Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Clinton tells Dems to Fight or "Find Something Else To Do" (428 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It would be nice if ... (3.91)

    Bill Clinton's own wife (Senator) did as he suggests here (instead of lie to us about how everything is going so well in Iraq and agree with Bush's slaughter agenda).

    Will somebody hold Bush accountable for his mass-murder campaign in Iraq & bankruptcy of the Nation?

    I don't think even Bill Clinton has done that yet....

    •  I don't want to vote for her... (4.00)
      But it would change my mind if she did those things..

      Stop mad cowboy disease!

      by wrights on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 06:29:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will NOT vote for her. (4.00)
        If Hillary is the Democratic Party's nominee in '08, I will either not vote the top of the ticket at all, or I will vote Green. I don't believe in political dynasties in the United States of America; isn't our monied aristocracy bad enough without adding that to the mix too? It's anti-democratic, it's anti-American, and it's frankly a failure of imagination.

        ~~~~
        Blogesque
        Economic Left: -6.25 Social Libertarian: -5.03

        by OhioLen on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 08:27:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a stalwart Democrat (4.00)
          Who refuses to vote for a third party candidate in a national election..for President, or for US Senate, Congress....it will break my heart if Hillary is the nominee. As I know I will not be able to vote for a third party candidate as that is a vote for the Republican when it is all said and done. ( Yes I am naive maybe but still believe that..see Nader 2000). But I will have to hold my nose and vote. And this would make me sob because I was so involved in Kerry Edwards campaign and Gore's too.
          I too do not want another dynasty..I want a new name..a new voice, a Progressive voice..not someone leaning more right as the election nears.
          No more Bush and Clintons !!!!!!!
          But I cannot vote third party either..!

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

          by wishingwell on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 08:33:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope, not buying it this time. (3.80)
            As I know I will not be able to vote for a third party candidate as that is a vote for the Republican when it is all said and done. ( Yes I am naive maybe but still believe that..see Nader 2000). But I will have to hold my nose and vote. And this would make me sob because I was so involved in Kerry Edwards campaign and Gore's too.

            You know, I used to buy this argument, and even used it myself in '04. However, the circumstances will be very different in '08. There was not a raft of indictments of top GOP leadership in '04. There weren't several GOP governors of key states under fire for all manner of chicanery. There was also a strong undercurrent of "make der Dubyer clean up his own mess", but at the time, Iraq's constitution did not exist so people did not know they were supporting the installation of a fragmented sectarian regime operating on principles of Sharia:

            FP: And what's wrong with this draft?

            JC: It is deeply self-contradictory and makes no provision for adjudicating the legal conflicts it sets up. For instance, it says parliament cannot pass civil legislation that contravenes Islamic law. But it also provides for freedom of speech, religion, and the press. So will blasphemy be punishable? There is no indication in the text of how conflicts like that would be adjudicated.

            It also creates bureaucratic and judicial nightmares. The draft I saw allows each Iraqi to choose to be under either civil or religious law for purposes of personal status--marriage, divorce, alimony, etc. Say a Shiite man wants to be under Shiite law and his more secular Shiite wife wants to live under civil law. They want a divorce. Do the divorce proceedings go forth under Shiite or civil law? Shiite law makes no provision for alimony. Can she initiate a divorce in the first place? Shiite law would not allow her to do so.
            -- Prof. Juan Cole, interview Aug. 2005

            Bringing Freedom to Iraq™ doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and by the time '08 rolls around, the death toll will be much higher than it is today. 2008 will not be a replay of 2000 or 2004.

            Given the level of GOP hatred for the woman, does anyone here think that Hillary Clinton would be able to effectively govern while weathering the doubtlessly unending stream of right-wing attacks (which the corporate infotainment media would gleefully flog)? She is one of the most divisive political figures of our time, and her candidacy would do nothing to heal the bitterness of public discourse -- it would instead be more of the same.

            Let's apply the Miers standard: what are her qualifications? Her résumé is pretty light when it comes to elective office and official policy of her own. Being married to a President doesn't count; her own qualifications must come into play. Misplaced nostalgia for Bill shouldn't translate into electoral support for his wife, and the Democratic Party doesn't need to emulate the GOP's blind faith in an avatar based on nothing but family name.

            No more Bushes, no more Clintons, no more Tafts, no more Kennedys; no more American dynasties. We have to do better.

            ~~~~
            Blogesque
            Economic Left: -6.25 Social Libertarian: -5.03

            by OhioLen on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 09:57:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Miers back at you (4.00)
              Let's apply the Miers standard: what are her qualifications? Her résumé is pretty light when it comes to elective office and official policy of her own.

              This is the most idiotic reasoning I've heard this side of Crawford, Texas.

              Let's see.  In the 1980s, Hillary was a well-known lawyer and recognized expert on health care and family policy, such that she was mentioned as a potential Dukakis cabinet secretary.  That was not the Texas Lottery Commission, folks.  Then she became the most politically powerful first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, and quite possibly of all time.  And in 2008, she'll be a two-term U.S. senator who won not by tapping the base in New York City, but by hard campaiging upstate.  Short on elective office, indeed.  

