Where was all this liberal anger at Bill Clinton when he supported NAFTA?

[BluegrassDem]

Sure, there was some random noise out in the atmosphere, but nothing to the level of what we see directed at Pres. Obama. The irony is that it was then when progressives should've been screaming, filibustering, and doing whatever they could stop that trade pact. It has single handedly destroyed thousands and thousands of jobs, including my own. It's been a disaster for the American worker and has a lot to do with why unemployment will never be at 5% again.

I heard that one of our progressive congressmen was overhead saying "fuck the president" during the caucus meeting. This utter contempt and disrespect many on our side is showing towards Obama is really sickening, considering the true harm that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich caused when they colluded together to come up with NAFTA.

I personally think there's a lot of self-entitlement among progressives and this idea that they "own" Obama and he does what we say OR ELSE. I think that attitude a lot to do with President Obama not getting his respect as being the president. I tend to think a lot of it has to do with race. Sure, no one says it blatantly, but a lot of the attitudes against Obama are disturbing considering all that Bill Clinton got away with. Bill Clinton is a white man, so he automatically commanded respect as president. Obama...ehh, not so much.

[upi402]

1. I was mad as hell, for one

Count me in, fwiw. I marched and protested, donated, wrote editorials, solicited articles, wrote letters, lent books, attended rallies and conventions, was a delegate to this and that.

Clinton was the best Republican ever. Hands down.

[BluegrassDem]

5. That's good. I just don't remember the Progressive Caucus in the House

at the time throwing much of hissy fit. I sure don't remember letters to the Speaker or asking why they were shut out of negotiations when Newt and Bill were locked in a room devising this scheme to outsource American jobs.

[Supersedeas]

90. you mean the racist Progressive Caucus that includes Elijah Cummings and James Clyborn

who have publicly and passionately expressed their outrage.

Yes, it is ALL ABOUT RACE.

[bulloney]

95. That's because Clinton bought off blocs of Democratic congressman at the 11th hour of the NAFTA vote

The Clinton Administration promised protections for specific products in key congressmen's districts in exchange for a "Yes" vote.

If NAFTA was put up for a vote in the House on its own merits, it would have been voted down.

[Roy Rolling]

52. I was, too

I almost threw my shoe at my television when Gore cast the deciding vote in the Senate. I was infuriated at the sellout of U.S. manufacturers.

[tavalon]

73. Idunno

Obama is shaping up to give the Big Dog a run for his money.

[akbacchus_BC]

2. or DADT and outsourcing jobs! Suddenly, all Clintons fuck ups are now

Obama's to solve. Makes you want to knock your head on a fricking concrete pillar!

Bush fucked up for 8 years and the little slave needs to fix them fuck ups within two years. Mind fucking boggling!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. I've said it a million times, but that's why I will not abandon Obama.

At least give him a full term. At least!

[jpgray]

3. Have you heard of a city called Seattle?

I believe there were some doings there. Less than three hours after Clinton's speech on China and the WTO, 1,000 protesters were in the streets, and many, many more were to come. Anything similar for Obama you can point to?

[akbacchus_BC]

4. We are not prone to run out on the streets at the drop of a hat! Don't you know that?

[jpgray]

6. "Prone" to running out on the streets actually describes the American voter perfectly

Here I am typing, of course. :dunce:

[akbacchus_BC]

9. Sorry!

[jpgray]

11. Just a quirk of a common phrase. "Prone" means "liable" as well as "lying down"

So to say "we're prone to running out in the streets" struck me funny. One of those metaphors everyone is prone to using reflexively. :D

[akbacchus_BC]

25. Thanks for schooling me, who would a thunk that!

[laughingliberal]

14. +1000 nt

[pnorman]

60. Living in downtown Seattle, I was at Ground Zero for the entire WTO Week.

I won't bore (or amuse?) you all by boasting of my "heroism exploits", but I was "on the ground" during that entire week. Yes, Clinton came in for much SHARP criticism then, and many of those fierce critics later became active in the Green Party a year later. But virtually all the heat was directed against the WTO, rather than Clinton.

No, I see nothing similar against Obama "in the streets" or anywhere else. But I see some truly VICIOUS stuff in Teabag circles. I'm also seeing something like that here on DU.

