Clinton--Oh! How I miss him.

1. The following remove this baddie.Only Negative--adultery was bad. ml was disgrace.
2. he never lied to me on his policies.
3. He did not brag
4. He did not take credit for something for which he was not responsible.
5. He did not attack--anyone--personally.
6. He did not hire "smear" artists.
7. He had dignity.
8. He had honor
9. He had integrity.
10. He had guts. Not blabber
11. He had courage.
12 He did good by all not just a few.

Darn how I miss his intelligence and knowledge about governance.

God Bless Bill Clinton. May he live forever.

Clarence Swinney burlington nc

It was posted on general discussion part.

I think Clinton is a waste of space. While he may seem like gold now after almost 4 years of Bush, we can do a whole hell of a lot better.

your post is waisting space.

Progressive! (need any insurance?) That's always better than a Democrat. Progressives whine,bitch,wank and always feel sorry for themselves. Winning is never an option,it would spoil the game.

Above all, they covet the struggle. Victory = disgrace in their eyes.

not this shit again.

:eyes:

Nothing is ever good enough for the left wing of the left wing. Not satisfied with full employment, prosperity and rising expectations, you guys still quibble over whether or not welfare should have been changed (it should) or whether the WTO is screwing someone somewhere over.

Give it a rest. During Clinton's presidency, the underclass (of which I am proudly one or would be were pride not a sin) made more money and experienced more humane treatment than they had in 20 years.

Why can't you every have some concern for the "least of them"????

Don't you remember anything about the cuts to the safety net that left many people out in the cold?

Or, that just doesn't matter to you, because *YOU* were doing fine.

You see, some of us have thoughts for others.

So, as long as you want to dis the "LEFT", then we'll just diss right back, and let you know how your selfishness sounds. That is NOT what the Dem party used to be about. There *used* to be care for others.

So, there's your "rest".

How bout YOU giving it a rest with just how wonderful he was..... many people were hurt.

Kanary

See my previous post. In 1948 Truman was fighting to preserve Democratic gains. The Left deserted and embraced their hero Joe Stalin.

1. You identify the "left" as all supporting Stalin. Patently false. In addition to the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA), there were (and are) Trotskyist groups, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, Greens, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists-- many different "left" political orientations that you obviously have no understanding of.

2. The CPUSA most certainly did (and does) support Democrats. They entered the Democratic Party in 1936 w/ Stalin's "Popular Front" strategy. Left in '38 b/c of Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, returned again in '40 with the Nazi invasion of USSR, left again in 1948, and returned again in the early 1980s (the CPUSA still encourages its members to vote Democrat)

Your understanding of both politics and history is weak.

Chomsky was STILL a denier of the Russian purges until just a few years ago and Parenti still is.

and clearly you are not if you think that the fringe crap spouted by the poster has any legitimacy whatsoever.

Or are those of us who are the least not capable of judging what is best for us?

enthusiastically embraced the monster Bush in the last election and wants to do the same in this one.

You say you're "one of the least", yet you praise Clinton for making more cuts to the safety net.

Then you throw in some off-the-wall connection to Nader. Where did that come from????

You are very disdainful of "the left of the left", yet you don't seem to get that the safety net isn't LEFTIST... it's traditional Demcratic Party values. So, you're clearly conservative.

You're giving the conservative line, and I just don't play with that anymore. I don't come here to argue with conservatives. If I wanted to do that, I'd join the Young Republicans.

Maybe when YOU are "least" enough it'll begin to sink in.

Until then, don't expect the rest of the Democratic Party to "fall in line" with your conservative ideas. Haven't you heard all the uproar here about Dems without spines? We're not happy.

Have fun with the rest of the conservatives.

buhbye

Kanary

I will compare my credentials and reputation on this board with you if you wish and for your implications regarding my beliefs, I should alert on your ass but I won't.

I am totally working poor bud and Bill Clinton did more to improve my lot than any President since I've been alive (back to fucking Ike.) So, since you are so sweet, I'll just wave to you.

Compare to the previous 12 years before Clinton was president, and the 3 1/2 years after. Clinton is a whole lot better.

I wonder what Clinton thinks when he realizes he cleaned up after Bush I only to have Bush II destroy everything even worse.

I remember him saying that he didn't want to place blame on anyone, he just wanted to fix the country, the economy, and help the world. I was amazed then, and I'm still amazed, by the incredible maturity that statement showed.

