If we could only elect a Democrat who was a Clintonite, should we try?

I want to elect a Democratic president and Congress. But it should be a president and a Congress that are CLEARLY Democratic. Does anyone think a victory on another Clintonite platform would be of any value, especially since Clinton didn't even defend the poor and the working class from having to make further sacrifices?

Undoubtably there are many(including virtually all of Hillary's supporters)who would argue that we should be happy to settle for another version of 1993-2001(and especially 1995-2001, since we can assume Democrats won't retake Congress on a Clintonite program) Let's hear from them and let them explain their cynicism and defeatism.

all the behind the scenes machinations of the last 50 years.

Clinton would have changed history for the better had he allowed the books on IranContra and BCCI to be opened - there certainly would NOT have been a 9-11 or an Iraq war and NO Bush would ever be allowed within a mile of the White House.

And of course Clinton wouldn't open the books. He never wanted to stop the right-wing establishment or change history. Slick just wanted to be Scoop Jackson with a sax when it came to foreign policy.

if that's what it takes to get through to party leadership that it's not going to win without mending some very serious fences with its traditional working class base.

Most working stiffs don't give a flying fuck about the deficit. They care about declining wages, disappearing jobs, and evaporating benefits, mostly healthcare.

They've had it up to here with both parties and they're angry as hell. Most stay home. A few fall for GOP tax cut fantasies. The Democrats can no longer count on their support.

Seriously I will take any rational democrat over most elements of the republican party. I protested in 2000 by not voting - not exactly a good move in retrospect.

If the Democrats want to be Repuglicans, I'll vote Green.

we'd have a Repuke president for the next 100 years.

I really doubt we will ever get a progressive in the west wing. I'll take Hillary, Joementum, Zell Miller, McCain...whatever.

I think it would be real cool to have the all new, new Al Gore in 2008.:patriot:

I mean, who needs more of that peace and prosperity stuff? That sucked!
:sarcasm:

cut health care. I live in a small town and if you wanted a job you could get one and if the Repugs keep continue, it will too late for even a progressive(if it insn't too late now)

I would take a Bill Clinton any day over any republican I see on the horizon. I would be ecstatic if we could kick W out now and replace him with Bill Clinton. Would you rather see a republican run congress, senate and presidency than move toward the left with a moderate rational candidate?

don't allow any space or any possibility for a leftward move. Nothing moved left under Bill 'n Hill. Remember 1994?

Remember a DEMOCRATIC president gloating over how many executions we were having?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I'm extremely conflicted over electing someone like Clinton, who still supports the war. But I'm trying to deal with that within the Dem party, by supporting her opponent in the primary for Senate here in NY. Jonathan Tasini is running a strong progressive, anti-war campaign. If you feel as I do, you can help the anti-war cause by donating to his campaign at tasinifornewyork.org. Thanks!

nt.

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

defeatism"????


I'd more than "settle" for another version of 1995-2001.

And what's this "Clinton didn't even defend the poor and the working class from having to make further sacrifices" bullshit?

Do you get your talking points direct from the RNC or do you just pull them out of your ass ?

And why would you "assume" Democrats won't take Congress on a Clintonite program? Sounds like another Repuke talking point.

And what is "CLEARLY Democratic"? Last time I looked both Bill and Hillary Clinton were registered Democrats. Apparently the rest of the country thinks that, too, since they elected one them to the Presidency. Twice.


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


what kind of bullshit are you trying to spread with this thread?

for that purpose.

I base my assumption that another Clintonite campaign would be unable to retake Congress on the fact that Clinton himself wasn't able to, ever(and that it strongly appeared at times as if he didn't WANT to). If it went that way under Bill, logically it would have to go that way under Hillary or Joementum.

And the continued sacrifices made by the poor during the Clinton period are well documented. Many programs were cut, and Clinton left unchallenged the Republican lie that poor people had to be FORCED to work, which is a lie that no Democrat should ever leave unchallenged.

I take no talking points from the RNC. I hate them more than you do. What I want is a Democratic victory that matters. Clearly, a victory on another DLC platform and another DLC-type campaign(assuming the last three campaigns haven't proven that to be an impossibility)would be unnoticeable.

Wanting a Democrat in the White House that you KNOW is actually a Democrat is a better way to win. We don't have to assume that our ideals have been rejected and are permanently unpopular. We don't have to cave again.

.....make sense and could draw about three-quarters of the US voters away from the neocons.:banghead: Can't do anything that would truly make sense.:sarcasm: There are too many votes beginning to realize just how good we had it under Clinton and how good we would again have it with a "Clintonite".:think: So NO, we should NEVER suggest something that might keep people from completely blowing the best opportunity of a life time.:sarcasm:

I don't recall Bill ever getting 75% of the vote.

will also cure the voters of CONSERVATISM.

We are free from having to settle for bland centrism now.

