Jeff Cohen: "the last Clinton in the White House subverted the progressive agenda."

While progressives desperately want a Democratic president, the last Clinton in the White House subverted the progressive agenda. Eight years of Clintonite triangulation caused the Democratic Party to decline at every level of government. Hillary today is surrounded by the same staff and would likely appoint the same corporate types to top jobs as Clinton I, where big decisions were often corrupt and calculated toward moneyed interests.

The toughest brawl Bill Clinton was willing to wage (besides saving his own hide from impeachment) was against the Democratic base: for the corporate-backed NAFTA. Through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Bill brought us far more media conglomeration than George W. He pardoned well-connected fugitive financier Marc Rich, while leaving Native American activist Leonard Peltier to rot in prison despite pleas from Amnesty International and others.

Hillary’s contribution to Clinton I was her botched healthcare proposal, a corporate-originated “reform” that would have enshrined a half-dozen of the largest insurance companies at the center of the system, and was so convoluted it never came up for a vote.

What we’ve seen of Hillary Clinton in the Senate and on the campaign trail suggests that Clinton II would indeed be a sorry sequel. Today she’s winning the endorsement of Republican CEOs, after having had Murdoch host a benefit for her at the Fox News building in 2006. Just as Bill Clinton’s spine achieved a rare firmness while battling for NAFTA, we recently observed in Hillary a rare passion and firmness on a single issue: her YearlyKos defense of lobbyists, including those who “represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

Like Bill campaigning as a populist and governing as a corporatist, Hillary’s stump speech proclaims she’ll end the Iraq war in January 2009, while she assures the New York Times of a long-term U.S. military presence inside Iraq. She’s tried to explain away her vote to authorize the war, but avoids mention of her even more dubious vote hours earlier against requiring United Nations approval (or, if U.N. approval failed, a second Congressional authorization) before war could begin. Her overall bellicosity on Iran and the Middle East wins praise from conservative pundits; her “Israel-right-or-wrong” stance could make Christian Zionists blush.

Published on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Hillary Rolls On: Are Netroots a Paper Tiger?
by Jeff Cohen

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/04/3610/

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

and he happens to be 100% correct about the Clinton Presidency.

How's that NAFTA working out for you?

Pretty tough to judge that bit of legislation fairly under the circumstances.

his conclusion.

But he is a good guy!

"ridiculous innuendo, smears and lies... using right-wing sources"?

..a "a hate-filled tool of the right-wing".

Well shuffle me off to the Reeducation Camp, pops...

:crazy:

but people who stupidly use words like "dynasty" are just hateful and ignorant, and are doing the work, probably unwittingly, of the right-wing.

OK.

A political dynasty is "a sequence of powerful leaders in the same family". (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dynasty)

Is it "hateful and ignorant" to define and assign the term "dynasty" to Bill Clinton, who was president, with his wife, Hillary Clinton? Are actual facts "doing the work, probably unwittingly, of the right-wing"?

Certainly I would assume you know what a "dynasty" is and that is is perfectly defined as such if (and it won't happen) Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2009.

This one-trick pony garbage about "doing the work, probably unwittingly, of the right-wing" when alluding to the myriad of faults of the Clinton canidacy is amusing, as is watching someone run flatly into a wall and fall down.

People who refer to other Democrats who happen to disagree with them as
"hate filled and ignorant" are doing the work of the right wing.

know.

I start so many threads attacking one of our candidates.... oh wait. No I don't. I've never done it.

Try again.

why would a right winger complain that a progressive agenda was abandoned?

they wouldn't. think. think. don't type. think.

no, what you don't realize is that genuine progressives, traditional democrats, have real reason to hate her, and hate they do, to a degree you obviously can not imagine.

I said he was a tool of the right-wing, as are all who post baseless smears against ANY of our candidates.

frankly, I think I am fighting against rw interests, as I am certain beyond certainty that she is who they want to run against.


I for one, am not a tool of the rw, and I dislike her immensely, and do my tiny, tiny bit to dissuade maybe one supporter on this site from voting for her. it won't happen, but i feel i must do something, as ineffectual as it might be.


if she gets the nomination, I will be quiet. until then, I will do anything, as will every single politically active person I know, to keep her from getting the nom, and ruining our party.

but people who do nothing here but post lies, smears and innuendo against ANY of our candidates, as the OP does, is a tool.

LOTS of threads slamming Clinton, many of them based on the thinnest of innuendo.

It's stupid. There's a candidate I really really hate, but I would never start a thread trashing him, because he might be our nominee.

I don't come here to attack Democrats and try to derail their election.

Is pointing out verifiable actions and policies a "baseless smear"?

Indisputable fact -- Clinton's major passion was pushing through NAFTA despite the opposition of unions, environmentalists, human-rights advocates and economists who saw it as folly.

And another indisputable is that the Telecommunications Reform Act DID usher in unprecidented consolidation and deregulation of the media. George Bush did not even come close in his records on this.

Indisputable fact -- Clinton's major passion was pushing through NAFTA despite the opposition of unions, environmentalists, human-rights advocates and economists who saw it as folly.

Nope, sorry. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, he complemented it with the NAAEC and NAALC (now, I'm sure you know what those are, right?) NAFTA was, and still is, supported by economists and dignitaries like Al Gore. It's easy now to look back and see the areas it failed in. But this is years later.

