We forget that Clinton like Carter was not a product of Privilege.

Neither came into the White House with the backing of the "Establishment." Neither came into the White House with the backing of Conservative Groups and Corporate Money who ushered them into power after long years of grooming (Nixon/Reagan). A Google will give you some background on the groups that brought both Nixon and Reagan into power (for newbies who don't know).

Clinton, Carter and Truman were "everyman's man." Humble birth. Rural childhoods out of the "old America" where folks helped folks, went to church, lived through hard times and made do with what one had. All three had ambition and I think, "good hearts" and sincerely loved America and hoped to "make a difference." All three had to cultivate some "moneyed" connections which hurt their presidencies to some extent because the money didn't come from the "Establishment" but from sources that weren't always sophisticated enough not to get caught for some nefarious deal that might have been "over the line." (Google for scandals with all three.)

I think in Clinton's case we need to compare him with what's in the White House now. Clinton's "White Water Land" deal (the only deal that he ever had a chance of making money off of) lost money, and Hillary took a chance on some futures and made some money. Neither ever owned a home or had anything but themselves and what they earned in salaries from Hillary's law practice and Clinton as Governor all those years in Arkansas. Compare that and what they were up against when they came to DC and then think about what they faced. (the press sneered about the Clinton's never owning their own home during the inauguration)

I think if you look at what the Clinton's made dollar wise out of "Government Service" and Connections and compare it to Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes it gives an interesting view of who Clinton could have been if he had been born a Bush or had the support network of Reagan and Nixon as they worked their way up in politics. And, the same with Carter. They might have been able to make changes without compromise if they had been part of the "Moneyed Establishment, Inside the Beltway Crowd." The "chosen" of the press and Corporations. :shrug:

We forget the humanity sometimes of Democratic Politicians and some of us here have lost any sense of idealism or connection with what it must be like to have worked one's way up from nothing, and run against the "Corporate Wall" and have to court the "glad handlers, swindlers, liars and cheats" that run politics in America. And, we forget that those three men (much as I disliked some policies of each of them) were faced with difficulties that the Reagan, Nixon (although he was always an outsider,in many ways and never had any money he had the Orange County Machine at his side) and Bushes never had to ever contemplate. The Repugs support their own to the death.

Roosevelt and Kennedy were the exceptions. They were the "privileged" who managed to retain their idealism and love of their country while following principles that were Democratic. But,always at their heels were the pack of jackals waiting to bring them down. Democrats don't seem to be always looking for revenge on the person they defeated in an election, but I've never seen a Republican who didn't want to ruin the record of the Democrat they beat in the last election. It just seems to be in their nature.

Just some thoughts... from reading the Clinton posts today, and feeling very cynical and so tired of being cynical. I don't want to become like the Repugs...but it's starting from the bitterness of the the stolen elections and the hounding of Clinton all those years.

I always believed Clinton had the best interests of average Americans at heart. It's not easy working your way up to the top in any profession and politics is especially nasty and brutal. I'll take Clinton over a Republican any day.

Some people need to learn how to criticize Clinton without bashing him. We all know the freepers don't know how. Of course, I do that with Bush but he's no damn good.

The last few times have been (for the most part) sons of privilege vs other sons of privilege. Bush v Kerry, Bush v. Gore, Dean, and so on. I would like to see someone like (just an example here, don't jump on me) Obama or Clark, who grew up under normal circumstances and were self made men (or women, as applicable)

Although Kerry received a upper class education and had wealthy relatives, he and his family were not wealthy. His biography is actually that of a man who chose duty and service to his country for most of his adult life. He also was not wealthy though most of this time. Teresa is incredibly wealthy.

Lumping him (or Gore) with Bush is totally not fair. Even if Kerry had been as wealthy as Bush, his actions would have made him more comparable to Roosevelt and Kennedy than to Bush.

I thought his father was some sort of rich diplomat, as he was in expensive prep schools, Skull and Bones at Yale, etc . He might not have been as priveleged as Bush or Gore, but I still wouldn't consider him an "everyman". I do admire his duty and service, especially going to war as a Yale grad when many others were doing all they could to avoid it.

