I can't believe anyone would wonder WTF Bill Clinton ever did that actually benefited our Party

Here it is, short and sweet. He saved our party from going extinct. That's what Bill Clinton did to benefit the Democratic Party :smoke:

The Democratic Party under Bill Clinton bled memebers. I was one who left. I came back in 2002 because I believed in the core principles of the Dem Party, not Bill Clinton, and want to help rebuild the Dem Party from the grassroots up.

And thank God for that.

Evidence in this thread I posted with all of his wonderful accomplishments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4110544&mesg_id=4110544

In closing, I miss Bill :)

for 8 years. Those were some pretty good times.

He is campaigning for a candidate that a sizable chunk of DU dislikes.

All of the recent "concern" about his presidency has little or nothing to do with his presidency. It has everything to do with the next one.

as soon as he was well enough to do so.

and people joking that they wished the ceremonial guns could maybe take him out. He was centrist then, even right-wing for the Dem party (i.e., not a right-wing like a Rep), and many people disliked him then and dislike him now. Some people thought the DLC had come up with him to avoid having Jesse Jackson get the nomination.

unless you're suggesting Hillary is a shill

For the first time in how long? the Reps had both houses of Congress; they used that to strengthen their party in ways that were previously unavailable to them. Saved from extinction? He damn near killed it.

Congressional Dems had a chance to get things done during the first 2 years of Clinton's term and they didn't take advantage of it as they should have. They wasted a lot of time nitpicking and falling into GOP traps.

The rise of Newt Gingrich and his cabal signaled the beginning of the era when the GOP got very organized and fully integrated a strategic agenda at every level of their own party and through the national news media. They went all MBA in national political strategy, developing their divisive "values based" agenda and took it retail in a big way.

Dems weren't prepared for it, still haven't fully recovered. The main reason they're popular now isn't due as much to their own strength and organization, but to the fact that Bush/Cheney have screwed over voters and stolen every last dime from them and left a big tab to pay for the next 50 years.

No, that wasn't Clinton's fault. Blame Dem leaders in Congress and at the DNC.

a heaping spoonful of JEALOUSY! The Dem party continues to splinter. It's obvious where Kerry is putting his support and money. This isn't anything new, there are underlying factions who would throw Bill Clinton under the bus in a heartbeat if they could, just to wrest the direction and control of "power" within the Dem Party itself...

shattering even the old Repub lies about the economy.

what, exactly?

The house and senate were hemmoraging Democrats by the time he left office. We had the House for over a generation and under his term we lost it.

I'd say he was an average president, pretty middle-of-the-road. Certainly better than Bush, but he's no FDR or Lincoln.

Of course that's assuming you think the opinion of the people matters at all.

according to most scholars, he's a middle-of-the-road president.

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

that scholarly opinion. What do the people know anyway?

doesn't mean that compared to other presidents, you are any better or any worse.

I'm sure that when he died, Lincoln wasn't holding a 60 percent approval rating.

I can see why you'd like it. :-)

The vast majority of Dems liked him as president.

Is it because you support Obama?

Are you a Democrat? If so have you not been one for very long?

Just wondering.

In terms of how he affected the nation, he was all right. In terms of how he affected the democratic party, he left a lot to be desired.

sometimes I'm just more objective than other times.

:)

so in reality, i'd say, the people (most of them) know very little about most things and are generally only concerned with their own personal welfare.

Clinton was new in town and his first 2 years were stellar for his economic policies. He was a very popular president.

Anyone but a right winger would know that.

which today many of us are looking at wistfully.

"I won against peace and prosperity" - clueless W was bragging abroad after the theft

His triangulating ass saved us from going extinct? You are forgetting history, lying or you're just ignorant. We lost the House and Senate the election following his first successful candidacy. We didn't get Congress back for over a term and a half of Bill's leadership. Indeed it took another term and a half of the worst president ever for America to give us another shot at running Congress and guess what? Most of the swing voters who put us over the top in '06 regret it now. If anything he set us on the path to extinction.

voters are regretting the weak-spined libs they put in Congress. I hope they still can pull the lever for whoever we end up nominating.

Republican sympathizers.

...who handed Bush the election means I sympathize with Republicans? I want my party to elect someone who will end the nightmare we've all been living for over 7 years now. Thinking us Dems can do better than Billary doesn't mean I sympathize with anyone other than the pragmatic progressives who feel as I do.

If you don't like the Democratic party, that's your tough luck.

that makes my party think I personally am chock full of feces? Baseless.

Duh.

so are you. You can't make sweeping statements about what "the party" thinks. We're cats, barely herded.

members, and though you can never say what everyone in the party thinks you can certainly pull out trends and majority opinion.

a teeny tiny part of it, but yes, I'm a part of the party. And by the way, a really BIG chunk of the party (whose name rhymes with Nedward Schmennedy) thinks Mr. Clinton ought to cool it with damaging his wife's opponent and possibly hurting the party. So no, there is almost no area in which all Democrats (even the important ones) categorically agree.

:-)

So you might think the left would jump on Clinton, an impeached, dishonored president, as the explanation of why Gore lost an election that the economy indicated should have been his in a cakewalk.