And another indisputable is that the Telecommunications Reform Act DID usher in unprecidented consolidation and deregulation of the media.

yes it did, but the conditions of the media that have you so disturbed were brought on by cable news - not covered under this act. In other words, we'd still have FOX news if the telecom act had never been signed.

Frankly, I could care less if one or two companies own most of the media outlets in my local market. I've never seen a situation, and I doubt you could point to one, where competing newspapers, TV, and radio stations suddenly became a unified voice for evil corporations and conservatives.

The telecom act's true nefarious outcome was eliminating competition among in the telecom industry - wireless communications, etc., which is why you can't get a good deal on cell phone service.

>>>Nope, sorry. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, he complemented it with the NAAEC and NAALC (now, I'm sure you know what those are, right?) NAFTA was, and still is, supported by economists and dignitaries like Al Gore. It's easy now to look back and see the areas it failed in. But this is years later.

Bill Clinton could have taken many courses with NAFTA. He chose, typically, to put in toothless adendums that are vastly outweighed by the more destructive aspects of the NAFTA philosophy...At the time NAFTA was being negotiated and implented, many people foresaw the negative consequences we are experiencing today. But those who did warn against it were dismissed as crazy leftists or "isolationists who are against trade."

>>>>> yes it did, but the conditions of the media that have you so disturbed were brought on by cable news - not covered under this act. In other words, we'd still have FOX news if the telecom act had never been signed.

The fact of cable SHOULD HAVE created a more diverse and competative environment. Instead, the complete avoidence of anti-trust regulations limiting ownership has allowed cable to simply become the minor leagues of the same handful of giant corporations that own the broadcast media.

As for Fox, their existence doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me is that Fox operates in an environment where GE, Murdoch, Time Warner and a handful of others have such a grip on cable that it is almost impossible for outsiders to get in.

>>>>Frankly, I could care less if one or two companies own most of the media outlets in my local market. I've never seen a situation, and I doubt you could point to one, where competing newspapers, TV, and radio stations suddenly became a unified voice for evil corporations and conservatives.

That in a hutshell, is where we differ. IMO it should botehr you anytime monopolists are able to gain a stranglehold on a market -- especially the information market. And, if you botehred to do any kind of scrutiny, you'd see that they do serve as a unified voice for a very narrow spectrum of interests.

>>The telecom act's true nefarious outcome was eliminating competition among in the telecom industry - wireless communications, etc., which is why you can't get a good deal on cell phone service.


I'd agree with you on that -- the whole thrust of telecommunications "reforms" that put such resources into the hands of a few, is nefarious.

Kucinich or Edwards for me in the Primary. If it's Clinton in the General Election, I'm staying home.

Many former Republicans like myself will take your place at the polls.

We always vote.

I hope you like our big tent!

....he/she will....many former republicans find todays Dems much more comfortable than they could have ever imagined....

....a greater comfort level than any progressive will experience....

eom

...buddy. I was a 'Pub for years until I lived in Texas and actually saw what those people are about.

I would characterize myself as an extremely conservative Democrat, ala Sam Nunn or Zell Miller. I'm a social conservative who understands how badly we've let our system of public education and national physical infrastructure run down and decay. We need to start paying our bills (personal and public) and stop living beyond our means.

We also need to have a national conversation about what kind of country we want. That hasn't happened in many, many years.

We need to lock down the border...and if that means we don't have cheap lawn services or cheap dry cleaning anymore, so be it. Put the high school kids to work! Once again, not a new concept.

We need to restore our manufacturing base...and if that requires some kind of public/private partnership, so be it. There's no damn reason for everyone driving foreign cars other than General Motors and Ford deciding that making cars for this market isn't important. We take care of America and Americans first. Maybe it's time to eliminate some of those tax incentives for American companies pushing jobs offshore.

It's also about paying our bills and not living off borrowed money from the Chinese and Koreans and God knows who else. It's not just an economic issue...it's moral. What we're doing is a sin. People during the Great Depression would never have tolerated it then and we shouldn't tolerate it now.

I'm pro-life, pro-gun and I don't like militant feminists. Kate Michelman is a slug...but that being said, I'll also tell you I've worked with female unix engineers and database administrators who run circles around the guys. For that reason alone, the fact that we still have females making less than males in the same profession is a crime.

I'm also no fan of the gay lobby. Not gays. I said the gay lobby. Everything they touch gets corrupted. It's always some kind of drama with them. Jeez, here's your anti-depressant for the day...

I'll say it again. I want 1964 back. We could do it. This is America. We can do anything.

:sarcasm:

:hi:

I'm sick of these stupid threats by people behaving like children. If you would rather stay home and pout, knock yourself out. I'll take Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsberg as judges anytime over Scalia and Thomas and that is who you will get by indulging your temper tantrum.

then stop supporting corporate shills. If you insist on cramming hillary down our throats then you will get what you deserve, more corporate toadying and more war. We need a candidate that won't sell us down the river the second a lobbyist waves a check in front of her face.
Unless of course unless that's what you really want.

And I'm not cramming anybody down anyone's throat. The REALITY is these are our choices. Are they perfect - no, far from it and I'm angry about it as well. But I'm a realist. And as I stated in another post, the supreme court is way too important to give a pub more picks. These decisions will be touching our lives for decades.