Edit to add that as`delegate to the King County Labor Council, I was part of the "official & orderly" demonstrations. I was also a delegate to "Jobs With Justice", and participated in somewhat "less orderly" demonstrations. That included that massive sit-in & Live-in in the jailhouse court-yard for Friday and Saturday of that week. And it was all a WIN! WTO was SHUT DOWN! (Ah, those glorious days!)

[tavalon]

74. Yeah, one of my hubbies was in that little demonstration

It was awful but I envy him being part of the Battle of Seattle.

Edited to correct an auto correct!

[bluestateguy]

7. It was there but the web did not exist back then

And yes there is a lot of, dare I say, racism on the LEFT toward this president as well as on the Right.

[otohara]

81. Thank You

for pointing this out!

It's the first thing I thought of when I read the OP

[Supersedeas]

89. wow, you're saying the RACISM is the source of today's outrage.

Racism is the source of Elijah Cummings outrage at being disrespected by the President in not consulting with the House prior to cutting a fat deal with Repukes.

Racism is the source of the outrage expressed toward John Kerry for expressing approval in agreement with the President's fat deal with Repukes.

Racism on the LEFT...okay, that's one way to attempt to silence criticism.

Maybe that explain the President's use of "pure and sanctimonious" to describe the loud left's objections to this proposal.

[PVnRT]

98. It's their new (old) tactic

The other arguments aren't working, so just accuse critics of being racist. Because obviously the same people who supported the president during the election are now suddenly Klan members.

[Supersedeas]

104. More disappointing still is that much of the outrage is fueled by genuine admiration

the President....and yet, passionate disagreement with him on this issue is translated into racist attacks by his most ardent supporters.

[Ter]

105. It certainly did exist, but was small compared to today

n/t

[hlthe2b]

8. Perhaps many were caught off guard by Clintons rightward turn

and that is why many were so suspect of Hillary. (not to mention that after 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, Dems were probably still in the "nothing could be worse" mode.

I think, having been burned, there was automatically less tolerance allowed for Obama to move too far from progressive policies. That threshold had already been crossed. I also think it is harder to imagine Obama, with his background (that included facing financial hardship as the child of a single and struggling mother and yes, having presumedly witnessed the hardships of racial minorities), as being so willing to engage in corporatist policies. That his pragmatism (or core philosophy) has moved him in this direction, is unexpected for many. Sure, we may have overly projected our expectations on him, but I do not equate it to progressive racism and as the OP has suggested thinking we "owned him".... That is really repugnant. No, I think it is because we thought we knew and understood him and that because of his background he would be most able to relate to our problems and fight for the unempowered. We just didn't realize that "fight" was not within his make-up. There is a time for conciliation and a time for fighting. Unfortunately, it may well be that we have the "right" guy at the very wrong time.

[akbacchus_BC]

10. How come President Obama is being crucified for not overturning DADT

and the outsourcing of jobs?

[hlthe2b]

12. that bully pulpit is pretty damned powerful when used appropriately...

I think Obama has not been effective in using it, which is why he is getting criticized for these issues beyond what is within his control. As much as I hate to admit it, Bush* was a master at bullying the Congress to get his way, from the bully pulpit. Granted, he had a ridiculously compliant RW Congress and a MSM that functioned as literal stenographers. Nor did he have to face the devastating economy (though he certainly was effective in causing it).

I'm not saying it is fair. But I do think this explains the attitudes and misplaced share of blame.

[akbacchus_BC]

18. No, unlike the Demorats, the republicans are consistent, they support

their electorate, the Dems, those goosefuckers nada. Democrats eat themselves, President Obama is on his lonesome trying to fight, not one fucking Dem on his side! Yeah, wee see you!

[hlthe2b]

22. We certainly do not walk in lockstop like the RW, that is true. .

I actually pointed to that in my previous post. But, then again Bush* pretty much walked in lockstep with his RW and corporate master's requests, that are his base. Obama is ignoring his base by contrast and insulting them. That is a pretty unusual way to garner support, particularly when Obama knows that he is moving from his campaign stances and promises. I empathize with the guy, I really do. But, he is either being exceedingly poorly advised (and ignoring his own instincts) or ..... well, I don't wish to consider the other possibilities.