Unlike the whiny little chimp we are now saddled with, who blames everybody else for everything.

That revealed true character. Clinton was loaded with character

Never whined

Strong confident man

On the other hand, whatever he was before November 1994, he surely became a repuke enabling "bipartisan" centrist after that. (I've said my 7 reasons in other posts, including a followup in this thread...)

Bipartisanship is where dems and repukes come together, usually by the dems bending over backwards as repukes refuse to compromise on anything. We need to start being the same way.

And Kerry WILL have to remind the public about Bush II's actions today, for they are leading what will happen tomorrow. He's got no choice. The American public's IQ, attention span, and hedonistic tendencies will ultimately make reality that much tougher, but that's how corporate america made it (along with the blessing of ANY politician that supports corporate america, Clinton (and likely Kerry) NOT excluded. To politicians and corporate america, we are not people. Just walking wallets ready to be exploited.)

He was an extremely humble president.

. . . who took his job very seriously and strived to do a great job. I think he succeeded. I think he really cared a great deal and always had the best interests of the country in mind.

The only Clinton policy that really pissed me off was his dedicated support of the war on drugs. And, since 98% of politicians agree with him, that means I walk around pissed off all of the time. x(

The spirit of this country was lifted with Clinton. He was such a breath of fresh air after Reagan and Bush - I had actually forgotten how tense the country was under them until Bush II came along...

He lied about Monica. He lied to his wife. He lied to the whole nation. Doing so turned voters away from him. So that blows away your hallucination regarding #s 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9. (And if you think I'm mad that that centrist for that lie, imagine how I feel about bushco*. A million billion times worse and I'd rather have Clinton back too, despite the other 6 reasons for why I hate his guts (NAFTA, DOMA, DMCA, Firing Jocelyn Elders, "welfare reform", telecom act)...)

He fired Jocelyn Elders, timid at the repukes. He supported the DOMA despite being GLBT-friendly. Don't give me this rubbish about him having guts and courage. That's a crock of cattle cack too. That blows away #12 - the concept of which is impossible, one CANNOT do good by all.

Sorry, but I can't wear blinders or be one sided. Not for religion, not for people in power, not for anybody. Hell, I dislike myself at times when I look at my own past objectively too.

May nobody live forever. Immortality is a curse, not a blessing. And in this society, without a job to live on, being immortal would hurt like fucking hell - why not try it for a thousand years and get back to me?

Certainly there were many reasons to be very disappointed in him. I was not real happy about NAFTA when we lost our business because of it; we have struggled ever since. Still, I miss him.

Clinton:

1. Pushed hard for and passed NAFTA

2. Pushed hard for many other trade agreements that resulted in exporting of American jobs-- including normalization of trade with China and Vietnam, with no provisions for their labor/environmental/human rights abuses.


3. Did little to nothing to fight against the "welfare reform" introduced by Gingrich and his buddies.

4. Actively assisted the Republicans in passing telecommunication and utility deregulation. (WorldCom anyone?)

5. No less than 7 military interventions under Clinton's watch, including a pharmaceutical company in Sudan believed to be a chemical weapons plant (oops... how many people do you think died in that poor country as a result of that? Don't know b/c US blocked a UN investigation)

So why do "liberals" love Clinton so much? My thoughts:

1. Republicans hate him

2. The economy was decent (not necessarily due to him, but the sitting President always gets the credit or blame)

3. He was the first Democrat to serve two full terms as President since FDR (first to serve at all since Carter)

4. The Republicans were gunning for him, but he beat the rap. Everyone loves a hero/comeback kid.

I will give Clinton for one single "inaction" on his part which helped the working-class: He did not issue a Taft-Hartley injunction against the 1997 UPS strike. Many were worried he would. However this inaction was the one time he came through for the labor movement that got his ungrateful ass elected in the first place.

http:/www.democraticunderground.com/dicuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1438368#1438368

edit:link not working :mad:

this question evolved out of another thread about "moderates," the "far left," and the "far right." to talk about clinton in detail was off topic for that thread, but i did want to respond to one of the other posters who disagreed with my stance on the subject. one thing we did agree on was that a person could not be placed in a fixed position on the political spectrum based on one issue alone.