In a perfect world, Dennis would be my pick, but reality is, he would get crushed in the general. The middle has been deciding elections for 30 years and the party that doesn't get them on board is doomed to minority status. I'd rather get most of what I want rather than nothing. Am I pissed about it, you bet.

that the Dems in DC are completely ignoring the issues of liberals, progressives, people who simply don't want to keep fighting a war that should never have been started.

They've got your vote anyway. Why should they care what you think?

Those who draw the line and won't support totally unDemocratic behavior -- and who say so loudly -- are the only ones putting any pressure on the Hoyers, Pelosis, etc. of the party.

You're not helping.

The same sort of thinkers were happier pointing fingers at Nader voters, when they should have taken the time to sort out why people who should have fit under a Democratic "big tent" believed that they'd been kicked out in the rain. It should be noted that you will often see many of those currently calling people "purists" or "haters" can be found ranting on the spineless Dem. threads that spring after yet another capitulating vote. Now, I don't post on those threads mostly because I think that they are waste of time. The following week the same posters swear that anyone threatening to withhold their support is nothing but a traitor. Go figure?

Cripes! Can it be? There are people here defending NAFTA posting here. Tell it to my unemployed neighbors.

...NAFTA, but I would tell you that not everyone has been devastated by it. North Texas is growing like crazy because of the increase in business activity. They can't lay down highways, schools and churches fast enough. I remember flying down I-35 at 80-90 MPH on a Saturday morning to shop at the factory outlet south of Austin. We'd make it to Ellis county, I'd wind up the Volvo and set it on cruise, but no more. There's too much traffic these days.

Ditto for much of the Carolinas and deep southern states. Just about all of the rubber industry is now either in Charlotte or Nashville. Newell Rubbermaid moved to Atlanta several years ago. Bridgestone has closed up most of Firestone's old operations and consolidated it in Nashville, also. I just heard where Hershey is relocating most of its manufacturing operations to Mexico...and that's a big deal because they were a very large employer in Pennsylvania.

At the same time, places like NE Ohio continue their slow decline...but part of it is their own fault. Everything there is about the past. I've never seen so many old folks in one place in my life. When you fly over it the place looks sick, as though something's wrong. Compare and contrast Greater Cleveland with Orange County, California and the difference is like night and day. Scratch that - the difference is like comparing between two separate dimensions.

...the rest of the base.

Part of the way that you keep DLCers from getting the nomination is to point out that you wouldn't be willing to vote for that person.

Have you seen what happens when someone at DU tries to do that? (Someone says: Stay the fuck home then!)

Believe me, if I got the call about approving of congress, my answer would be a resounding NO. However, the supreme court is just too important and the damage the chimp has done with Roberts and Alito will be felt for DECADES. I cannot, in good conscience, not vote for a dem on this issue alone. I can't cut off my nose to spite my face here. Do I feel helpless about it - I think that's obvious in my swearing so much in that post (I don't usually do that). I also look at it like "Do I want someone who agrees with me on 75% of my issues or someone who will give me 10%". For me, it's an easy answer.

My point is that on a Democratic board, I'm sick of hearing about people threatening not to vote. If you don't want to vote, don't. It's that simple. Now leave it to the rest of us who don't want to lie down and let this happen to them to do what we can to make things better.

So what if Hillary doesn't meet your purity standards? Warts and all, she'll still be a thousand times better than any Republikkkan candidate.

Vote progressive in the primaries...vote Democrat in the general.

(BTW, I have not committed myself to any one POTUS candidate, and probably won't until I go to the poll for the primary)

:kick:

We can pick between two candidates that will equally fuck working people and keep us bogged down in Iraq. If this country elects hillary then we deserve the useless and corrupt gov't that we will surely get.

Edwards is a far better candidate. Hillary will not win in 2008. Too many people really can't stand her. Her negatives are terrible.

And when it comes to the issues, the original post on this thread is correct. The Clintons are Republican-lite. We can do better. If you are a Hillary supporter, check out Edwards' website. Listen to his videos. He has hardly been allowed to talk in the debates. If you listen to him, you will probably like him more than you could believe.

What are you going to do, piss and moan? Stay at home and not vote? If you do that, that's one more vote that is NOT going to the Democratic nominee in the general election to defeat the Repuke fascist pig. The voting machine does not count who you vote against, only who you vote for.

I'm NOT a Hillary supporter, BTW. As I've said, I have no emotional or monetary dog in this fight.

Fuck your purity templates, people. After Bush/Cheney, we need somebody who is even just halfway competent to be POTUS. Nobody in the Republikkkan Party fits that bill - but every one of the Democratic nominees does.

Vote progressive in the primaries - vote Democrat in the general election, whether progressive or not.

:kick:

If Hillary is half the President Bill was, she'll do fine by the People of America.

eom

internet boom of the 90's and the prosperous economy.

However, it doesn't say what he actually did to make that happen.

I live in Michigan. Our economy is in shambles. We have a Democratic gov. Is she now a really bad governor?

Don't confuse association with causality.

If you want to prove Clinton was great, make an argument. Just providing links is lazy, frankly.