[akbacchus_BC]

27. No, you do not walk in lock step but you eat your own, which is worst?

[hlthe2b]

28. Holding Obama to account for what he ran on....

is not "eating your own." In fact, Obama in his own words (July 24, 2010): “I want you to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable.”

[akbacchus_BC]

29. The President is doing what he campaigned on, too bad you did not listen!

[hlthe2b]

30. In some cases yes. In others (including renewal of tax breaks)...

and preservation of social security, NO.

[akbacchus_BC]

32. Well your Dems did not agree with him, they voted against him, bunch a fucking

cutthroats! Obama is for people, your sorry ass Dems is for rich people, do the thinking?

[bluestateguy]

21. Yep, that Bush Social Security privatization program is working wonders know

All of those speeches all over the nation he did in 2005 made it all happen too.

[hlthe2b]

23. Yup... he was unsuccessful there (fortunately)...

But, he sold torture as acceptable. He sold not one, but two ill-fated wars. He sold the damned tax cuts that have devastated us to this day and which is at the core of our current difficulties. In every case, his ability to mobilize his base to fight for him, left our side unable /unwilling to stand up to him and he got his way. That he failed at SS privatization is one fortunate failure. But the litany of crap he sold speaks to my point.

[Recursion]

50. Once again, the myth of W's legislative effectiveness comes up

He got his war; we all remember what a charlie fox that was.

He (barely) rammed his tax cuts through in reconciliation, with Cheney's vote.

He got his SCOTUS appointments (I honestly think Bork will be the last rejected nominee for quite a while; they're better at vetting nowadays).

Other than that? Hmm... SS privatization went down in flames, so did immigration reform. NCLB and Medicare Part D were traingulations just like "Welfare Reform" was for Clinton: co-opt an issue from the other party and put as much of your own party's spin on it as you can. And, incidentally, what W did was triangulation in the Clintonian sense: put forward a platform based on the idea that a fundamental tenant of your party is wrong (in this case, that the Government's role in health care and education is too large already). Obama's tax cut deal isn't triangulation in this sense; he's not saying Democrats are wrong about the tax cuts for the wealthy, he's saying he has to enact a bad policy as the price for enacting the good policy. That's log-rolling, not triangulation.

[jpgray]

15. There are more loud voices, given the internet. Times are also worse, which makes people desperate

Those are two of many factors that I think account for some of it. When I hear people saying "DU has never been so negative against a Democrat," I cast my mind back to November of '06, when Pelosi said impeachment was off the table. Were you around for that? Pious ultimatums, bigoted insults, everything was out there. After these ten years watching every institution decay at an even more rapid pace, I think people become more readily unhinged in their expression of criticism, or anything else.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Because any President representing the interests of the American people should be.

You think either of those current policies are good things?

[Union Scribe]

26. Because he appealed the overturning of DADT

and has shown support for the outsourcing of jobs to India and Korea, maybe?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orwell]

13. Or the repeal of Glass-Steagall...

...which directly led to the current disfunction in the global banking system.

How many jobs were lost to that clusterfuck?

Or the godawful telecommunications act?

[BluegrassDem]

17. I forgot about those bills...Bill Clinton did sign some fucked up shit that hurt us in the long run

He'll always get credit for the economy in the 90's, but honestly, some of the shit that happened years later can be traced back to some of those laws he signed.

[laughingliberal]

20. A few things about that

There was quite a bit of liberal anger over NAFTA. We were assured, however, that it would be 'fixed.' Sound familiar?

Clinton was elected after 12 years of Republican rule. Many probably gave him the benefit of the doubt as they felt he was better than the alternative. Sound familiar.

The significance of the repeal of Glass-Steagall was not fully realized by a lot of people until the crash of '08.

Obama is not getting the same benefit of the doubt as there have now been a number of years to witness the damage we sustained from Clinton's 'Third Way.' We're older, we're wiser. We're not as inclined to think a little right wing policy might be OK.

[boppers]

16. They wanted more jobs, not protectionism with the same shitty jobs.

I think it was really the start of the battle between the industrialist worker class and the information worker class. NAFTA meant I could drop my menial IT job, and start flying back and forth to Canada and Mexico, without "work permits" or tariffs for, oh, speaking with people.

