Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Respectfully Disagree (none)
    Well I have to respectfully disagree with you.  I myself was frankly disgusted that the leader of our country conducted himself the way he did and it was certainly a huge mistake.

    However, I'll point out that hardly any Americans, other than the wingnuts, actually gave a shit about it.  It was a tantilizing story for them, but it didn't tarnish his ability as President in their minds and I seriously don't think it hurt the party.

    The media has had a huge effect.  Take a look back at the last 9 months.  The poll numbers directly correlate with the press' reporting.  When they finally starting asking tougher questions and the cable spin-heads started critiquing the administration, poll numbers went down.  Of course there were other factors, but its hard to argue that media coverage doesn't have a large effect.

    And Gore did run a shitty ass campaign.  The guy was boring as all hell.  So much so that I refused to vote for him.  If he had shown his true colors, I would have even hit the pavement for him.

    And frankly the DLC ran this party into the ground post-Clinton and things only started turning around when Dean woke the party the fuck up.

    •  Indeed (4.00)
      I agree with all of what you say, Marc.  But the bottom line is still that there would have been a large enough margin to overcome those obstacles and install a Democrat - Gore - as President.

      I certainly didn't care whether he got a blow job, and I see clearly the Republican reaction to the blow job.  

      That isn't my point - I understand all of the road blocks for Democrats.  I just believe that there were enough people - the margin that would have swung the election - that were bothered that a) he got a blow job in the Oval Office; b) he lied on television - quite often the only view of the outside world that many people have; c) he debated what the meaning of "is" is and most people don't understand, know, or care that it was arguably a valid question under the circumstances; d) that he was impeached even though they may not know for what; or, e) all of the above.

      And rude or not, I find it offensive that he is so arrogant as to preach to all of us what and how we should be fighting.

      If he went away quietly, that would be one thing.  But to lecture us about how to "fix" things - and not acknowledge his part in fucking things up - is disingenuous, at best.  

      •  look at his ratings (none)
        i'm sorry.... it's just....

        dude....  the whole world knew clinton had sexual relations with that woman.  it was on every late night joke rotation.  and we all knew he lied about it.  the whole world knew he lied about gettin' a BJ.

        and his approval ratings went UP!

        sheese.  if i was gore i would have promised, as president, to get a blow job in the oval office.

        in retrospect, couldn't've hurt.

        "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

        by BiminiCat on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 11:48:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Understood, but (none)
        my point is that before Bush came along, I was one of those swing voters.  In fact I was still a registered Republican, but really considered myself an independent.  I was one of those that was bothered by a, b and c.  But any person with a brain could realize that what he did was the result of a personal flaw and was in no way reflective of his VP or his party.

        My point is that it had no effect on my choice not to vote for Gore.  And in fact I've switched my party affiliation to Democrat since so obviously it had no effect on my view of the Democratic party as a whole.

        I understand your anti-Clinton views.  They are polarizing figures and I understand both the love and the hate.  But I think its unfair to blame the downfall of the Democratic party on his dick.

      •  Nonsense (none)
        Polls taken in 2000 showed Clinton would have beaten Bush if he could run for a 3rd term.  How does the BJ hurt Clinton, but not Gore?

        It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

        by lando on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 11:56:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh. (none)
          Well, I have to admit, that sorta blows my mini-rant.  Thanks for the info.

          Was the poll legit?  I mean were the questions clear and a large enough sample?

          This isn't snark.  I'm curious.

          •  Polls (none)
            The polls were legit.  You should be able to Google them.  There were only a couple of polls taken, however, mainly because Clinton was not actually running for president, but they all did show Clinton running ahead of Gore.  I had this fight with a Gore 2008 backer, and as I conceded in that argument, Clinton's numbers may have been inflated becaue he was not running, and thus not being subjected to a negative campaign.  That being said, I think that if the BJ (and lying about the BJ) was what caused Gore to lose, than Clinton would have had far worse numbers than Gore.  

            It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

            by lando on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:46:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks... (none)
              Lando.  You even answered the questions I had while I was reading the first lines.  I appreciate the information and your response.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site