Would you vote for a Bill Clinton today?

I know this is a tough hypothetical, but here goes anyway...

Thinking of Clinton's positions on a range of issues -- health care, crime, education, foreign policy, trade, business, budgets, military issues, social security, medicare, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, church/state, court appointments, economic policy, the environment, etc. etc. -- would you vote for someone like him, policy-wise, in the general election if such a person won the Democratic nomination in 2008?

(Edited for clarity -- in the general election)

In the general, if he's the only realistic alternative to a rethuglican? You bet your sweet ass.

but I will be extremely unhappy at having to vote for another conservative like Clinton.

The conservative experiment is at the endpoint and it has been a miserable experience for 80% of the people in this country.

I just wish the wonks inside the Beltway would realize that and act accordingly, and that means NOT running another corporatist conservative.

Palees! Those at any extreem end of Politics will not survive.
While I agree that Pro-Choice is the only way to go, I would not vote soley on any one issue. I have written many a Letter to the Editor of my local Newspaper, in support of Pro Choice! I believe that none of us, man ofr woman, has the right to Choose for another! While I might not choose abortion, I can certainly understand why a young woman might feel the need to abort, or an older woman the need to abort, for many reasons, including health. It is a couragous decision, and one not many forget.
No Woman needs to face Pro Lifers, who have NO IDEA what they are feeling, at a Clinic.

Bill Clinton was a big disappointment to me--no health care and NAFTA.

But Bill was much better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.

He betrayed us.

For foisting on us that frictional unemployment, low inflation, stable GDP growth, record low interest levels and falling crime. To Hades with him for the first federal surpluses in 30 yrs, at least some genuine progress towards peace in the Middle East (since F'd up of course), stopping genocide in the Balkans, and leaving the US more respected and admired than when he found it. Bugger him with a bazooka for containing North Korea, Iran and Iraq while making Russia a solid ally.

Bastard. Worthless bastard!

I forgot how dark and bleak the world was in the 90's.

Let us not forget the immortal words of former Sen Graham, "Budget surpluses can be a bad thing."

Unless you are a Republican, he saved "our" asses. He defeated the Republican attempt to, in Gingrich's words, roll back government to the days before FDR," he prevented a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriages, he blocked a ban on gays in the military, and he shrunk the deficit by taxing the rich. You feel betrayed by that?

which he promised during his campaign.

Adding China to the WTO, NAFTA, welfare reform... there's lots more.

Yes, he did some good things.

On the whole... pass.

Are of the 'Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over at last!' school?

Did not see the edit.

Just go down the list, issue for issue. Compare Bubba to any of the recent R presidents. It's night and day on most things.

Wow. Those people shouldn't vote. They aren't good at it.

by doing more than don't ask don't tell and the FMLA, mabye we wouldn't have seen so many that were completely fed up.

When everything Bill tried to get passed was defeated by southern Democrats, led by Sam Nunn. You want to know who betrayed us? It was Nunn, not Clinton.

Don't Ask/Don't Tell, you might recall, was Clinton's successful attempt to prevent a permanent ban on gays in the military written into US law. When Clinton took office, he announced he was revoking the ban on gays in the military, which was a policy but not a federal law. Nunn led the revolt against this, planning to pass a law making it a crime for gay men and women to serve. They had a veto-proof majority, easily. Clinton, to head off that bill, agreed to DADT, which allowed gays to serve (an improvement over the contemporary system), and allowed the issue to remain policy, not law. Thus, it can be changed by executive order, rather than having to get a majority in Congress to pass a law overturning the Nunn law.

That's Clinton's first two years in a nutshell. Betrayed by the Dems, attacked by the media. After that, he turned moderate.

People forget how far right we were coming off Reagan/Bush. I still don't think we are as bad now as we were then. Clinton moved us far, far, far to the left. It wasn't far enough, but not a god damned other person could have gotten us that far. That's why I hate candidates like Kucinich and Gravel and Nader. People think that because they are liberal, they will make liberal progress. They won't. They will be uncompromising, which in politics means they will give the other side everything they want, and we will be in worse shape by the time they leave. Clinton left us far to the left of where we were when he went in. If Gore had not been sabatoged by Nader than outright robbed by BushCo, we could have continued to make strides.

Fight all purists. They are the enemy of progress.

as he promised to. Did those mean dems in congress prevent him from that, too?

What about his diligent work getting NAFTA through without any toothy labor or environmental provisions?

What about the Telecom bill? Can you pin that on congress, too?

How does their failure to win translate to you hating politicians with BETTER ideas and more integrity?

You do realize major progress is usually made when the two major(ly corrupt) political parties are FORCED to adopt policies that they start out fighting against?

Gore wasn't helped by Nader, but he helped push NAFTA. He did some of the damage himself, no one can deny that.

The net result of Clinton was a shift to the left from where we were under Reagan. Those politicians I named, whom you seem to thing have "better ideas" and "more integrity" (both of which I strongly disagree with), would have gotten nothing done. We'd have slid further to the right, because they would be unwilling to compromise. If they were willing, they'd have looked much like Clinton, and you'd complain about them, too.