But they haven't. The left loves Clinton and the worst he stands for even more than they love high taxes and failed government programs. It is now accepted as hard fact by the press that Gore made a fatal error in not making Clinton front and center of his campaign.


http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=20010103

I know it's hard for you to believe, but not everybody wants to see the Clintons back in the WH--in fact, you can be a good Democrat and not want this. You can be a good Democrat and feel that Clinton embarrassed the party, and brought his problems upon himself, and succumbed to his own Achille's Heel. Some of us can hail the good stuff, tsk-tsk the bad stuff, and decide to move on with new blood rather than cling to 90's nostalgia. Die-hard Bill Clinton fans, the kind who believe he belongs in the Pantheon of Great Dem Presidents and that his troubles were all either the fault or the invention of the VRWC, remind me of ChimpCo's thirty-percenters: people who not only believe in their guy, but trash anyone else who disagrees as a bad American, bad Republican, etc. I think Bill was a good President. I don't think he was a GREAT one, although he could have been--he was smart enough and had enough political skill. All the same, I want him to be relegated to Presidential history, along with the First Lady/Senator.

Nice job - parroting Ann Coulter.

This Ann Coulter comparison is baffling to me.

:hi:

and decide for themselves.

Bill was the best Democratic president I can recall from my three decades on this Earth. But it is possible for me to question what he's done for my party. Let's not be sheep.

unprecedented popularity among Democrats, and had historically high approval ratings.

You aren't "just telling" about Bill. You claim my party thinks I'm "full of shit". Still waiting on something I've specifically typed that would indicate this.

I'll take back "full of shit" if you find it that troubling.

A lot of my anger towards Bill is new. I feel he's using his status as former Potus to destroy my candidate. My fear of Hillary being the one thing that could unite the right is real and acute. He did more good than not back then. There is some lingering resentment over what he did to Gore as well. And I also know Hildog will toss my boy Dean out on the street too.

I never thought I'd become a Bill hater. Sigh.

but politics (i.e. the discussion of policy) should be for everyone. Period.

:-)

in the face of someone telling you that your opinion didn't matter. I wasn't responding to your comment--:)

Man I hope we can all still pull together after this monstrous primary cycle.

You could compete with some of the right wingers on hate radio with how they trash the Clintons.

not everyone sees the Big Dawg the same way. I actually did not vote for him (although I would have both times, certainly), and I supported him, but he did a lot to tarnish himself, and made some pretty gnarly mistakes. There must be a reason why more than half of Democrats (Obama, Edwards, Kucinich supporters) are interested in someone else other than his wife--not everybody wants to see the Restoration happen.

Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than any other post-WW2 president.

From the public's perspective, that would seem to qualify as "one of the best".

Ronald Reagan is full of Greatness, and probably belongs on Mt. Rushmore--he's most popular political figure of our times, polls show. I can make my own judgment about Presidents and their legacies.

Very sad.

as a red-herring argument. LOL! Well, I know better than to be drawn any further into THIS blind alley--happy trails to you!

Hope you're proud of yourself.

Bill's is doing and saying everything he can to marginalize Obama. I think two terms of Dubya are making us remember Bill a little more fondly than we should.

:pals:

is against DU rules but equally important is that your fucking opinion is NOT superior to his.

sorry to interupt the Clinton circle jerk. continue on masturbating.

:eyes:

<----To these Yahoos

Is that poster 19? :evilgrin:

(thanks for the assist, btw)

"they" are all so much alike. Similar to lemmings "hoping" the ship does not sink.

yer welcome.

I missed the "DNA" the first time I saw it. How nice.

and more here.

gave you Bush 2. Thats just reality.

Bush suppressed the vote, or that the SCOTUS delivered the presidency to Bush.

even bothered to vote for Gore-D.

I think this place is infiltrated to the hilt with imposters. Oh well, I guess it was inevitable.

I will always consider that one of the biggest mistakes in Al Gore's campaign.

For whatever reasons, Gore chose to ignore one of the best fundraisers in the party and one of its best campaigners.

I understand that there was some personal animosity between the two, but the idea here is to win elections, not make friends.

He won the popular vote, and the most votes.

And won Florida.

and more likely than not he cast that vote for Gore. Can we say the same about some of his detractors? NO!! Some have already admitted that they will NOT vote for my candidate should she win the Democratic Party's nomination.

Hope you're proud of yourself.

So you might think the left would jump on Clinton, an impeached, dishonored president, as the explanation of why Gore lost an election that the economy indicated should have been his in a cakewalk.

But they haven't. The left loves Clinton and the worst he stands for even more than they love high taxes and failed government programs. It is now accepted as hard fact by the press that Gore made a fatal error in not making Clinton front and center of his campaign.

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=20010103

how?

Really don't waste your time attempting to draw me into your weird little world.

I've noticed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4110544&mesg_id=4110544

You see, he was in office for eight years. Not two.

You can't blame him for a deacades old party rule.

I'm surprised we keep seeing this same talking point resurfacing.

Interesting, since its never been an issue among Dems before now. Is this an Obama campaign talking point?

If so, its another disgusting level of divisiveness from Obama that is going to end up torpedoing his chances.

against one of the most popular presidents of our era?

and why they're here to begin with. hmmmm

for another 4 years then The Quail for 8 years after that.

These posts criticizing him make them stand out.

Which makes me regret my previous nose-holding ability. Something, I've since recovered from.

its a lesser of two evils.

:kick:

:dem: