Skip to main content

I get sick when I hear Bill Clinton criticize Obama... and then I read all these people's posts about how they miss the Clintons and how great it will be if Hillary gets in.  I know I have not been living in an alternate reality.  I remember the Clinton years.  I can't imagine any true progressive that wants this again.  Let's see, what do I remember?

I don't remember progressive.
I don't remember a government standing up for the people.
I don't remember better economic times.

What I remember is...

I remember a charming personable man promising change. We were so hopeful, weren't we?  Weren't we excited?  Well, no, not really.  I remember he barely won against Dole with only half the population voting. I've heard people compare Bill to Barack.  Uh, no. Barack is going to be a blowout. Bill was a small sneeze.

What else?  Well, how about corporatism ascending to an all time high? He moved the party to the center...right. He pandered to the white conservative voters with being tough on "crime", revamped welfare, (hey, remember that?), and hey, who who were his key appointments to Treasury and Commerce? What happened to Lani Guinier?  (look that one up!) He had an opportunity to appoint strong liberal judges to the Supreme Court, like Thurgood Marshall.  What did we get? Ginsburg and Breyer. Not horrible, but they both defended the constitutionality of capital punishment and voted repeatedly with strict conservative decisions.  Well, can't get those two appointments back. Gosh, how central will the Hillary appointments be? To the left of McCain...maybe. Or maybe, she'll want to align herself with those "blue collar working men" and maybe pick some nice conservative centrist - to the right - judges.

Speaking of capital punishment, remember when he couldn't wait to get back to officiate over the execution of a mentally retarded man, Ricky Ray Rector, to prove he would be a President who would be "tough on crime".  Yep, Bill Clinton at his finest. Hey, remember Janet Reno and Waco?  Gosh, what happened there again? Oh, yah, 86 men, women, and children died through a pretty tragic chain of events.  Oh, by the way, do you remember Clinton ever apologizing for that? I don't. Those memories just disappeared.

Remember the "Crime Bill" of 1996? Wow, that was progressive. Not.  

Welfare. Reform.  What was that exactly?  Oh yah, benefits were cut after two years, lifetime benefits were limited to five years, and childless persons could only receive food stamps for only three months in any three year period of time. Pretty progressive, huh?

Let's not even get into all the foreign policy fiascos... Somalia, Rwanda, Suharto, arms sales, pharmaceutical bombings?

He LIED when asked direct questions about something.  I personally don't care what it was, sex or whatever, but he LIED.  All he had to do was say "whoops, yah, that's personal, none of your business, whatever", but he didn't.  He lied. Under oath.

Remember the protest at UCBerkely over Madeleine Albright's honorarium?
Remember the Telecommunications Act of 1996?
Remember NAFTA?
Remember Newt Gingrich? How did he EVER get the upper hand? Oh, maybe, watching Bill and the Hillary campaign - now we remember.
Remember the shifting of liberalism to centralism?
Remember Don't Ask, Don't Tell? (thanks Hannibal)

No, the Clinton years were not good ones.

Let's not go back with the sequel.

I want a change.  I want a President who may actually do something this time.  I have no idea what people think the Clinton years were like, but let's not pretend that they were as described by Bill and Hillary.

Because I remember.

Originally posted to dancerat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM PDT.

Poll

Do you remember the Clinton Years?

39%56 votes
35%50 votes
5%8 votes
19%27 votes

| 141 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Waco was the same as MOVE in philly (7+ / 0-)

      Call where they live a "compound" instead of "house" or "church". Set it on fire after many bombardments of water, tear gas etc and then have only on exit for them and make sure that exit is guarded by snipers! YAY!!!!!!!!!!

      NAFTA?!!!
      Bill is hanging with nazi scumbag HW as we speak. NICE!

      Hillary wants to hand over our universal healthcare to um....um...the fucking insurance companies?!!

      Enough said. She needs to shut up and leave. Our couch is now unavailable to her.

      "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

      by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Feds... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, bebacker

        ...do love to play with fire. Especially if it involves buildings with lots of people inside.

      •  Oh, how could I have forgotten this one ! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bebacker, Samwoman, Rex Manning, bythesea

        What a flaming fiasco.

        Let's get some Democracy for America

        by murphy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:35:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Waco. (6+ / 0-)

        I was actually there while it burned.

        My dad was a truck driver and I had gotten suspended from school for a week because I was caught smoking in a stairwell with the principal's son, so my Mom sent me on a trip to Texas with my dad.