As for Gore pushing NAFTA, good on him. The forced economic hegemony of the US is the greatest cause of human rights abuses, poverty, and famine around the globe. Any step to end that is a good one. It needs a better president than Bush to force decent regulations to protect against abuses, but Gore and Clinton took a more progressive, liberal approach than those who opposed NAFTA, even if the opponents mistakenly think of themselves as progressive or liberal.

Nader's a great example. He fought as hard as he could for his ideals. Net result? George W. Bush, wars in the Middle East, and one of the greatest periods of human slaughter in a our world's history. Nice values. Nice integrity.

that's a very interesting characterization of serious problems.

The net result of Clinton was a shift to the right in OUR party.

Those politicians have tried like hell to push our party back where it belongs, but some people seem happy moving ever further to the right. You seem to be one of those... cheering about how great NAFTA is.

On that note I don't see why there's any point discussing anything further. You and I will not see eye-to-eye. Gore's and Clinton's was more progressive & liberal? that would actually be funny if not for the damage done to so many lives...

Enjoy the continuing drift to the right... since you seem to think it's been a wonderful ride thus far.

Please.

:shrug:

So yes, you said that.

Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Richard Shelby, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell were all Democratic senators when Clinton took office. Two of them switched parties by 1995. That's not a more liberal Democratic Party.

Try taking a look from a wider perspective, perhaps?

:eyesroll:

The nation was conservative when Clinton took office. The Democratic Party was conservative when Clinton took office. That's the big picture that the specific examples in all of my posts prove. Clinton moved the nation to the left and made the Democratic Party viable again. If Nader hadn't betrayed us, Gore would have continued to push us leftward, and no doubt would be bashed unmercifully by the Clinton bashers for selling us out. We need more sell-outs like that, and fewer purists like Nader and Kucinich.

Look... IMO your entire premise is flawed. The triangulation that Clinton and his ilk indulged in did not make the Dems more successful, nor did it push the party leftward.

Whatever Gore might have done, he didn't get a chance, partially because of the state of the media that Clinton allowed to fester (Telecom Act, no Fairness Doctrine - again, as PROMISED).

would take place.

:shrug:

Don't know how that could mean anything but the general election of 2008.

mea frickin culpa all right?

thanks for starting this shit again though! srsly!

Odd conclusion.

Clinton did his job, the "leftists" failed him.

Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014692.php

I got ten bucks that says you can source that leak to someone who's working for another GOP candidate. I do so love it when they turn on each other.

I can't imagine earthy circumstances under which I would not vote for a Democrat. It's slightly insane not to.

I think that's going a bit to far.

I just think he did a poor job as a "liberal" president. What kind of liberal would fall for the welfare scapegoating of the right?

Even the position he took on that was the antithesis of liberal. Scapgoating people who have no political power and who are suffering is a really sick thing to do.

I thought he should have been ashamed of that mess. Especially since he made it possible to give the wealthy a nice tax break on the backs of welfare recipients while hiring them at sub living wages.

Not to mention listen to the news or read books by liberal Democrats.

Punch in "Bill Clinton Liberal"

You can search on "George Bush Liberal" too and get results.

Since you suggested I don't "read the board much," "not to mention listen to the news or read books by liberal Democrats," I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

I wasn't. :eyes:

"""Bill Clinton was a liberal.""" I know this will start another argument, but I will state it anyway. Everything Bill Clinton did was an effort to promote an agenda so liberal that often his own party turned on him. Remember the purge of Democrats from Congress in 1994? The media misrepresents this as a coup pulled off by Newt Gingrich, who capitalized on Clinton's unpopularity with the voters. But the media missed the point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/04/27_bushclinton.html

Well, you're right -- I wasn't reading DU, back then. :rofl:

Of the nine current members, who are your favorites.

(1) Don't Ask Don't Tell

(2) Welfare Reform Act

(3) NAFTA

(4) Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, etc.

(5) The Telecom Reform Act

(6) The Defense of Marriage Act

And, something I just learned (if one can believe Wikipedia)... makes me sick, anyway.:

Extraordinary rendition got approval for the first time in the USA from the Clinton administration.

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

If "A" Bill Clinton would even come close to delivering a list like that due to his/her cynical triangulation to the Right, I say NO.

TC

WHO PUSHED THE NAFTA DEAL;WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT AND AFTER THAT WAS BILLS BANNER BOY-YUP YOU GUESSES IT GOOD OLE GEORGE BUSH SENIOR-DO YOUR HOME WORK!

That list is straight from wikipedia. I linked it and everything. You have a prob, take it up with them. And, stop shouting at me! I can hear you even if you turn your Caps Lock off.


TC

I worked for Clinton Gore not because I thought he had no chance, but because his ability to communicate with the public was off the charts. We call that "charisma" and apparently friends of HRC still to this day think it was Bills political stance that was what people voted for.

It wasn't. There is only ONE Bill Clinton, and his ability to put an audience, even a hostile one, in the palm of his hand is unparalleled. Period.

It was the Clinton personna that got the votes. I'd do it again because I know a winner when I see one.