............Nader to raise his ugly head any day now and yes I'm sure the neocons have their checkbook at the ready again.:freak:

unlike you.

"Does anyone think a victory on another Clintonite platform would be of any value"
It would be to Americans...but then the far left hates Americans and democrats.

is supposed to be about.

And who are you to declare who hates Americans or not?

It isn't in the Democratic Party tradition(at least after Woodrow Wilson)to be rabidly anti-left and anti-progressive.

Try something besides irrational rage now and then.

"Try something besides irrational rage"
Irony is truly wonderful, Ken. Now go snivel about Democrats who actually win elections to somebody else.

BTW, you might as well prepare yourself for the inevitable moment when Hillary sells out and opposes all gun control.
You know that's coming, Benchley, and that was the only issue you actually demanded that Democrats be different than Republicans on.

And I feel no pity, except for you. You waste your passion on attacking people who want the best of what you want, when you should be attacking the far right, instead of always letting THEM off the hook.

It sure as shit ain't me.

"You waste your passion on attacking people who want the best of what you want"
Jeeze, Ken, I sure as shit don't want the crap you're peddling.

....Lets just make sure that we can cut off our noses to spite our faces, and have another..oh hell....24 years of fascists rule!! What the hell!!

We sure as hell don't want to go back to multi-trillion dollar budget surpluses. Or expanding the middle-class by having policies that create good paying jobs for people instead of burger flipping careers! And we sure don't want to return to record setting economic expansion that is created by the average joe instead of the corporations who pocket all the returns!

Congress will be retaken this year! People are wising up to the bullshit of the Bush Fascist Party. They are finally coming to terms with the fact that folks they thought were their heroes have been lying to them and ripping their asses off!

If we can get a "real liberal", as I hear them called, elected to the White House, then that is fine with me. But it sure seems kind of stupid to say "if we can't have what we want, then to hell with the country, let the repugs have it", by staying home or voting "green".

Hell, besides the criminal theft of two elections, the voting "green" gave us GEORGE FUCKING W. BUSH for EIGHT DAMN YEARS!!

So, sure, if that makes ya happy, then go for it. Don't let the welfare of the country get in the way of your own idealism.

But, believe me, if the most far-left-wing liberal that we can find gets the nomination....he or she will have MY VOTE....that is ALWAYS UNCONDITIONAL for me.

Now, feel free to tell me why we would be better off under facist leadership longer than Clintonian type leadership. (And it is amazing that there were less "poor" people, percentage wise, under Clinton than anytime in the last 50 years, but even more amazing that you didn't notice.)

Wes Clark for President!!

and Clinton started the DLC. I won't be supporting any DLC type candidates in a primary. However, if the choice is between a DLC candidate and a Rethug, I have to vote for the DLC (or move out of the country).

best president since Kennedy. I'd rather have Clark, Gore, Dean or Feingold too, but ....

It would make a huge difference in protecting the independence of the judiciary and thus civil liberties.

It would make a huge difference in numerous appointment to an endless list of commissions that wield real power that affects millions of people.

Although I would not expect any sweeping new social initiatives it would assure better funding for numerous programs that make essential differences in the lives of millions.

In that we would still be stuck with neoliberal economic ideology and a milder form of a extremely hegemonic foreign policy, I do see your point.

But lets remember that the right-wing largely rose to power during the Nixon years and the right-wing backed Nixon to the hilt even though he was obviously not their ideological soul-mate. The election of a "Clintonite Democrat" would give time and opportunity for progressives to become a stronger force within the Democratic Party; provided that opportunity is taken.

The paradigm can be changed if we cease the day.

___

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute

she is among a handful of human beings in the country who are within striking distance of the White House.

Against Allen or McCain, I think she would be defeated, since I don't see her carrying more states than Kerry-Edwards carried in 2004, and the red in Ohio & New Mexico will be a deeper shade. New Hampshire will revert to red after a brief flirt with Kerry-Edwards.

And she still faces resourceful and refreshing competition in the caucuses and primaries. Evan Bayh, not my favorite Democrat, is a formidable candidate demographically. Warner has his minions, too. Senator Feingold is a force to be reckoned with and likely will claim many activists' loyalties. Edwards had little cash on hand in Iowa in 04 but with a better bank account next time, I think he does very well against Senator Clinton.

Clark, Edwards, Warner, Gore, Feingold, Bayh, maybe Richardson... Senator Clinton's nomination is by no means an easy chance. All of these folks will be reasonably-to-well financed and are not going to casually consent to her bulldozing them in the primaries.

If she's nominated and chooses a halfway reasonable veep nominee (and not Lieberman) I will support the ticket against turncoat McCain, cat butcher Frist, cement-head Allen, or just about any other Rethug candidate.

But I think the party's overall outcome would be improved if Senator Clinton were not the nominee.

Flame-Bait.