I'm not making a case for Bill Clinton per-se, he's not running. I'm defending him against a "lazy" insinuation that Hillary = Bill and as such we're doomed. Clinton had economic policies that worked, the robust economy was not simply a matter of "association." Here's analysis by the PPI. I'm going to be "lazy" again and make you click on the link.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=252964

Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch. But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices.



Many of Bill Clinton's other accomplishments are also outlined in the links I provided above, which you overlooked apparently?

As for Michigan, it's suffering along with the rest of this country.

...head-in the sand defense of corporate "free trade" and the evils of those who criticize Corporate Globalization

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecid=206&contentid=254192

Healthy Factories, Anxious Workers


...In such an environment, it should not be surprising to see (President Warren) Harding's ideas return to fashion.

Newly elected Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) warns of the mass "movement of U.S. industries and U.S. jobs to low-wage countries;" while CNN journalist Lou Dobbs talks about the "destruction of America's manufacturing base;" and long-shot Republican presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) echoes both. Intellectuals like William Greider and Jeff Faux back them up with gloomy books and statistics. All agree that the United States is "deindustrializing" as its businesses face impossible competition from large, low-cost countries. They suggest essentially the same remedy -- trade restrictions of various kinds to ease competition -- that Harding and his successors, Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, convinced the America of the 1920s to adopt. The only difference is that while the trade skeptics of that era were business-minded conservatives, most of their modern heirs tilt left.

Like Harding then, populists now get the diagnosis wrong, and suggest medicines that will make it worse. A closer look finds that the United States is not losing its industrial eminence today any more than it was in 1921 To the contrary, American factories are proving Einstein right and Harding wrong once again. As they adopt new technologies to save costs, their productivity is rising, their exports are soaring, and their share of world manufacturing remains strong. Trade restriction would damage rather than help them, by raising input costs and depriving them of overseas markets -- just as America's housing boom fades and the need for export markets is greatest.

But though populists are wrong about the cause of contemporary worker anxiety, they are often right about the symptoms. American industry is evolving very quickly, and its very success is eroding old sources of security for workers -- not only job security, but the confidence of families in their own health insurance and pensions, and their children's college prospects. The resulting anxiety is well-founded, and requires a systematic response -- through radical change in public policy, the trade union movement, and the postwar social contract.

We need to address these anxieties with public policies. But those policies must be grounded in an accurate diagnosis of the problem that is causing them -- and policies based on misdiagnoses are more likely to make the problem worse than to fix it...

Do you oppose trade restrictions/tarifs? How about ...free universities, larger more focused trade union movements, extensive unemployment benefits - job training and placement services, a national health care system, wage insurance, and pension guarantees beyond Social Security?

I agree with the PPI's assertion that "the American public has ample reason for anxiety."

their whole goal is to disempower labor and avoid gov't regulation and go back to the bad old days of early industrialization before the progressive gains of the 1900's. Unlucky for them, they couldn't do it here. But unlucky for us, they decided to just take it over borders and over seas where there is less regulation and ample lack of respect for human decency in the work environment. Less wages, less safety, less regard for the work or the consumer (aka people).

The corporatists won when Clinton signed NAFTA. And hey we have more lead and cadmium in our Children's toys!!!

And guess what happens when it's too expensive to do business in china and mexico, we move production to Africa!! Just wait and see.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) eliminated the majority of tariffs between products traded among the United States, Canada and Mexico, and gradually phases out other tariffs over a 10-year period.

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

Clinton renewed NAFTA, it was originally enacted by Bush 1. Clinton renegotiated the agreement adding protections that are not being enforced/considered today.

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

One of the worst things to happen to the real American economy has been the policies that encouraged and made it possible to basically ship our production capacity over to China.

There is simply no excuse for that, and in a truly balanced set of economic policies it would not have been allowed to happen.

agreements properly.

Peace Armstead, I'm off to ready the house for turkey day.

:hi:

<<<I agree with the PPI's assertion that "the American public has ample reason for anxiety."

So do I. But until they admit that the policies and brand of politics they represent are a large cause of the reasons for anxiety, it is hard to take them seriously.

Again, :hi: Happy Holidays

...are a direct result of Clinton's economic policies:

NAFTA, fast tracking China

Temporality does not mean causality.

Again, tell me what he did that made a difference. Give me some specific super progressive decisions that had a long lasting effect. I think you will be hard pressed to do so.

Also, Michigan is actually doing particularly poorly, especially my county. And I can 100% tell you for sure that many of my patients have lost jobs because of NAFTA, ushered in by the corporatists and signed bye the corporatist in Chief, Bill Clinton.

Is Bush 1,000x's worse? Yes! But that doesn't excuse the Clinton's corporatist tendencies.

I've given you links to examine for a contrast, I'm not going to bloviate on his Presidency. If you want to discuss Hillary Clinton's voting record, which is germain to the climate today, feel free.

Here is some info from Project Vote Smart:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Clinton.htm

I have said before that I think HC is too hawkish, but she has a great record on other issues, and I'd ask you to find ONE contemporary Republican record that rivals it.

I'm off to prepare for the coming Holiday. Have a happy .... :hi:

NAFTA and China's fast track are two different things. However, the goal is the same and that is to exploit cheap labor until it is no longer cheap then move on to the next country/region meanwhile avoiding health, environmental, and consumer regulations.

All in the name of getting lead in our children's toys!!!