So, speaking from another end of the spectrum, NAFTA created *huge* amounts of jobs, *huge* amounts of wealth, and *huge* amounts of commerce.... in some industries....

OTOH, it killed industries populated by uneducated and unskilled labor, because those jobs could be shipped wherever uneducated and unskilled people were.

[akbacchus_BC]

24. Can I ask this question again? Where was all the liberal angst when

Clinton outsourced jobs. DADT is for another day even though you all crucifying President Obama to overturn it? Why the fuck you all did not approach Bush!

[TheKentuckian]

33. Bush has been bashed unendingly, you are making a fool out of yourself.

You also must accept that there is not much you can do to pressure a fucking torturer who called our Constitution "a gawddamn piece of paper" to do the right thing.

Tell King Friday that I said hello. Is the trolley still free or what?

[CakeGrrl]

34. I'll bite: It just wasn't THERE.

Poor Bill Clinton could only do so much, is the perception in some corners here.

He's gotten a pass from some posters for NAFTA just so they could claim that Obama would have handled it worse.

DADT? Same thing.

All in all? He was the best president in some of these people's lifetimes, they say.

Oh...and while Bill doesn't seem to get taken to the woodshed for that damned condescending finger-wag while he SCOLDED people that he "did not have sex with that woman", Obama had people spitting mad when he dared speak to complaints with less than honey dripping from his lips. HE is the "arrogant", "condescending" one who has a "tone" they didn't like. "Don't you DARE" someone literally began their post 'addressing' the President.

I'm waiting to hear someone borrow McCain's reference to "that one".

Somebody had the gall to call President Obama's term an EXPERIMENT. A duly, fairly elected President. And DU gave that post NET POSITIVE recs. That may have told us more about many attitudes toward the Obama presidency than we realize: Yeah, let him have this chance, but if he doesn't get it EXACTLY right and really fast, we'll yank him. It's like some have adopted the attitude that Obama is under a probationary period.

Another post has been throwing around the "pResident" reference, which until now was used to designate Bush as an illegitimate occupier of the WH.

It's pretty fucked up, IMO. Dogwhistles are in play.

[Supersedeas]

92. Dogwhistles are in play.

[indimuse]

35. people were not as *connected* as they are today~

so it may appear this way. :eyes:

[catrose]

46. True

We didn't have a nice DU where we could all rage together. I was mad about NAFTA. Lukewarm to Clinton's reelection. "Best Republican president we ever had," he was.

[FormerDittoHead]

100. Exactly. People were still on AOL and Prodigy when all that happened... n/t

[BanzaiBonnie]

36. I was screaming my head off about it

and no one was listening.

It's what actually got me to being politically active.

[Onlooker]

37. Actually there was enormous liberal anger against NAFTA

and we expected less from Clinton because he did not run as a liberal, but as a pragmatic moderate Democrat.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. Obama didn't run as a liberal, either. Liberals projected that onto him without researching

his record. They *assumed* he was a liberal because of his stance on Iraq and because the wingnuts--aided by the Corporate Media--kept telling us so.

And yet, there was absolutely nothing in his voting either in either the U.S. Senate or the Illinois State Senate that suggests Obama is a liberal. It's just not there.

[xchrom]

38. oh horse shit. nt

[polichick]

39. It angered me plenty - I wrote Clinton off as a sellout and haven't changed my mind...

Obama is following in his footsteps - let's see what they impeach him for, once they get all they want.

[RBInMaine]

40. It is not all about the race card do don't go there. But is about ideological purity which is a

silly way to think you can govern.

[rury]

107. Oh, I went "there"

Yes, it's mindless ideological purity...but it's race, too.
Blacks are ALWAYS held to a higher standard....denying it is foolish.

[political_Dem]

41. We need to go to the race question.

Why do some white liberals seem to feel as if they own Mr. Obama? Why do they use this terminology of servitude now?

If it weren't about race, why didn't they treat other past Presidents "as a servant they can own"?

It's shocking the type of language used to describe this POTUS in anything that he does. It's as if anything can be said about this man--even in rareified circles.