******disclaimer********************************************
i realize that du is a sight with many hardcore dem party supporters, who admire president clinton and his policies. i did not start this thread to bash him or the dem party. i simply want to give my view of clinton economic policy in response to a credible post from another thread. i hope i can get some civilized answers to my post. i get a little rude myself sometimes, if i do again i will try to apologize where appropriate. so please join in the discussion.
******end disclaimer****************************************

the political spectrum: for our discussion i think it would be helpful to include all political ideas (a global political spectrum), not just the narrow range of ideas usually included in us political debate.

the two main topics on the table were clinton's economic policy, and his foreign policy. since clinton is perceived to have been successful in the area of economics during his presidency, i would like to focus on that. imo it is harder to make a case against clinton's economic policy than his foreign policy, but if you would like to comment on foreign policy that is okay with me.

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

some (i am sure the poster has plenty more) of the economic stats that were posted to argue that clinton's economic policies placed him on the left of the political spectrum:

..an economic policy that created almost 6 million new jobs in the first two years of his administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

..an economic policy that created the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.

15 million working families enjoyed tax relief under President Clinton's expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. Thanks to Clinton, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty in 1998 alone.

Clinton increased funding for the head start program by 90% in FY 2000 so 880,000 children had a better chance to learn and grow.

Clinton forced the minimum wage up from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour and demanded an increase to $6.15.

The poverty rate fell from 15.1 % in 1993 to 12.7 % in 1998. That the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five year drop in nearly 30 years (1965-70)

The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 % in 1993 to 26.1 % in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-72)

The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 % in 1998.

For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 % in March 2000, nearly the lowest since 1953.

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

some stats i would like to add to the discussion:

The poverty thresh holds for 1998: $8,183 for an individual, $16,660 for a family of 4

Between 1979 and 2001 family income for the bottom 20% increased 3%, second 20% increased 11%, middle 20% increased 17%, fourth 20% increased 26%, top 20% increased 53%, and the top 5% increased 81%.

Forty-seven million households in the U.S. have annual incomes below $35,000, and in the event of a layoff or medical crisis, 40% of American families would run out of cash within 3 days. (New York Times)

Between 1989 and 2000, the typical married couple's income rose 13.9%. However, families had to work an additional 186 hours per year (4.65 work weeks), for a total of 3,719 hours. The average African-American family worked 3,800 hours per year, an increase of more than 200 hours since 1989. In those same years, poverty rates fell faster for Hispanics (4.9 percentage points) and African-Americans (8.7 percentage points) than they did for whites (0.9 percentage points). Yet minorities continue to have much higher overall poverty rates. (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, pp. 97, 99, 318)

The income share going to the richest 5% of families reached 17.9% in 1989, 21% in 2001. (Frank Levy, "The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change" Data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001)

In 2001, the average American production worker's inflation-adjusted weekly wages were 5% below what they had been in 1973. (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, p. 121)

In 1979, the average male college graduate earned about a third more than the median high school graduate; by 2001 the gap had widened to 79%. (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, 2002-03, p. 121)

The average CEO makes 1,027 times more than a minimum wage worker. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive pay since 1990, it would stand at $21.41 an hour as opposed to $5.15. (FairEconomy.org)

CEO pay as a multiple of average worker pay: 1998- 419x, 1999- 475x, 2000- 531x, 2001- 411x.

Increases from 1990 to 2001: CEO pay +463%, worker pay +42%, inflation +36%. .

Roughly 41 million Americans -- one seventh of the population -- have no health insurance. In 1990, the figure was 35 million. About 8.5 million children are uninsured. (U.S. Census Bureau)

Between 1996 and 2000, 71% of foreign corporations paid no federal income tax. 61% of American corporations paid no income tax. In 2000, an estimated 94% of American corporations, and 89% of foreign corporations paid less than 5% of their total incomes in taxes. (Associated Press)

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

i contend that the economic policies of president clinton were a continuation of what we refer to as "neo-liberal economics," or "globalization." these policies started in the late 1970's and continue to this day. the fact that working class and poor people made gains in the 1990's under clinton was nothing more than "trickle down economics." the fact that it took (working class/poor people) more people (in the same family), working more hours, to achieve gains than were not comparable to that of the CEOs, or those in the higher tax brackets, during the same time period is proof that clinton continued an economic policy that puts the financial burdens of society unevenly on lower income people, while shielding multi-million/billion dollar corporations from risk. that is a right-wing idea. i am not saying right-wing ideas can not work, and surely many people did well financially during the clinton admin (which is a good thing). clinton also signed nafta into law, i do not have to go into details because we all know them. outsourcing, capital flight, under minding of democratic institutions, are all right-wing economic ideas. How far right on the global political spectrum can be debated, but they are right-wing non the less. i also want to acknowledge that clinton did make some steps in the right direction, and reiterate i did not start this thread to bash him or the dems, i just wanted to have an unbiased discussion about president clintons policies.