        My dad had to make a delivery outside of Waco and we couldn't because of the fire.  

        There were so many gawkers, tv trucks, police and federal agents everywhere that it took 2 days before we could get through to make the delivery.

        I'll never forget the smell, it was horrible and just hung in the air forever. I kept gagging because after we found out that dozens of people burned to death in the fire, my 15 year old nose was sure I was smelling their burnt flesh.

        The ashes of the compound smoldered for days. It was still smoking when we drove by 3 days later.

        Just a horrible tragedy. How it was allowed to get that bad, I'll never know...

        "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

        by MichiganGirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well..."that bad" was the intent of the whole (0+ / 0-)

          thing. Again, they followed line by line the exact blueprint from MOVE here in Philadelphia. Kill and let the media lie and cover for you. NICE!

          "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

          by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:56:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so you think they intended to kill (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mia Dolan

            Koresh & crew? Hmmmm... not sure I believe that. I don't really see what the benefit in having them killed would be.

            •  My mom was in a cult before I was born. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bebacker

              I don't think it was anything like the Branch Davidians, but she somehow knew at the time that what they did was intentional.  She told me they were harassed all the time by the government.  I have no idea what benefit they would get from it, but ask yourself what benefit do they get from torturing people.  Or any of the mad crap this government is pulling now.  I don't believe Clinton's admin was a tenth as evil as this one, but I don't put anything past them, especially what I saw with my own eyes.

              •  eh, I don't think Bush wants to torture people (0+ / 0-)

                just for kicks. I think he really believes he's fighting an enemy that wants to destroy "our way of life" and he feels that you may have to resort to any means necessary to do so,

                The government obviously wanted the Branch Davidians shut down, but I seriously doubt they wanted them killed.

                •  It's not that they deliberately wanted to kill (0+ / 0-)

                  them, but they did start the fire.

                  Video shows that after the tank went into the building, it started on fire.  The relevant part is at 3 min.

                  CNN article on the wrongful death lawsuit has the following information about the fire:

                  Earlier Wednesday, FBI agent David Cordeman admitted firing three pyrotechnic military tear gas rounds on the final day of the seige, but said he fired the potentially incendiary shells at a tornado shelter and not at the Davidian compound.

                  Government attorneys are trying to prove the deadly fire was not caused by federal agents.

                  Another agent, R.J. Craig, told jurors he ran his converted M-60 tank through the walls of the compound to spray tear gas into the interior of the building and to open exit routes for the people inside.

                  Craig said he was not trying to destroy the compound. But under cross-examination, he admitted testifying in a 1994 criminal trial that the FBI's other converted tank was trying to do just that.

                  The key line is that last sentence!

            •  of course it was!!!! Just like with MOVE here (0+ / 0-)

              in Philadelphia.

              Let me put it another way ok

              Do you think that all those dead children were accidental? Are you saying that the dead children were by accident?

              "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

              by bebacker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:44:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if that's the case (0+ / 0-)

                then why the hell did they let any of them run out alive when the building was on fire?

                No, I don't believe the Clinton Administration had a plan to kill children in Waco, no matter what group they belonged to.

                •  Who said anything about clinton? (0+ / 0-)

                  wow.

                  Why were there snipers shooting anyone leaving the one exit that was available to them. Why were the corpses of the children bent backwards- back of head to heal- to the point that their spines snapped? Why did the FBI put so much tear gas in the compound that the spines of these children cracked?

                  The MOVE documentary is narrated by Howard Zinn. Do you have an answer for that? Why would he narrate a film about an incident that someone like yourself can't seem to come to grips with? Never mind the OBVIOUS shit from Waco we have been discussing....jeeze

                  "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                  by bebacker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:09:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton was better than Bush (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, Indieman
      Bill Clinton was better than Bush I or Bush II.

      But that's not a very high bar to exceed.

      Oh the Fourth Amendment, on civil liberties, the best you can say is Bill wasn't as much a threat as Bush II.

      Accountability moment, my ass!

      by orthogonal on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:14:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They were actually pretty mediocre. (10+ / 0-)

    Partisanship destroyed any attempt at progress, and Clinton's role as a DLC tool and a 'New Way'er ensured the disenchantment of the progressive and liberal base with the Party.