Discussing race does not cheapen an argument; instead, it helps examine the core attitudes of why this vitriolic behavior is happening towards Mr. Obama when people at least gave a decent respect to the office 43 Administrations before. It helps at least to answer the question why is the treatment of the POTUS different.

Anyone who has to jump in with the accusatory cliche of the race card definitely has to reexamine their own attitudes about race. That goes double for those who feel the need to stop any discussion related to race and racism because they are afraid of talking about such topics.

[Hello_Kitty]

97. You're right about the name calling. It needs to stop.

I'm very critical of the President right now but he is our President and deserves our respect. Vitriol and profanity coming from our side toward him is disgusting and, as a white person, I also believe there's some white privilege and entitlement going on there.

[frylock]

101. Why do some white liberals seem to feel as if they own Mr. Obama?

who is saying that? links plz?

[Warren Stupidity]

42. the whiny leftist purist hippie not-base was outraged

but we were so drugged up we were all in rehab.

Obama and Clinton are cards from the same deck.

[great white snark]

45. "Cards from the same deck"....I guess a spade is a spade..

[Warren Stupidity]

49. uh no -

At the moment I am going to assume the best regarding your comment.

[impik]

43. Did you look at Obama's skin color lately? There's your answer

[Pacifist Patriot]

67. While I do not dismiss that as a factor...

I really think the difference lies in the communication technology that has developed since Clinton and NAFTA.

[Vinca]

44. At the time there were still a few manufacturing operations in the country

and I don't think people thought NAFTA would be as bad as it is. Now, of course, we have proof positive how harmful the trade agreements are. When freaking Hershey chocolate goes to Mexico, bells and whistles go off. No one should be saying "fuck the president," but the last thing they should do is not make noise over a lousy, lousy, lousy deal.

[young but wise]

47. 30 years of fuck ups, but Obama suppose to fix it in two.

[Recursion]

48. That was more Perot's thing, that is, the same people who became the Tea Party

I remember Gephardt was against it, and a lot of unions with him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. Many of us have been asking this question over and over again. Why the double standard?

This morning I read that major donors are withholding donations to the Democratic Party because of Obama's "incredible weakness." And yet, Hollywood Democrats like Barbra Streisand continue to support Bill Clinton even after Monica, after NAFTA, after DADT, after DOMA, after repealing Glass-Steagall.

No one here on DU has answered the question that the OP has raised.

Now everyone LOVES the Clintons! But it is precisely the Clinton-Bush II era that is largely responsible for the economic mess me now face, not to mention all the anti-gay laws. DADT/DOMA/ENDA...all thanks to Bill Clinton. And yet, gays/lesbians on this forum are threatening not to support Obama because he hasn't gotten rid of any of BILL CLINTON'S bigoted policies fast enough?!?!?

It's really infuriating!

[Bluenorthwest]

72. So in your eyes who else in Hollywood is 'like' Steisand?

Do you mean other recording artists? Or something else? Sounds like you mean something else. Like her. Democrats like Barbra. Hmmmmm.

[rury]

109. K&R

+1,000,000,000,000

[myrna minx]

53. Would you like to see the letters I received back from my Representatives in

response to my outrage? I still have them. Yes - yes, MANY of us fought against NAFTA. In addition, in 1999 in Seattle a few folks got together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

54. Read this thread...

The true answer is there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x552907

[LiberalFighter]

55. DU wasn't here then. The interenet was not as advanced. Not as many cell phones.

[Mr. Mustard]

57. The economy was booming, the rise of the hate radio

and the noise machine was just getting started, and we had not bailed out the banksters while they continued to screw us.

This is not the 1990s. Agreed, Clinton laid some of the ground work for what is happening now, but if we were prospering now, as we were in the 1990's few of us would be complaining about Obama's triangulation.

It is not the same, and I will not be held to a higher or lower standard due to President Obama's skin color.

We need him man, and he is in bed with the corporations and banks. He is about to weaken Social Security, and we simply cannot allow anymore of this to happen.

President Obama is making choices, and they are not what I voted for.

[Alcibiades]

58. Right that anger is misplaced, wrong on NAFTA

And also the broader question of why there is such anger, but back to that in a minute.