              This analogy is so poor that one of two things is really going on.  One possibility is that OhioLen, and others who make similar inane arguments, are really afraid of Democrats electing a woman president.  The other is that they disagree with Hillary's ideology.  Certainly there is evidence for both possibilities in OhioLen's text above.

              Ah, but then there is the usual canard: "she'll draw wingnut attacks."  As opposed to Rep. Joe Bloggs (D-Twin Peaks), Hillary's likely primary opponent who will draw wingnut rose petals.  

              Get a clue, please.  Zell Miller could take over the Democratic Party and we would still draw wingnut attacks. That's the nature of a multiparty democracy.  The Democratic wing had no problem with drawing wingnut attacks when Howard Dean is front and center, but if it's Hillary drawing the attacks, we can't have that, no ma'am.  The real point is that Hillary has experience in rebutting the wingnut attacks, unlike Kerry, Dean, Gore, etc.

              •  And then there's the third possibility... (none)
                which is the one that I actually wrote:

                Misplaced nostalgia for Bill shouldn't translate into electoral support for his wife, and the Democratic Party doesn't need to emulate the GOP's blind faith in an avatar based on nothing but family name.

                No more Bushes, no more Clintons, no more Tafts, no more Kennedys; no more American dynasties. We have to do better.

                To continue, this remark of yours is patently ridiculous:

                ...she was mentioned as a potential Dukakis cabinet secretary.  That was not the Texas Lottery Commission, folks...

                That's very true, it wasn't. You see, the TX Lottery Commission actually exists here on Earth Prime, whereas the Dukakis cabinet never did. That "elective office" is a non-starter.

                As for being the most powerful First Lady, consider these four words: National Health Care Plan. Remember what a resounding success that was? In fact, I'm enjoying my National Health Care Plan coverage right now...oh wait, that's right...it never happened.

                Regarding her Senate service, in 2008 she will have served 1.33 terms -- don't exaggerate. I'm not making light of it, but 1.33 terms in the legislative Senate isn't the best experience for being the Chief Executive of the largest economy and military on the face of the Earth.

                As for the rest of your paean to Hillary Clinton, I'm perfectly fine with the idea of voting for a female President. Just not that particular female. Her ideology is mainly DLC so there are definitely other candidates who are closer to my position, yes. However, please point out where I even mentioned her ideology.

                I did indeed mention the passionate hatred of the conservative-movement types for her. Remember the "Impeach Clinton" drive that started even before the inauguration? Whitewater was about Hillary -- not Bill. Same thing with the tinfoil hat brigade's obsession with Vince Foster. There was nothing to any of it, but just remember who the original target was and just how nasty and evil it got. The GOP going after someone thru his wife? Hmmm...I seem to recall something like that happening here more recently.

                Get a clue, please.  Zell Miller could take over the Democratic Party and we would still draw wingnut attacks. That's the nature of a multiparty democracy.

                Here's the clue: Hillary has too much fucking baggage. Does the nation need another divisive figure? Does the Democratic Party need someone who will motivate the wingnuts - like nothing else can - to come out full force on election day just to oppose her? What is this masochistic bullshit?

                You need to address what is actually written, rather than the ludicrous positions you're attempting to tar me with. "Strawman" seems to be a popular DKos Halloween costume this year.

                ~~~~
                Blogesque
                Economic Left: -6.25 Social Libertarian: -5.03

                by OhioLen on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 08:06:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting. Are you saying that you think (4.00)
          another Republican president would be better than Hillary?  I would NEVER vote for a third party in a presidential election.  I KNOW how dangerous Republicans are when they become president.  I have suffered Reagan, Poppy Bush, and the current criminal.  I have learned my lesson and learned it well.
    •  Excellent Point. (4.00)

       Hillary is so maddening, in great part, because she's so accommodating to the Bush Regime.  Hillary seems to have bought into the false dichotomy that one is either a Bush toe-licker, or a "flaming left-winger" with no hope at gaining "broad public support."  And, of course, she's "Bush toe-licked" herself into becoming a, if not the, focal point of all that many populist and progressive and common sense Dems see as what's wrong with the Democratic Party (well, her and Joementum and Biden and the Ex-Senator from South Dakota, "Spineless Tom") and its so-called "leadership."

       Harry Reid is certainly a "conservative Democrat" and I think he should have fought like a demon against things such as the "Biden-MBNA Let's Screw American's Act," but, all in all, he knows how to call out Bush's coven of corrupt crooks for what they are.  Hillary, on the other hand, with her finger in the wind and always, always, always, calculating, has just calculated her way into political oblivion among most Dems nationwide.  I wish her the best and continuing success as a Senator from New York, and that's where she needs to stay.  Period.

       BenGoshi
      _________________
       

      . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 07:49:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pillow talk? (none)
      Maybe he can leave a copy of his speech on her pillow. It can't hurt.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (66)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site