    •  I used to go to a friend's weekly bonfire (7+ / 0-)

      where we argued oplitics.  Most of us were liberals.  A few years into Clinton's term, my friend said, "Bill Clinton--best Republican president we've ever had!"

      And I, who had been asleep since 1/20/93, woke up and realized that not a thing had changed.  No one was looking out for the "little people."

      pocketa-pocketa-pocketa

      by rhubarb on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used to defend the hell out of Bill (6+ / 0-)

        I went to a college full of conservatives (I know, weird), and they used to attack him constantly.  I feel like such an idiot for defending the man.

        Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

        by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:30:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bill Clinton lied when he told us in 1992 (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, rhubarb, bebacker, The Distillery

        during the 92 Democratic convention

        I was raised to believe that the American Dream was built on rewarding hard work. But we have seen the folks in Washington turn the American ethic on its head. For too long, those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.

        When he became President Clinton stabbed us all in the back by joining with the Republicans to slash taxes on the Wealthiest Americans by cutting Dividends and Capital Gains Taxes. Many liberals like to blame Bush, who was only following Clinton's lead, with more modest cut in Dividends and Capital Gains Taxes of his own. Clinton says he believes in hard work, but he rewards the wealthy by shifting taxes from the wealthy to working people.

        "I don't think I should disclose it unless there is some conflict of which I am aware of, and there is not," -Bill on Clinton Library Donors

        by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And that damned dog! (7+ / 0-)
    Scooby dooby doo!

    But seriously, I remember Bill couldn't keep it in his pants.  And that he got lucky enough to be the POTUS to preside over the economic penacle of the Information Age.  I also remember he and Newt "Fuck my ex-wife" Gingrich fucked over a lot of poor women with welfare reform (remember, Hillary's the feminist in this race).  

    Anybody wanna add anything else?

    Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

    by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM PDT

  •  I'm tired of people creding Bill with the economy (11+ / 0-)

    He was lucky, yeah that's right, lucky enough to preside over the Internet boom. The people we should be thanking for the economy of the 90s are the seven guys that invented the Internet.

    Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

    by dawnt on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:11:53 PM PDT

    •  Yep. I just said that above. The Series of Tubes (4+ / 0-)

      fueled the 1990s economy.  Bill was too busy getting his pickle licked to be paying much attention.

      Also, Al Gore did help get the the series of tubes to where it is today.

      (I'm sure you already know this, but I'm just adding it for those who don't.)

      Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

      by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:17:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The $20 a barrel oil didn't hurt, either n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bebacker, JeffW, bythesea, dawnt
    •  Freeper bullshit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, leftynyc

      The economy did well under Clinton because he was just lucky?  right out of redstate.

      •  No. It was largely due to his luck and things (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bebacker, dawnt, mertmh, The Distillery

        beyond his control, as it is with EVERY president.  Now, he did help to sustain his luck, but he did not create the boom.  Also, the deregulation that has helped lead to the economic shit-storm we're in now was began under the Clinton admin.

        Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

        by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:32:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard, myboo

          The freepers are out tonight.  Of course the president can't control anything, but Clinton's politices had a lot to do with an incredible sustained period of growth.  

          •  Did Gore lose because he was elitist, Mia? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dawnt

            Let's see who the freeper is.

            •  He lost because he was stiff (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dawnt

              Actually, he lost because the Republican attacks on Clinton gained just enough traction, and Gore was seen as just an extension of the Clinton administration.

              In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

              by yet another liberal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:49:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No idea what you are talking about (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hardhat Democrat, lotlizard, myboo

              The idea that Clinton, whose economic policies were very different from Bush's, was just lucky is a staple of right-wing blog mythology.  There is plenty to criticize Clinton for, but its really sad to see that kind of ignorant garbage.

              Did Gore lose because he was elitist, Mia?

              Is that a reference to the Obama comment?  I actually am an Obama supporter and am pretty down on Hillary.  Again, though, that doesn't mean we need freeper comments on Clinton's presidency.

              For what its worth, Gore lost because he came across as less likeable than Bush, and the American people having been spolied by 8 years of peace and prosperity, decided that was more important.  

              •  And not only that... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                myboo, Mia Dolan

                But I've already counted numerous references right here in this diary to another incident that the 'right' still can't seem to stop salivating over...

                It's really heartening to see 'progressives' adopting Rush Limbaugh's talking points from ten years ago, isn't it?