NAFTA was not the product of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich: it was the product of a broader corporate "free-trade" agenda. This distinction is important because personalizing everything tends to underplay the real dynamics and occlude the actual problems. This wasn't simply a case of bad decision-making by US policymakers: it was a concerted effort by US corporations to change tariff rules so that they could gain access to cheap labor abroad. It's also factually incorrect to assert this, though I can see whty one would, because they did claim credit for it at the time. NAFTA actually finds its origins in the Reagan administration, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, and was really in its final form by the time Clinton took office.

Progressives were mad as hell at Clinton the whole time: for many of us, it was the main reason why we could NEVER vote for his wife.

A lot of the anger stems, I think, from the gap between what folks thought they were getting and what they actually got. Everyone knew in 1992 that Clinton would be a centrist, DLC Democrat, and he certainly governed as one. In contrast, many liberals, for whatever reason, thought Obama would be a liberal. I did not: I supported him on the basis that he would be an electable, Midwestern Democrat.

Much of the difference in the extent of the anger is due to the differences in approaches. Bill Clinton would take one issue, let it completely dominate the national agenda, spend lots of political capital on it, and wind up with nothing. It seems that the Obama administration has learned the lesson of this: instead, they take an issue, spend some capital on it, compromise quickly with Republicans, and move on. I do not like where this has gotten us on many issues, but I'd have to say that this president has done more in two years than Clinton did in 8. The open question is whether any of it is any good, and whether the president will pick a fight to go to the wall on before the next election so he can rally the base to knock doors for him.

For me, the biggest disappointment has been the choice not to even investigate the Bush crimes in exchange for the confirmation of Eric Holder. Doubtless, many in the administration feel that this would have been a national distraction and prevented anything else from being done. I have always said that the principle of the state under the rule of law is too important to trade away for the confirmation of anyone. I really hope they revisit this issue, maybe this will be what they use to rally the base prior to the election. I hope so, but it will probably be don't ask don't tell. Hopefully, we'll get both.

[BlueJac]

59. I hated that deal then as I do now!

Obama........I can't quit laughing! What a shame.

[Autumn]

61. There was a LOT of anger over NAFTA,

there still is. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Contempt and disrespect? Hell Clinton got it on an hourly basis. Obama has had it good so far. To boil it down to the color of their skin is just stupid.

[CanonRay]

62. We mostly still trusted our leadership then.

I know I for one thought he must know more than me. I was full of shit.

[bahrbearian]

65. Yes, they told us it would create jobs, it would help the economy,,

I didn't believe them, but there was no proof it wouldn't.. Now we know different. Just like now we know Tax cuts don't create jobs.

[rpannier]

63. The interent had not developed to where it is today

There's more information out there now and people have greater access to vent it

It's a nice try at deflection

As to your race comment...Nice try

[Clio the Leo]

64. You dont remember the great DU NAFTA battle of '93?

Where were you?

It was on Prodigy. :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

66. You didn't see it because there weren't internet communities brought together...

by common values and political philosophies.

I remember a heck of a lot of rancor and liberal outrage. Consider what you would be experiencing today if you didn't have the DU lens through which to peer. DU is fabulous, but it does put things under a magnifying glass and thereby make it look bigger than it actually may be in the scheme of things.

[roody]

68. I was not as well informed then as I am now.

I also was still under the influence of mainstream television.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. As I recall, some liberals were so angy at Clinton that they

did in fact support a third Party when Gore ran against Bush. I remember having to push hard to get people to vote for Al, they were seething over the entire rightward swing of Clinton. They said 'just exactly like Bush' and they backed Ralph Nader. Not a day goes by on DU when someone does not openly blame liberals for refusing to vote for Gore, not a day goes by without the Nader voters being castigated. So, the liberal anger at Bill was palpable. It was towering. It was a force to be dealt with.
Bill was called Bubba, the McNugget President, he was mocked incessantly for his weight, his accent his brother, his policies, his wife. They were accused of murder, or ordering murder, of Rape, of ordering rape, of cocaine smuggling, cronyism, bribery...
So sure, Bill was treated like a deity. A raping, murdering diety who was just like Bush, on the take, a Redneck Hillbilly.
One of the most arbitrary and baseless OP s I have ever read on DU. The history of the Clinton admin does not fit this wee form at all.