Thanks Clinton!!!

Also, you can't give credit to the Clintons for the 90's as you have but then act like Hillary somehow has nothing to do with Clinton, even though she wouldn't end NAFTA if given a choice.

Further, Clinton did not create NAFTA, he renewed the agreement with added environmental protections that are not being enforced by the Bush Government.

Also, you can't give credit to the Clintons for the 90's ...

Lastly, I am not the one who equats Hillary to Bill. I don't support Clinton, in fact, she's third on my list of the top three candidates. However, this thread is an attempt to equate the two, and if that's the case, I'll GLADLY take another eight years of Clinton leadership, thanks very much.

Taking a cleaning break and wanted to respond to the snark. :hi:

I'm a snark, then guilty as charged.

And here's a WIKI blurb on the matter:

"NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, especially among intellectuals who stated that it was an ill-conceived initiative. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).<5> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<6>"

here's a good one for ya:

"In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993."

Yeah, you can't have it both ways, Molly

added protections > NAAEC and NAALC (as noted above) that are not being enforced. Bush is failing to protect American jobs, or enforce labor and environmental protections.

and he kept open the SOA, the school for Latin American torturers and assassins at Fort Benning.

We can do a lot better than to replace Bush with another Clinton.

he balanced the budget and left us a surplus, he increased head start funding, he increased veterans benefits etc...

Give me Bill Clinton again, any day of the week. However, Bill isn't running in 08, Hillary is, and while she's not at the top of my list, I'd gladly vote for her given she gets the nomination.

2-for-1. That's what Bill and Hillary say. Plus, Hillary is claiming she was a key advisor in the White House. She can't claim Bill's successes as her own, while failing to take responsibility for the failures. She can't have it both ways!

We have better candidates running, none of which carry the Clinton baggage.

and the other is now on disability. Both voted for Clinton/Gore.

Clinton had a 70% approval rating during his impeachment, if that's baggage, I want more.

My personal issue with "Hill" is that she appears too hawkish. I don't want her proving that "women are tough" at the expense of the people of this earth. I think that's a credible concern given her record and statements on foreign policy. But, I don't think people will get very far comparing her to Bill, as he was well thought of as a President by most of America.

If you think he was a liberal, you're delusional.

:eyes:

and so is his little "missus."

For one thing, as shown in the quote below, he over-states the surplus by including Social Security as general revenue. Over-stating the surplus and the projected surplus was a mistake (and a lie). It helped to fuel the public perception that 'we can afford the Bush tax cuts'.






"Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. The Office of Management and Budget is now projecting a surplus of at least $230 billion for 2000 - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Compared with original projections, that is over $685 billion less in government drain on the economy and over $685 billion more potentially available for private investment in this one year alone. The 2000 surplus is projected to be 2.4 percent of GDP -- the largest surplus as a share of GDP since 1948. This is the first time we have had three surpluses in a row in more than a half century, and it is the second consecutive surplus excluding Social Security."

with the Clinton administration claiming a $235 billion surplus in 2000 when the bulk of that surplus was social security surplus. Bush was using Clinton administration numbers for the projected surplus when he ran for office in 2000. That was when the tax cut was sold to the American people.

Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that "there never was a surplus" under President Clinton. In fact, from 1998 to 2001, the federal government ran total annual budget surpluses of between $69.2 billion and $236.2 billion, according to figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130001

Even Commondreams has a piece flattering on Clinton:

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his “base” as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion “nominal” deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion.

This shell game with federal trust funds taints all official forecasts about Bush’s deficits going forward. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit at $2.3 trillion, to be sure, a breathtaking shortfall from the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited from Clinton. But as with the yearly number, this one ignores the trust fund sleight of hand, an omission of some $2.4 trillion. When this is added back in, Bush’s ten year deficit leaps to $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton’s number.

However, do you know what Hillary Clinton's position is on the economy? That's what is relevant here.

I never said that 'there never was a surplus' I said that the surplus was over-stated by putting the social security surplus in it.

Both Commondreams and mediamatters are using inaccurate numbers from the Clinton administration. The $236.2 billion includes about $150 billion of social security surplus.

As for Hillary's positon on the economy, I am not sure she has taken one. Not until fiscal responsibility is established and a bipartisan commission is created. Oh, and she promises to 'revive the middle class' which she defines as families making between $70,000-150,000 and I suppose the benefits from those policies will trickle down to the poor, and the 70% of families making less than $70,000 a year.

However, we had a surplus, we now have a gaping deficit. I'm not going to argue the semantics, it's pointless.

I also have no problem discussing the voting record of Senator Clinton, but this discussion that she is Bill Clinton and as such is a Republican is absurd.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, I'm out. :hi:

I think destroying generations of people anywhere pretty much negates that *stirling* record.

Nor, does that negate his accomplishments.

would have put Breyer and Ginsberg on the court. Stop with the hyperbole.

reducing class room sizes, adequately funding head start, expanding student loans and pell grants, attempting to achieve national health care, protecting the environment, fair taxation, safe drinking water, child care assistance, reducing crime in poverty stricken areas, etc...

Bologna, Clinton was a Democrat who refers to himself as a "centrist." A FAR cry from any Republican.

Show me one Republican with a voting record that rivals Hillary Clinton on the overall issues, not just ONE or TWO, and then we'll have a topic worth consideration.

