, whatsoever.

Zero, zip, nada.

[samplegirl]

16. In all honesty...

at least the price of gas was affordable, mortgage rates were good.

[scarletwoman]

23. Speaking as someone from the underclass, mortgage rates were irrelevant, & the price of gas was

as much a problem then as it is now. I managed to buy a house and 4 acres of land in rural Alaska on a contract-for-deed, with 10% down that I put together by dint of under the table income and a loan from a friend.

The main difference now is that I have a better paying job than I did in the 90s, and my children are grown and on their own so I'm only supporting myself.

Otherwise, the best economic times in my life were the 60s and the very early 70s. As far as I'm concerned, things have sucked on the economic front since the 80s.

I consider myself extremely lucky that I managed to keep my head above water as a young widow with children BEFORE Clinton's "welfare reform" kicked in. Had the timing of my single motherhood happened a few years later, I would have probably ended up homeless.

sw

[KG]

33. yeah boy, welfare reform and NAFTA, how great were those things for american workers!

:eyes:

[sam sarrha]

15. YES..bought our first house,, first 'Good' job.. retraining program for job lost to NAFTA

* WILL never have any job training EVER..

[Bitwit1234]

17. HELL yes yes yes yes

[KG]

18. nope. life sucked for me during most of the 90's.

[NoPasaran]

20. Damn straight I was!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[InvisibleTouch]

25. Very much so.

And as is so often the case, I didn't really know how good I had it until I looked back in retrospect. If I had the 90's to live over again, I'd make better use of those opportunities. The 2000's by contrast have pretty much universally sucked.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Personally, my life sucked in the '90s. n/t

[scarletwoman]

31. I notice that those of us who are saying that the 90s were NOT a great time, are being ignored

by the OP.

I guess we don't fit into the accepted narrative.

sw

[BeHereNow]

34. Imagine that...

Here?
On DU?
Heh.

BHN

[scarletwoman]

36. Heh, indeed.

:evilgrin:

BHN -- :loveya:

sw
:hi:

[durrrty libby]

35. Awww I won't ignore you.

:hug:

[scarletwoman]

42. Glad to hear it. Because otherwise I might think that all the Clinton rah-rah-ing on this thread

was totally ignoring the fact that those of us who lived in the underbelly of the U.S. economy during the Clinton years have no reason whatsoever to consider those years "better" in any way than what we have now.

sw

[Blue_In_AK]

59. It does seem to be the orthodoxy, doesn't it?

That's okay -- I don't think I've EVER fit into the "accepted narrative." :rofl:

[scarletwoman]

64. LOL! Of course, just being an Alaskan is a MAJOR deviation from the "accepted narrative"!

There's simply no place like it, and no people like Alaskans -- an entire state full of iconoclasts!

:D
sw

[MoonRiver]

29. Yes, which is one of the reasons I'm not upset about the prospect of her being President.

In addition, it will be wonderful to have that intellectually brilliant couple back in the WH. I'm sick of dimwitted dunces running this country.

[thegreatcause2]

38. The Clintons may be the last people of humble beginnings to be

Presidents. Bill, for sure, knows common people because he is one of us. Since we can't have Bill, I'll take Hillary.

[durrrty libby]

40. We get both, but Hillary may just be the best if the 2

[thegreatcause2]

45. Who knows?

She is smart as hell.

[riqster]

41. Mine sure as hell was

I went from homeless and disabled to a home and career thanks to the programs Clinton added (and saved from the VRWC), and the economy he helped promote. Since Bush came in, it has been harder to maintain the gains I made in the '90's.

I'll tell you who knows the difference, and it ain't the all-or-nothing, ivory tower fuckwits...it's the poor. I still serve them, and have seen their lot worsen under the Bushistas.

Comfy middle class folks don't know DICK about the real impact of Bushism. People like me, who were saved by Dem programs, know better. Go volunteer in the poorest parts of the country and ask the people who actually know something.

[thegreatcause2]

44. My mother lived during the Great Depression

If it wasn't for FDR, I might not be here.