[elleng]

71. Ross Perot had it right, and few listened.

b clinton no saint, tho he was able to turn things around in his/our favor to some extent, that is, economy did very well, but NAFTA remains.

[Greybnk48]

75. I remember riots over NAFTA on the news. Must have been

Seattle as others have pointed out. This shows what an important resource the internet is and has become. We now have a venue to discuss these issues in real time.

In regard to the race issue. I still have issues with race. If i'm around a group of people from another country and they're not speaking English I become uncomfortable. But that's just under-exposure. I think that Pres. Obama is one of those people that transcends race to a large degree, at least for many of us. Unfortunately, there are just as many that will only ever see his skin color, and I think that's what the Teabag branch of the Repug party is--racists and bigots.

About Clinton, whom I defended to the point of losing friends. In retrospect, Clinton was NOT what I voted for (as a (Kennedy) Liberal). I thought he was cool, liberal and fresh. Turned out, not so much. But we had never seen "triangulation" before and I spent 8 years vaguely confused over many things he did including DADT. Thick, I know.

I think the reason many of us are on Obama's ass right now is nothing sinister like racism. It's that this time we know what he's doing from the get go. It's not lack of respect. WE"VE SEEN THIS BEFORE!! Liberal positions are going to be bargained away, like before, pulled more and more to the right. It's Clinton all over again and I don't want it!!

[Enrique]

76. it was there, and louder than the anger against Obama

it led to the rise of Ralph Nader, and a lot of people I knew firmly believed the "not a dime's worth of difference" line, and Michael Moore started turning his satire against the Democrats.

[Kaleva]

77. It was there. Remember the riots?

[blazerunner]

78. Ross Perot was a little pissed.

but yea, race is a factor

[Dr.Phool]

79. It was there. Like the anti-war demonstrations, it was ignored and downplayed.

Why do you think we call Clinton the best Republican President of the last century.

We've already got a contest going for this century.

[QC]

80. Nobody ever said anything bad about Bill Clinton. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

84. Besides, Me, Amy Goodman, and every Progressive I know.

Nope, nobody.

[QC]

85. Nobody ever produced videos accusing Bill Clinton of murdering his political rivals.

No president was ever attacked until this one, and it is very sad.

[DemocratAholic]

82. I can only speak for myself

This seems to me to be another one of those hit-and-run rhetorical posts that is making a statement rather than asking a serious question about NAFTA. The statement being...that "progressives" are more critical of Obama because of his race. WOW. That's a pretty heavy statement to be making. And in all seriousness, I am very, very sorry if you feel that to be the case. I have seen a few posts on this board that seem to be making similar accusations. I really do not like to read that. Very disconcerting. I might add...offensive and insulting as well. There's a bit of irony in this newly discovered "race argument," back during the Democratic primaries, Geraldine Ferraro (and other Hillary Clinton spokespeople) were accusing progressives of giving Obama a "pass" because of his race.

I personally think there's a lot of self-entitlement among progressives and this idea that they "own" Obama and he does what we say OR ELSE.

Wasn't it Obama who went into a room with Republicans and cut this deal? He completely shut Congressional Democrats out of the negotiations? Then he came out and told Democrats "take it or leave it?" That is the reason why Congressional Democrats are so upset. You've got this whole thing backwards.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, I don't think that many supporters of NAFTA (I am guilty myself) foresaw the negative effects it would have on our manufacturing industry. Having said that, I think that there was a good faith argument made that free trade within the continent would benefit us in the long run...as well as the other countries in North America. I do still firmly believe that it is in our interest to do something to lift up the Mexican economy and its people, and I do think we have a moral obligation as well. I could write a book about that, but I'll leave that for another day...

Speaking for myself, I assure you that any criticisms I make with regard to this President have nothing to do with his race. I am very, very proud of the fact that he overcame centuries of bigotry...in this country and elsewhere, and was elected President.