Peace

Next I hear Clinton accused of "triangulation", which I can't find a meaningful definition for anywhere, I am going to go crazy. There are plenty of real issues to talk about.

...you're not gonna get what you want. This is not Europe. This is not a socialist country.

I'm thinking we're gonna get another 'Pub...possibly Giuliani.

the republiks were in majority after 1994 and he triangulated and balanced
the budget on back of welfare reform and Nafta. Bill was also helped to a large
degree by the internet boom which peaked in 2000 and brought in tremendous amounts
of tax on capital gains from the instant internet millionaires.

:)

Pocks on both their houses...

It's time for real change.

I am a Progressive and I'd vote for Bill again in a heartbeat. :shrug:

Why stir up old shit? Ain't got nuttin' new?

instead of letting become star struck.

Which elevates it far above the usual.

I mean, real issues.

Edwards real record?

:eyes:

to point out the hypocrisy around here, and try to level the playing field.

I think that Hillary can be judged on her own performance and record and not as an extension of the Clinton presidency. That's why I am going to vote against her. Have not funded anyone, yet, which is probably a mistake.

then the type of REIGN bush has had. People that don't know the difference don't deserve to be American citizens.

We have very fine candidates running, Biden and Dodd to name only two, that trump Hillary on experience, that don't bring to the table the Clinton baggage, and that voted against Kyl-Lieberman.

Don't be fooled by the creepy funny uncle he likes to play on stage.

He voted for the Bankruptcy bill and voted down ammendments that protected our most vulnerable citizens. He also opposes fed funding for abortion and partial birth abortion. Not to mention that he still supports the Patriot Act and voted for the war.

His constant excuse for these votes is "duh, I didn't know".

Biden may actually be worse than Clinton was. Clinton vetoed the stupid Bankruptcy bill that Biden voted for TWICE!!!!

That's not the same as voting against or vetoing it!

And if she's accusing Obama of staying out and not voting when it counted, that was one case where she clearly didn't want to have her position on that bill in print! Typical "bipartisan" way of voting the way many "centrist" dems vote these days (trying not to offend either who is perceived to be as their constituency, and those that are their constituency, the corporations)

:toast:

I don't know how it could get any worse than what we have now in the WH.

The point of the original post is that the Clinton Presidency was not a Presidency that pushed a progressive agenda. NAFTA was not a "progressive" cause, it served the interests of the corporations.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was not a "progressive" cause, it served the interests of the corporate media.

And let's not forget the continuation of the Economic Sanctions on Iraq throughout the CLinton Presidency that the UN says was responsible for 500,000 Iraqi deaths for which Madeline Albright claimed that "the price was worth it"....

Did we mention his bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan, and the bombing of Belgrade's power station in the middle of winter, a war crime!

single payer system inspite of a democratic majority in congress in 1993 & 1994.

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

What made the Clinton years seem so "great" was a booming peacetime economy.
The internet and housing boom, the facilitation of media
consolidation and out-sourcing. Good times for Wall Street.

No wonder they want the Clinton years back.

were it not for the actions of the Clintons. I'll be damned if we're going to let you decide who's going to stay in this country.

Because that is exactly what happened and WHY BushInc became STRONGER in the 90s without the congressional scrutiny, leading us directly to Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Responsible CITIZENS who want to be respected with honest and open government expect that government to be accountable to the CITIZENS.

Hating Hillary has become a full time occupation for some.

Or are the real "cowards" the "Democrats" who fight impeachment and the anti-war crowd harder than they ever DREAMED of fighting George Bush?

Hey-As long as we are calling each other names...

By the time you figure that out, you will have wasted your time supporting candidates who are just giving you lip service.

What some call the progressive agenda is just a bag of ideas that democrats dig into when they need campaign material. Once they get into office, its really all negotiable. You think Bill Clinton is the worst? No, he was the best. Because he did all he could in the face of vicious GOP pressure and a weak-kneed Democratic Party. That's why I am for Hillary. Corporate or not, when it comes time to stand up to them, she will. And we desperately need that.

Agenda? Our agenda does not exist, if not a one of these top Dem leaders will call for impeachment - or at least say its the right thing to do. There is no agenda. Its just all politics. And they all just want to get elected. And they will all ell us out if they feel the need - except maybe Kucinich.

See the traitor wing's passionate support of Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party), and their passionate attacks on Lamont and the "nut roots"

For something that doesnt exist, the Traitor wing of the party sure does attack it!!!

I never said Bill Clinton was "the worst" btw- I was just noting your use of the word "coward" for someone who who disagrees with you.

I generally liked Clinton at the time- I certainly supported him & defended him no matter what.

I'm not even sure how "progressive" I am-I'm pretty moderate when it comes to most issues- for me it's about being a real opposition party-fighting corrupt, criminal Republicans is part of it- and I havent seen Hillary and CERTAINLY not the DLCers & "centrists" as a part of that since 9/11.

Truer words have never been spoken.

And still, the party never seems to learn- though many of the rest of us have, and a LOT of them will never vote for another Clinton.