Come back, Bill

The ability to communicate! He is a very intelligent man. He is able to speak to and be understood by ALL people, both domestic and international. I NEVER worried about him being alone with a foreign leader for fear he'd say something stupid. He had a national speech once when his teleprompter just quite working. Do you realize no one knew, even the Press, until the conference was over and the Pres found out and reported it.

What do you think Shrub would do if his 'prompter failed? Hmmmm.

Sure some disagree with him on some issues, but you could always be proud of him as your President!

Which other Presidents have we had where most of the people said that? JFK, I suspect.

Clinton's the best Politician we've had in a very long time! Isn't that his main job?

but that only makes for a distraction from his actual policies. i also agree he was a much better president than bush. hell, at least Clinton was elected. but i was not "proud of" Clinton for his actions as president. i do not understand your question, to be the best politician is the presidents main job?

the President's main job. That's why we get so many shitty Presidents. God forbid we should get someone honest, with guts who cares more about people than corporations, polls, and PACs.

Every income segment gained in income under Clinton.
Minorities felt they were in heaven.
Middle class came back. Inequality grew but will now go zoom zoom

were the major reason for it, or that those policies didn't also lead to the bubble bursting when Bush took office. If you believe the economic shifts in the last few years were due to changing administrations, then you do not understand economics. I should also mention, that except for 95-96, real wages continued to fall during the Clinton administration, and, as you correctly pointed out, economic inequality grew. You're right it's worse with Bush in office, but I think Clinton is receiving undue praise for the economy under his adminstration and Bush receiving undue blame. These are realities of our capitalist system-- there are periods of crisis-- boom and bust.

the Economic Recovery Act of 1993, passed without a single gop vote, began the road to the deficit reduction from Ronnie and George I's spending spree of the 80s. When that occurred, capital was available for business expansion. Was that all that caused it? Of course not but every economic policy engineered by Clinton, and Rubin and Reich unleashed the energy that was there without encouraging a culture of siphoning the capital out the system.

BTW, Bush's economic decisions have encouraged exactly that.

In other words, are you taking an anti-Keynesian economic position? Do you subscribe to neoclassical economic theory?

When the deficits are so large as to use up virtually all available capital, then any positive effect from the spending is lost because what it is intended to spur, cannot be spurred. It's like eating your seed corn. That is the point we had reached at the end of the 80s and it is the point we are swiftly approaching now.

just a bastardized form of it. FDR was never willing to spend the kind of $ Keynes believed necessary for pump-priming the economy. It wasn't until WWII and lend-lease began that the gov't started the kind of industrial spending necessary to kick-start the economy.

Keynesian pump-priming is effective only so long as their is capital available for business to use for new starts, innovation, expansion, and upgrading.

Remember, the problem at the beginning of this was a demand problem, not a capacity problem.

1. Regardless of the wisdom of Bush's tax cuts and deficit spending, was it his fault the 90s bubble burst?

a. Was the bursting of the bubble inevitable, or could have been prevented, and if so, how?

b. Isn't it possible that the same policies that encouraged economic growth encouraged a bubble economy that eventually burst?

2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: In a capitalist economic system crises are inevitable-- boom and bust are natural cycles in this system.

3. Do you agree with Clinton's free trade policies, like NAFTA?

4. Do you agree with his deregulation policies?

1. Regardless of the wisdom of Bush's tax cuts and deficit spending, was it his fault the 90s bubble burst?

You are attributing all of our woes to the so-called bubble which, I suppose you mean the internet bubble. While that contributed, it was not by any means all that put us in the mailaise. It has as much to do with capital availability as anything.

a. Was the bursting of the bubble inevitable, or could have been prevented, and if so, how?

The bursting was inevitable in the sense that companies with weak business models i.e. those that had no way to make money off the internet, were doomed to failure. It would not have served the economy to keep alive those with no hope of survival.

b. Isn't it possible that the same policies that encouraged economic growth encouraged a bubble economy that eventually burst?

I do not think so. The policies had nothing to do with bad businesses. It had everything to do with making sure capital was available so they could try and if they could find investers, ultimately fail. But that could be said of people in ... I don't know ... the pressure wash business.