With regard to Bill Clinton, there were a lot of things going on at that time that are not comparable to what is going on today. Under the same circumstances, I assure you that Democrats would unite around Obama the same way they did around Clinton. Sure, I was supporting Bill Clinton while he was being hounded and impeached by Republicans. But at the same time, believe me, his presidency couldn't end fast enough for me so that we could turn to a new page in the Party. He did a lot of damage to the Party which I will never forgive him for, and which I believe led to much closer election in 2000 than it should have been.

The last thing I would say it this...this is a very, very dangerous game people are playing accusing progressives of criticizing Obama because of his race. This accusation is being directed at the very people who are the most "progressive" with regard to race issues. It's a REAL turn-off, and frankly I think anyone who makes it risks losing all credibility with regard to anything they say.

[Dr.Phool]

86. I saw parallels to the 60's and early 70's coming.

Factories in the north were relocating some of their operations to the non-union, and right to be fired states in the South back then.

I saw Mexico as the New South. And I let people know about it.

And, when you have to make the race issue, when none exists, you've already lost. You're clinging to straws.

[blazerunner]

93. Sounds like you're saying that there are no "progressive" racists.

[DemocratAholic]

96. meaning of Progressive

We could have a discussion on the meaning of "progressive." Of course, there is the dictionary definition, and the meaning as it relates to political views. I don't think there is a clear definition of what it means with regard to political views. Actually, I do think there is a clear meaning, but I am well aware that no matter how well accepted the meaning of a term may be...there are always people who will argue what a word or a term means. My own understanding is that "liberals" basically starting referring to themselves as "progressives" after years of Republicans using "liberal" as a pejorative.

I wouldn't consider anyone who was racist, or harbors bigotry towards others, to be a true "progressive." But, people are entitled to call themselves whatever they want. I really do not like to get into discussions about the meaning of terms or labels like this, because I think it is a distraction. Based on the politicians who like to refer to themselves as "progressive" (Congressional Progressive Caucus), and groups that refer to themselves as progressive (American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation - supported by NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, National Council of La Raza, and others)...I think that it is pretty clearly understood that bigotry doesn't fit into what most Americans would consider to be "progressive."

We could also have a discussion about what the meaning of "is" is...but I wouldn't want to spend much time on that either! ;-)

[DirkGently]

83. Did Clinton show this much contempt for Democrats?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

87. there still is. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Revisionist history worthy of the far, far right

Here is what Teddy Roosevelt said about the nature of the criticism of the President and the nature of the President's job: "To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we should stand by the President right or wrong is not only servile and unpatriotic, but morally treasonable to the American public."
Servile, morally treasonable...which is your favorite of TR's word pictures?

[Sheepshank]

91. I think you are confusing all this liberal anger

with RW attempts to pretend they have all this liberal anger.

[mtnsnake]

94. Why the hell are you trying to turn this on Bill Clinton? To take the pressure off President Obama?

Bill Clinton took more shit on this board than anyone, and for what? Because he found a way to keep the country prosperous and out of war for 8 years? Let's just hope Obama turns this around and creates a decent legacy for himself, too, because we sure need him to do exactly that or we won't be winning another WH anytime soon.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

99. "Bill Clinton took more shit on this board than anyone"

Hillary is right up there.

[harun]

102. I don't think people knew the impact back then. As others have stated

we didn't have the Internet to much extent to get the word out and we didn't know to the extent the forces working against the Middle Class were willing to go.

NAFTA and the tax deal are different issues.

About self-entitlement I really disagree. On the tax issue many Progressives are in support of tax initiatives that will hurt their own wallet's (myself included). But know it is better for the balance sheet of the country. We also know Obama knows this as well as he brought it up and articulated it well before elected.

He's a politician and can do what he wants, we are voters and will do the same.

[LisaM]

103. I was pissed about NAFTA, as were most people I know

there wasn't a blogosphere then, though, or not much of one.

[rury]

106. Clinton has white skin

So he got a pass.
You have to be a perfect president only if you're black.

[bluestateguy]

108. Looks like Clinton is supporting the bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/obama-clinton-briefing-tax-cut-plan_n_795198.html

[Starry Messenger]

110. Probably on usenet or some other internets.

:shrug: I couldn't stand him and never voted for him. Or Gore either, actually, since we're on the subject. I guess I'm really really racist against white southerners then.