"Progressives"* continually fall back on this post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy, really no different than the assumption that George Bush’s foreign policy has thwarted Jihadist Terrorism because there have been no strikes on the U.S. since 9/11. The fact is, the Democratic party's dominance had been weakening for years, starting in the late 60s. The Democrats lost 5 House seats in 1968, 12 seats in 1972, 15 seats in 1978, 35 seats in 1980, 16 seats in 1984, and 9 seats in 1992. We also lost control of the Senate for six years in 1980.

If this is going to be our weekly DU revisit to 1994, I'll tell you now the facts of that year have not changed. There was years of pent-up popular frustration with a Democratic-dominated Congress, skillfully exploited by the GOP’s dishonest but resolute alliance with the term-limits and balanced-budget movements.

If "progressives"* didn't rely on simple-simon agenda driven explanations contained in the OP, their memories would clear and they'd remember the early 90s gave us...

* ... an unpopular embrace of traditional liberal issues like gun control, health care, and gay rights that had Clinton's popularity plummeting.

* ... rubbergate.

* ... a huge number of Democratic retirements in conservative districts.

* ... racial gerrymandering that guaranteed big southern losses in the House

* ... the first big mobilization of the Christian Right...

Of course, the fact Clinton won reelection in 1996 along with a handful of House seats, Democrats won more House seats in 1998, and again won more House seats in 2000 is pretty inconvenient to Jeff Cohen's hypothesis.

So what's left when the facts are examined? Clintonism worked. Not only was Bill Clinton the first Democratic president in 60 years to be reelected, but consider this: In the three elections before 1992, Democrats averaged 58 electoral votes. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton averaged 375. He won a dozen red states twice.

"Progressives"* and Republicans hate Bill Clinton for the same reason. He succeeded where Republicans failed and he succeeded doing it differently than "progressives"* would have.

Don't vote for Clinton II in 2008.

That is all.:patriot:

The awesome Clinton record:

longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993
AGAINST TERRORISM

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. Launched pilot projects in low-income communities across the country to redevelop contaminated sites into useable space, create jobs and enhance community development.

President Bill Clinton sought permanent funding of $1.4 billion a year through the Lands Legacy initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide significant new resources to states and communities to protect local green spaces and protect ocean and coastal resources. Won $652 million for Lands Legacy in the FY 2000 budget, a 42 percent increase.

Launched effort to protect over 40 million acres of "roadless areas," which include some of America's last wild places. Dramatically improved management of our national forests with an ambitious new science-based agenda that places greater emphasis on recreation, wildlife and water quality, while reforming logging practices to ensure steady, sustainable supplies of timber and jobs. Balanced the preservation of old-growth stands with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities through the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Adopted a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other light-duty trucks, producing cars that are 77 percent cleaner -- and light-duty trucks up to 95 percent cleaner -- than those on the road today. Set new standard to reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline by up to 90 percent. Once fully implemented in 2030, these measures will prevent 43,000 premature deaths and 173,000 cases of childhood respiratory illness each year, and reduce emissions by the equivalent to removing 164 million cars from the road.

# Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. Defending the standards against legal assaults by polluters.

# Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as the previous two administrations, with cleanup of more than 90 percent of all sites either completed or in progress. Secured $1.4 billion in FY 2000 to continue progress toward cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by 2002.

# Providing Safe Drinking Water: Proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure that our families have healthy clean tap water. Required America's 55,000 water utility companies to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water.

# Established EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that provides grants to States to finance priority drinking water projects that meet Clean Water Act mandates. To date, the DWSRFs have provided $1.9 billion in loans to communities.

# Awarded nearly $200 million in Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and grants for over 100 safe drinking water projects in rural areas of 40 states. USDA grants and loans target rural communities plagued by some of the nation's worst water quality and dependability problems.

# Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communities from potentially dangerous microbes, including Cryptosporidium, in their drinking water.

# Ensuring Clean Water. Launched the Clean Water Action Plan to help clean up the 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways still too polluted for fishing and swimming. Secured $3.9 billion since 1998, a 16 percent increase, to help states, communities and landowners in reducing polluted runoff, enhancing natural resource stewardship, improving citizens' right to know, and protecting public health.

# Strengthening Communities' Right to Know. Strengthened the public's right to know about chemicals released into their air and water by partnering with the chemical industry and the environmental community in an effort to provide complete data on the potential health risks of the 2,800 most widely used chemicals. Nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to communities, while expanding the number of facilities that must report by 30 percent.

# Expanded the community right to know about releases of 27 persistent bio-accumulative toxins (including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs). These highly toxic chemicals are especially risky because they do not break down easily and are known to accumulate in the human body.

# Secured $83 million in FY 2000 for two major new efforts to restore salmon in the Pacific Northwest: $58 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which provides resources for states and tribes to protect and rebuild salmon stocks; and $25 million to implement the historic Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, which established two regional funds to improve fisheries management and enhance bilateral scientific cooperation between the two countries and provides funding to buy back fishing permits in Washington.

# Expanding Wildlife Refuges. Added 57,000 acres, including lands along the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River, to the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to protect salmon habitat in Washington.

# Forging Partnerships to Protect Habitat. Completed 255 major Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), compared to 14 before the Administration took office, to protect more than 20 million acres of private land and over 170 threatened and endangered species. These voluntary agreements protect habitat while providing landowners the certainty they need to effectively manage their lands.