[riqster]

47. Indeed.

Lots of people hated Roosevelt, remember. In about 20 years, we'll be seeing statues of W.J. Clinton.

[Double T]

52. FDR would be spinning in his grave if he could see how we have........

dismantled and destroyed ourselves once again.

[riqster]

54. He'd want us to follow the words of another Clinton.

George Clinton.

Shit! Goddamn! Get off yo' ass and jam!!



(That wasn't JUST about music, ya know...)

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. ...

:thumbsup:

[rodeodance]

48. it sure was

[IndyOp]

50. 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of US/UN Economic Sanctions that Bill Clinton did not lift

You want ME to think about whether I was better off with a Clinton in the White House. What a pitiful selfish, self-absorbed, I, me, me, mine --- I me, me, mine standard. Your question makes it acceptable for the wealthy 'Murkins to vote for G.W. Bush -- after all aren't they better off with a Bush in the White House - who cares about working people? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

UN (US/UK) SANCTIONS: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
August 1990 - March 2003

The United Nations Security Council has maintained comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq since August 6, 1990. The international community increasingly views the sanctions as illegitimate and punitive, because of well-documented humanitarian suffering in Iraq and widespread doubts about the sanctions’ effectiveness and their legal basis under international humanitarian and human rights law. (2)

It is now clear that comprehensive economic sanctions in Iraq have hurt large numbers of innocent civilians not only by limiting the availability of food and medicines, but also by disrupting the whole economy, impoverishing Iraqi citizens and depriving them of essential income, and reducing the national capacity of water treatment, electrical systems and other infrastructure critical for health and life. People in Iraq have died in large numbers. The extent of death, suffering and hardship may have been greater than during the armed hostilities, especially for civilians, as we shall see in more detail below. Comprehensive sanctions in Iraq, then, are not benign, non-violent or ethical. (2)

A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. (1)

Over a period of about five years, serving an Iraqi population of 23 million, the program has delivered roughly $200 worth of goods per capita per year, including oil spare parts and other goods not directly consumed by the population. Allowing for domestic production outside the Oil-for-Food program and for smuggling, the result still appears to leave Iraqi citizens an exceedingly low per capita income which may be at or below the $1 per day World Bank threshold of absolute poverty. (2)

The measurement of deaths rests on the concept of “excess” mortality – those deaths that exceed the mortality rate in the previous, pre-sanctions period or that exceed a projection of the earlier trend towards further gains. (2)

All of these excess deaths should not be ascribed to sanctions. Some may be due to a variety of other causes. But all major studies make it clear that sanctions have been the primary cause, because of the sanctions’ impact on food, medical care, water, and other health-related factors. (2)

Prof. Richard Garfield of Columbia University carried out a separate and well-regarded study of excess mortality in Iraq. Garfield considered the same age group and the same time period as the UNICEF study. He minimized reliance on official Iraqi statistics by using many different statistical sources, including independent surveys in Iraq and inferences from comparative public health data from other countries. Garfield concluded that there had been a minimum of 100,000 excess deaths and that the more likely number was 227,000. He compared this estimate to a maximum estimate of 66,663 civilian and military deaths during the Gulf War. Garfield now thinks the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. (2)

There are no reliable estimates of the total number of excess deaths in Iraq beyond the under-five population. Even with conservative assumptions, though, the total of all excess deaths must be far above 400,000. (2)

In the face of such powerful evidence, the US and UK governments have sometimes practiced bold denial. Brian Wilson, Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office told a BBC interviewer on February 26, 2001 “There is no evidence that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people.” When denial has proved impossible, officials have occasionally fallen back on astonishingly callous affirmations. In a famous interview with Madeleine Albright, then US representative at the United Nations, Leslie Stahl of the television show 60 Minutes said: “We have heard that half a million children have died . . . is the price worth it? Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” (2)

(1) Sanctions Against Iraq
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

(2) Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

[thegreatcause2]

83. My first choice is Gore

His the only major politician with the vision for the future AND the proven ability to win the Presidency. His only problem is that he is not running.