A diplomat - not a rich one. An aunt payed for the Kerry kids eduacation. One article mentioned that to understand - think poorer relations in a Jane Austen novel. So he was of the upper class, but he had no money. He had summer jobs and a part time job for spending money (Going Upriver). Still he WAS better off in that he was given an outstanding education and traveled with many much richer friends.

You are right that had he have tried to say that he wasn't privliged it would have been untrue and would have blown up in his face. It was just more complicated. (The connections alone were valuable.)

he immigrated to America and changed his last name to "Kerry" because of anti semetism. i think Kerry's father was about 5 years old when his dad commited suicide.

Kerry's father has always been in government work so he didn't have money. but he was a hard worker.

In fact, cynicism is almost a luxury now.

by millions around the world. They are greeted and warmly welcomed in most all countries. I am proud that they are Democrats. As a Georgian, I am especially proud of Jimmy Carter. He is a true Democrat, a true patriot, a proud southerner and a real Christian. Truman has a place in history as our vice president and president during WWII. History will look kindly upon all of them.

:shrug:

way up through Texas politics...involved with the same folks the Bushes were or relatives of them. How he ever managed to pull off supporting Civil Rights and the Great Society Programs like "Student Loans for the folks who couldn't afford it to go to College" and many of his other programs which help so many of us even today....I don't know. But, he was a Democrat to his core and remembered his poor background even though he was known to have been a scoundrel in politics. That's why I didn't include him...he was a Texas wheeler dealer. Didn't fit with Clinton/Carter and Truman.

The Vietnam war was his downfall. He would have been remembered better, it's been said, if he hadn't been determined to do what the Chimp is attempted to copyy in Iraq. He just couldn't let that Vietnam go. And, maybe it's something about Texas....and the way those folks grow up..:shrug:

He worked his ass off the whole time. Remember how he was always hoarse from talking and staying up too late? I will always remember the picture of him riding a bicycle in the hallway in his last days. It was the only time I ever recall seeing him really goof off. Compared to what's attached itself to the inside of the whitehouse, well, there IS no comparison. Clinton never forgot what a privilege it was to truly serve the people.

Well, said, "Beam me up." That's what I was thinking when I wrote this post but didn't really make that point as well as you.

When I watched the Repug Senators attacking the Dems who spoke up against Rice, I thought to myself: "They aren't serving the people, they are serving an agenda of greed and power." They have forgotten who they are and serve Bill Frist and their Party Agenda. They have lost touch with who they are and where they come from.

I don't believe Clinton, Carter, Truman, JFK (remembering his Irish experience in Boston) forgot the "people they served." And, I remember Lyndon Johnson agonized over the anti-war demonstrators who were protesting outside the White House. Unlike the Chimp he stayed in DC and if he looked out the window from the family quarters the protestors were visible. At that time you could protest close to the White House. Pennsylvania Avenue wasn't closed down and the WH was still "the people's house."

He still moves me to tears whenever I listen to him. What the msm and repukes did to him was unforgivable. I was born right after JFK's death and I was too young to remember much about Carter when he was in office, (although I have grown to admire him greatly) but President Clinton will probably be the bar up to which I will hold all future presidents.
* doesn't even make it above ground.

Clinton raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in the primaries -- and, more importantly, he raised more money EARLIER than the other candidates.

Carter too had financial advantages over the other Democratic primary candidates. Thanks to his good friend Bert Lance, Carter's campaign was able to arrange bank loans at a time when the entire campaign finance system had been thrown into disarray by a Supreme Court ruling.

While it's true that both Carter and Clinton came from poor backgrounds, and that this probaby increased their appeal among rural white voters, their campaigns were anything but underfinanced.

and Clinton was there for a long time. it wasn't some 15 minute photo op for the next election as it was with the asshole. i think Chelsea also went with Clinton. it was either during Thanksgiving or Christmas. Hillary herself also went there by herself.

wow.
What a contrast.

His forebearers were big-time planters (and slaveowners). I don't think he was brought up in really wealthy circumstances, but he comes from a different class background than Clinton. This doesn't reflect on him one way or the other; just sayin'.

I believe President Truman's political career would have been very short if it was not for his connections with the Pendergast political Machine in Missouri.

Pendergast machine...it never profitted from him.