Along those lines, You know who I'm backing today. It's the same reason. Don't try to layer hair splitting politics on it, because it's about the charisma, not the issues. Dems are all on the right side of the issues. That's not the program.

Just Saying.

:sarcasm:

what a question.

I don't know that I could pull a lever for those sanctions, looking back.

a lot of this crowd don't see them as being a democrat worthy of their vote.

You do know there are some perfect people out there who have never made a mistake, aren't running or aren't doing very well, but "could" snap their fingers and make everything better.... :sarcasm:




Me, I would vote for him again in a heartbeat.

edgr

He had his faults but I still think the world was a better place when Bill ran it then it is today.

And unlike what we've seen so far (GUTLESS WONDERS!), these republican leaders in The Congress were proactive (jerks, but proactive ones).

I still disagree with the sanctions but for the most part, I thought Bill did a decent job.

That's why we are where we are today as a party. And, there are few who loved Bill Clinton more than me...and fought for him against the RW when they attacked his Presidency from DAY ONE!

But...it always bothered me that he pushed NAFTA through...and that was a niggling doubt. But...I figured at the time that NO ONE IS PERFECT and that it might work out. NAFTA and final Media Dereg of '96 were the nails in his Dem Credentials to this FDR Dem.... looking back. Mostly I sat through Clinton era defending him to my Repug friends ...which I lost after Selection 2000 when I became a Dem Radical and they didn't want to be around me.

did some things that went against traditional Democratic values. He talked the talk so well that we ignored the walk he was walking. The attacks that came from the GOP made us defend "our guy" especially when they turned their attention to a sexual dalliance that should only have concerned his wife. We were distracted from the things he did that we should have been up in arms about, or we were convinced he knew what he was doing. Now he's hanging out with Poppy Bush and Bar is counting him as another son! It makes you wonder. Is it all just a game to them, just a way to get rich?

Though his personal life was so sad, for his wife and daughter, and he could not keep it in his pants, that is hte business of his family, and certainly none of mine.
I would vote forhim a third time certainly, as I believe he has a brilliant mind, and did his best for the USA, and a pretty good job. Bring back the Congress and Executive Branch, and let hem go!
Lord knows that Bush has tread over the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the will of the Judicial and Legislative Branches!!

In a fucking heartbeat!

Even with all his faults (and no, I don't mean Monica), I'd still vote for someone like him!

It's not a tough hypothetical for me...

anticipating possible responses I can only say this, people who say they are democrats but wouldn't support Bill don't know squat about politics starting with the fact that he had to deal with a Republican congress. Anticipating another response, blaming the 94 election results singularly on Bill C instead of the whole Democratic party is denial of the highest order.

I know the issues that rankle a lot of folks who post on DU. The fact is, they rankle me, too. But on balance, and knowing perfection is unattainable, I'd vote for him again.

But more than that, I just like the guy. He's a rogue and a scamp and has a twinkle always in his eye. But he's also scary smart and competent. He's the prototypical alpha male (far more than that laconic slug, Fred Thompson, or the bully that is Rudy). That's a large part of what makes a leader.

Now ..... if he were running in the Dem primaries this go-round ...... I'd probably be looking for another candidate to support. But if he's our nominee ..... in the general election? Hell yeah.

ever!

What if Bill Clinton had succeeded Bush 43 rather than Bush 41? When Big Dog moved to the White House in 1993, the country was not bogged down in two losing wars (perhaps a third one if we attack Iran). The Constitution was still the Law of the Land. There was a Bill of Rights. There was habeas corpus and posse comitatus. The treasury was not bankrupt, a massive debt dumped on fture generations. The Middle East was slipping into anarchy, the peace process more dead than Reagan's corpse. Our jobs gone overseas while countless numbers of illegal immigrants poured through our borders. Our privacy gone, the government outdoing the Big Brother of Orwell's 1984.

The point I am trying to make is that even a talented guy like Bill Clinton would be overwhelmed by the legacy that Bush has left us.

I think we are beyond the point of no return, and there is nothing we can do, and no one to fix it.

THE ANSWER IS THE COUNTRY WOULD OVERWHELMINGLY VOTE HIM IN.POLL AFTER POLL HAS SHOWN HIM MORE POPULAR THAN EITHER BUSH OR ANY CANDIDATE THEY HAVE MUSTERED.
THE REASON THE COUNTRY IS FED UP WITH THE REPUBLICAN HIGHER UPS.
COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE IN BED WITH CORPORATE AMERICA?
I MIGHT KEEP MY EYE ON BILL WHEN MY WIFE WAS AROUND BUT I'D LEAVE MY WALLET ON THE KITCHEN TABLE WHILE I WENT TO THE JOHN AFTER DRINKING A SIX PACK WITH HIM.
I CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT ANY REPUBLICAN I'VE SEEN LATELY!

But I am voting for Kucinich in the Primaries, a real GD Democrate.
Bill except for DDE is possibly one of the best Republican presidents ever. But, even DDE was better for the People!

and the fact I have to ask may indicate my response.