[marmar]

51. Different time. Different era. Different conditions.

As good as things were during the Clinton '90s, some of the disastrous consequences of that era have come home to roost now.

[riqster]

61. I'd say it was the Reagan/Bush legacy

...that Bill couldn't undo.

[marmar]

62. But Bill was a big booster of these disastrous free trade deals that are killing us....

... and the media ownership rules and so on. I'd take him over the Bush clowns in a heartbeat, but when you take a sober look at things, some of his initiatives are killing us now.

[riqster]

65. If he existed in isolation, I'd agree

..but that, of course, was not the case.

Clinton controlled very little. Between the Media and the Reeps, he had to compromise waaaaaaaaay too much. We're lucky he accomplshed as much as he did.

[Canuckistanian]

53. Wrong question, really

The question should have been, "Did the Clinton administration advance my progressive causes"

In which case, the answer would have been a resounding, "Hell, No".

[Tinksrival]

58. If you ever get to go to the Clinton library....go!

But bring a lot of tissue cause you will all your eyes out. :cry: I call it the "salad days".

[lpbk2713]

63. Bumper sticker ----

What Clinton did to Monica,

Bush is doing to the whole damn country

[dysfunctional press]

66. where?

unfortunately, i was in the same boat as you- my life was never any better under clinton either. it's only since bush came into office that things have actually turned around for my wife and i. this past year has probably been the most personally satisfying one of my life. and things are actually looking to improve on that in the upcoming year.

go figure.

[mvccd1000]

69. Definitely not.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

71. What is your point?

[thegreatcause2]

79. Clinton is a Democrat.

She is running for President. The Clintons are a known value. Were you better off with a Clinton as President? A simple, no brain er question.

[Eurobabe]

72. For the most part, yes. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. For me it was fine, actually better

but I realize I was not in the first ones to be affected by NAFTA

Now my dad in Mexico... he got out and retired out of the business before the bussiness went under thanks to NAFTA

So mixed back I guess

[Manifestor_of_Light]

74. No because of the economy starting to go to hell.

As far as on a personal level, NAFTA was part of it, my career went to hell in the mid nineties and I could not find a job. I got burned out on my career anyway and couldn't stand to do it any more after nearly 20 years due to incredible amounts of stress and I got high blood pressure as a result of personal tragedies and job stress too.

In the late 90s I had some shitty jobs that were no where near my education and skill capacity. Since then I haven't been able to find any work, temp or permanent, at all, because I committed the sin of getting older.

I liked Bill and Hillary and Chelsea personally because they are very bright and articulate, but they are certaily not liberal. At least they didn't shred the Constitution that I know of.

[Dark]

75. There's one tiny-weeny detail you forgot: The Republicans controlled congress. nt

[gatorboy]

76. I certainly didn't mind the gas for under a buck.

[madokie]

81. the best damn 8 years of my life I'll tell you that,

and I'm old and getting gray too
no bald spots 'yet' though ;-)

[Froward69]

82. With "Bill" Clinton

Yes my life really took off. from living/working out of my Jeep to owning my own apartment building. however Hillary is not Bill. Linking the two together is akin to saying G.W. Bush has the same management style as G. H.W.Bush. as we all can see this is NOT the case. Frankly if i had the choice George sr. was a far better president than his son. The same aplies. Hillary is not Bill.

[Honeycombe8]

84. Money-wise, I'm better off with * (hate to say it, but true). In every other way, tho, the '90's...

were better.

(Doesn't mean I wanna vote for Hill, though. Just answerin' the question.)

[earth mom]

85. NO-a BIG FAT NO. nt

[Milo_Bloom]

86. Clinton? Not really.

My life has been much better the last 5-6 years, then it ever was under Clinton. However, that doesn't make me like bush or want his idiotic policies to stay around.

In reality, a lot of the problems we have today began in the Clinton administration. Media consolodation, the idiotic DMCA giving rediculous powers to corporations to stifle invention, declaring Iraq to have WMD.

We need to actually find a progressive... not another candidate who is going to help lay the groundwork for the next generation of Neo-Cons.

[cutlassmama]

87. yes, yes it was