2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: In a capitalist economic system crises are inevitable-- boom and bust are natural cycles in this system.

No, not since FDR. That was true until WWII. Since then, the curves have been moderated by government policy.

3. Do you agree with Clinton's free trade policies, like NAFTA?

That is a tough one. I am still thinking it over. I am, however, in total agreement with his fiscal and monetary policies.

4. Do you agree with his deregulation policies?

It depends on what is being regulated or deregulated. The demise of the FCC has hurt all of us, easing of EPA regs hurts us all, and I do not believe that the economic benefit of dereg even equals the benefit of the regulation.

Follow-up to your response of #2 ("No, not since FDR. That was true until WWII. Since then, the curves have been moderated by government policy."):

So then, one could logically extrapolate from this position that all recessions since 1945 were due to failure of government policy rather than natural business cycles. Agree?

Also, a little off the subject, but can you see why so many labor-oriented people like myself view Clinton as a traitor after his positions on NAFTA, "free trade" and deregulation, especially after labor unions played such a key role in his election in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I blame the unions as much as Clinton for their political short-sightedness.

"So then, one could logically extrapolate from this position that all recessions since 1945 were due to failure of government policy rather than natural business cycles. Agree?"

No, I do not. Goverment actions have moderated the boom-bust cycle where we do not experience the heady highs of the booms nor the depths of depressions but instead have periods of moderate growth replacing the boom and recessions replacing the bust portion of the cycle.

Clinton was not a traitor. He did not run on a protectionist platform. He advocated trade from the beginning and he was elected with the citizenry knowing that was his position. I have lived through many presidents including JFK and LBJ but Bill was better than all of them in terms of the genuine raising of people's conditions.

The only bad thing was that he could not idiot-proof it to keep dim son from fucking it up again.

NAFTA could have been passed with tough labor and environmental standards for signatories-- it was not. Clinton didn't care. Most other free-trade "deals" passed in the last decade are the same-- open up trade with no labor or environmental (or even basic human rights) standards.

Whoever said that was right on.

Although I'd say Bush also screwed the entire world.

..After 9/11 and Al-qaidas attack against our Nation - On Sept 12th, 2001 Bush had the unity and support of the whole world ...

...If Al-qaida strikes again tommorrow(gee - do you think they might be even more motivated now?) the whole world will cheer....our country has under Bush to achieve most-hated status....

Hey Osama - the address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...don't hit innoncent targets (be better than the US Gov't and win hearts and minds) maybe a Hummer loaded w/ Ashcroft, Rummy, Cheney and the rest of those Maggots and rid us all of of the evil scourge...Oops...bet the Homeland Security Dept is watching me now....

Just to make it easy for you Gestapo Homeland Security folks - I'm the petite latte-drinking, pro-choice blonde that lives in Marin County that you took photos of marching down Pennsylvania Avenue two weeks ago w/ the 3 mos old baby...You know, the one who exposed her breast at the Smithsonian to breastfeed and challenged two Officers when I was told to cover up (True story)...You tried to cover up LadyJustice (and Janet Jackson) but are okay w/ sadistic degradation of human beings who are Muslim...I'm gonna keep on breastfeeding publicly and speaking out...

Lots of Love

Insurgent Stay-home Mom of two from Marin County, CA (you know, home of Johnny Taliban Walker & other Hot-tubbers)

What a great, great President! And, when you think of his poor background, and how young he was when he took office, it's amazing. Gore should NEVER have distanced himself from Clinton during the 2000 election. I remember some talking heads saying during the 2000 campaign that people were willing to give a dunce like * (not a direct quote) a chance because the Presidency looked so easy,thanks to Bill. He made it look easy, the way a great athlete makes their sport look easy. Miss him? I think that's too mild a term. :-( :(

I hope he is our next secretary of state. Bush has the mentality of an assistant shoe shine boy compared to Bill Clinton!!!!!!!

Lets see how about Bush has the mentality of Patrick star on Sponge Bob compared to Bill Clinton (SORRY PAT STUDY HARDER PAL)

...that others are posting here.

I've tried to reason with facts and figures too often on this subject.

200+ post threads of facts about Clinton's incredible progressive record that goes unanswered by this far left crowd... only to have the same bile dragged up again a few days later by another one.

Now, I'll just say that the self professed "proooogreeeessiiiives" will never know the mass appeal success and victory achieved by one William Jefferson Clinton.

It must really bite to not be able to organize, attract enough voters, and get your guys elected.