# Strengthening Protections for Wildlife. Signed legislation that strengthens protections for wildlife by mandating that the most important use of our nation's wildlife refuges is giving refuge to migratory birds and other animals reliant on this rich system of natural habitat.

Protecting our Oceans and Coasts

# Creating Comprehensive Oceans Policy. Directed the development of key recommendations for strengthening federal oceans policy for the 21st century and appointed a high-level task force to oversee the implementation of those recommendations. Convened a National Ocean Conference in June 1998 that brought together government experts, business executives, scientists, environmentalists, elected officials and the public to examine opportunities and challenges in restoring and protecting our ocean resources.

# Strengthening Our National Marine Sanctuaries. Secured a funding increase of over 100% to better support national marine sanctuaries -- homes to coral reefs, kelp forests, humpback whales, and loggerhead turtles. Supporting the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions to explore, study and document ways to better protect underwater resources.

# Preserving Coral Reefs. Issued an Executive Order to expand protection of coral reefs and their ecosystems to address issues of coral reef management, expansion of marine protected areas and increased protections for coral reef species.

# Protecting Marine Mammals. Led negotiations resulting in a multilateral agreement to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Issued new standards to protect the endangered northern right whale from injuries from ships by instituting a first-ever ship reporting requirement in two areas of right whale critical habitat. Fought for creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an area of more than 12 million square miles off the coast of Antarctica.

# Banning Ocean Dumping of Toxic Waste. Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The U.S. was the first nuclear power to advocate the ban.

Introduced "Better America Bonds" to generate $10.75 billion in bond authority over five years to preserve open space, improve water quality and clean up abandoned and contaminated properties known as brownfields. Local communities can work together in partnerships with land trust groups, environmentalists, business leaders and others to develop innovative solutions to their community's development challenges.

# Provided leadership critical to successful negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.

# Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money. Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001, reducing emissions and reliance on imported oil.

# Growing Clean Energy Technologies. Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies, which can convert crops, trees and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and materials. Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons a year -- the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

# Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earth's climate system. This record research budget continues strong support for the "Carbon Cycle Initiative" begun last year to improve our understanding of the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed lands in capturing carbon.

# Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances. Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. The new standards will cut the average appliance's energy usage by 30 percent and save more than seven quadrillion BTUs of energy over the next 30 years, more than seven times the annual energy consumption of the entire state of Arkansas.

# Promoting federal Energy Efficiency. Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year. Forged new partnerships with industry to develop and promote energy-saving cars, homes and consumer products with the potential to save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills and significantly curb greenhouse gas pollution.
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/gore.html

PS: What about corruption?

Forget about it. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, Clinton's was the cleanest administration since Teddy Roosevelt.

:toast:

:toast:

although Bill Clinton is INFINITELY better than almost any candidate the Right-WIng can put forward, he wasn't exactly a liberal president. He did a lot of things that were very establishment friendly as well.

Dennis K. is progressive. The Clintons are not so much.

Do you think he could win in the general election?

It wasn't. Never was. The so-called "progressive agenda" got us nowhere electorally. Still, the record of the only twice elected Democratic president since FDR speaks for itself. The greatest economic expansion in a generation, dropping poverty rates, wage increases, etc.

But interestingly, the so-called "candidate of change," Barack Obama, thinks that "progressive agenda" isn't worth fighting for.

Now, you have your problems with Bill Clinton? Pick a president in the modern era (FDR to now) and we'll find plenty to wail and moan about.

>>>Just as Bill Clinton’s spine achieved a rare firmness while battling for NAFTA, we recently observed in Hillary a rare passion and firmness on a single issue: her YearlyKos defense of lobbyists, including those who “represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”<<<


Exactly. Bill Cl;inton was never more effective than when he was battling his party's own base.

"Compromise" only applied when he was dealing with Republicans and corporations. As for his supposed allies, his attitude was "Let 'em eat cake."

People wonder why some on the left hit Democrats harder than Repubs? Cuz many of us understand that it's the fifth columnists like Lieberman, Feinstein and the Clintons who do the most damage to the cause. We can handle overt attacks from the right. What's much more difficult to fight against is the covert action from within our own party.

This needs to be remembered.

and all the anti-Hillary groupies would jump on the bandwagon like a flock of sheep not caring if 99% of it doesn't apply to the facts or not.

It's hard to argue with facts like that.

and bitch, moan and groan another 8 years and blame the Clintons again for the next 8 years. I wonder which Green, "real progressive" or other fringe left US president they have to compare with the best president in my lifetime, WJC.

edit: Forgot Nader. How can anybody forget HIM :shrug:

Anyone know?

he's as right now as he was then

Oh can't you see, the Clintons Subverted our agenda...
Oh can't you see, he perverted an office credenza...
Perverted, Subverted...Oh can't you see...
da da dee da dee de lada de...whatever the hell you want to put in there...

:hide:

in who they serve.

He didn't subvert the progressive agenda--and when did most liberal and progressive get confused. He drove the far left a bit crazy by adopting a much more centrist stance than they liked but he didn't subvert. AND remember that when he tried to go more left, he was checked when the congress went repub in 1994 which created years and years of hardship. No my friend. He did not subvert progressives. He just wasn't left enough for some folks and that is not progressive. MOST people in the country are centrists.
The president has to be the president of all of the people. Bush forgot that which is why he is so loathed.