To help regain control of the patronage he lost, Pendergast found it necessary to relinquish his special favors to contractors. He did so by supporting Harry S Truman as the machine candidate for county judge. Truman had been a friend of James M. Pendergast, Mike’s son, having served with him during World War I. Truman won the Democratic nomination in 1922 and won again in the November election. With Truman’s victory, corruption ceased in the court, but Pendergast’s control of the county administration – and the patronage that went with it – would last until he was sent to prison in 1939.

Truman became an integral part of the Pendergast machine, but, according to Dorsett, was not corrupt. Dorsett states:

"Truman would not deal in graft, but he was successful in running the Pendergast machine in rural Jackson County because he was an astute organizer who used patronage to the organization’s advantage. In addition, Truman managed the court so efficiently, and accomplished so much while in office that he won a large following. By leaving Truman alone to manage the county administration as he saw fit, Pendergast lost the graft which he had bestowed upon his associates during the Bulger regime. By endorsing honest government and settling for patronage alone, he (Pendergast) had entrenched his machine in the county administration by the mid-1920s."

http://crimemagazine.com/kcfamily.htm

on a personal note my dad lived in Grandview as a kid for a while and they bought a milk cow from *Mother* Truman..and he went to school and was friends w/Trumans nephew Vivian.(Vivian used to be a male name)

Thanks for the information. I may have made sound that President Truman was less than honest by his association with Pendergast. That was not my intent.

The Carters owned a peanut farm...

They were solidly upper middle class...

I don't think even Carter would say he was poor growing up...

because of farm subsidies they get.

it's not always about god, guns,gays etc.

"Privilege", or the lack of it, has about as much to do with being a good president as military service does. That is, Zero. As you point out, Reagan and Nixon also came from unprivileged backgrounds, which certainly didn't qualify them as good presidents.

As for Truman was "everyman's president", that may be true...if one weren't living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I'm not quite sure what the intent of this thread is, but Carter and Clinton were hardly Horatio Algers.

Clinton and Carter (Clinton especially) came from "humble" backgrounds but they both got their tickets punched early in life. Once Clinton did the Georgetown/Oxford/Yale circuit, it was pretty much established that he was going to be part of the "elite." And Carter was a Naval Academy grad.

Nixon's family were poor farmers who sent him to Whittier to be a tackling dummy.

started by JFK and continued by Johnson that allowed "non-legacy" students like the entitled Bushies to get into the "Graduate" programs at what were once considered Universities for only the "chosen" like the Bush's, Rockefellers, etc.

Clinton worked for "scholarships," and it was our Dem Programs that allowed folks like Clinton to apply for and qualify for them.

Being a non-legacy graduate, I know this. In the 60s, the schools started cutting down on the numbers of legacies and began focussing on standardized test scores for enrollment.

Now how Clinton afforded Yale may be another story. I assume he did it the way most of us do it - by going deeply into debt.

:shrug: Clinton from his bio...was scholarship...but scholarship and Loan (because Lyndon Johnson made it available) helped many a non-legacy student able to atten an Ivy or "second tier," that they might not have been able to before...

But they all did it by their own hard work, academic ability, and ambition -- Clinton got scholarships to Georgetown/Oxford/Yale Law (including the ultimate scholarship: a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford); Carter got an appointment to the Naval Academy, Nixon got a degree from Whittier, a law degree, a commission in the Navy. All three wanted to be somebody important, not just go to an in-state school and go back home to work in a local business or teach like most kids do.

I believe he took the family to California so that he could take that job.

And I'm not just talking about Monica-gate.

VERY DIFFERENT....But...we need to remember the "Internet and Google" were not even out there as an "Activist" tool during Clinton and then Gore's run...all the "Bloggers and stuff" weren't around then.

All we had were Joe Conason, Murray Waas and Gene Lyons ..plus Geraldo on MSNBC when Roger Ailes was doing his "liberal" thingy before he created FOX...

Does anyone remember those days?

KoKo01 wrote:

Humble birth. Rural childhoods out of the "old America" where folks helped folks, went to church, lived through hard times and made do with what one had. All three had ambition and I think, "good hearts" and sincerely loved America and hoped to "make a difference."


I think we have a candidate.

Once they got entrance into the exclusive club, their main incentive was to remain a member.