              •  Gore lost because he ran the worst campaign ever (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Uebermensch

                and, oh yeah, the whole supreme court thing. Nonetheless, Gore was advised by losers who lost before him and lost for him and have been losing after him. Thank the good baby child for Dean!!!

                "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                by bebacker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:05:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, The Pennant for Worst Campaign Ever (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bebacker, limpidglass, The Distillery

                  Has just been handed over to Hill and Penn.

                  Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes -Oscar Wilde

                  by Indieman on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:36:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Does this have anything to with thanking (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bebacker

                  baby Jesus as opposed to a withering old Jesus?  :b (er, Talladegga Nights)

                •  Amen (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bebacker

                  I don't know why more people (esp Dem party leadership) don't realize this. Both Gore and Kerry listened to their handlers too much instead of going out there and being real people on the campaign trail. As a result, they seemed very disingenuous and plastic, and I think people notice things like that. Both of them might have made fine Presidents but they were terrible Candidates, while Dubya came across with that guy-you-could-have-a-beer-with image - why not, it worked for Bill Clinton. Sure, Bush's image was totally constructed too, but the Repubs have had so much more experience lying, they're naturally able to be more convincing with their constructed candidate than the Dems are with theirs.

                  I'm starting to see the same thing in both Hillary and McCain  - they both come across as sounding 100% scripted whenever they make an appearance. People are tired of that approach, and rightly so. Barack might put his foot in his mouth once in a while, but I have an easier time believing that he actually means what he says and says what he means.

              •  Yep, very different from Bush (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                The Distillery

                That's why NAFTA was shoved down our throats during the Clinton years and Glass-Steagall was repealed. Yep, soooo different from Bush.

                One of the biggest problems in American politicans is the inability of partisans on both sides to see the faults of their own. The first step is admitting we have a problem, only then can we solve it.

                Oh, and by the way, the name calling doesn't help.

                Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

                by dawnt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:35:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                  NAFTA really hasn't had much of an impact either way.  As Obama would put it, it is just something bitter people rail against.  

                  •  I SOOOO don't want to talk about the bitter (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dawnt

                    comment.  I don't even open diaries that have that in the title, but I can't just let you say this.

                    He DID NOT say that NAFTA is just something bitter people rail against.  He said they are bitter about the economy and vote on special interests as a consequence.

                    And to say NAFTA hasn't had much of an effect is ludicrous.  Factories are being moved to Mexico right now and have been for the last 10 years.

                    •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                      Let me tell you a secret.  If and when Obama (or Clinton) gets elected president, he isn't going to touch NAFTA.  He talks about changing it, as opposed to getting rid of it, to mollify all the shit for brains Democrats who don't understand economics and think NAFTA is the root of all evil.  Obama didn't lump NAFTA guns and religion in his comment, but its the same thing - a bogeyman people can blame instead of their real problems.  

                      And to say NAFTA hasn't had much of an effect is ludicrous.  Factories are being moved to Mexico right now and have been for the last 10 years.

                      Factories were moving to Mexico before NAFTA and would have continued to do so even without NAFTA.  The effects of NAFTA have been negligible, either for the negative or positive.  

                  •  Tell that to the people who lost their jobs n/t (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    The Distillery

                    Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

                    by dawnt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Gore didn't lose (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, limpidglass

              because it was stolen from him, and we've had seven years of Hell as the result.

              Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

              by bythesea on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:06:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Do tell us what these policies were. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dawnt
            •  Well (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bebacker

              In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad.

              http://clinton5.nara.gov/...

              •  Are you kidding? (0+ / 0-)

                You think this is different than Bush?

                opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad

                I'll grant you #1 in your list. But #2, no way. Education declined during the Clinton years. The only reason those years look better is because the Bush years are SO BAD.

                Look, I'm not saying that Clinton was all bad. Don't misunderstand me. But if we want to move forward in this country, we had better be willing to look critically at our past, and that includes looking at our own party too.

                Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

                by dawnt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:38:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  the Republican Congress forced him (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bebacker

            to be more fiscally conservative. This was good for big business for a while and fueled the Enron, housing bubble economy. But unregulated capitalism only provides short-term benefits as we're seeing now.

          •  I love how if you don't agree, you just call me a (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bebacker, dawnt
            name.  How mature.  

            Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

            by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:55:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Love how you resort to name calling (0+ / 0-)

            when you don't have an actual argument.

            Question everything, even those you support.

            Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

            by dawnt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:32:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  actually the deregulation started under Reagan (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dawnt, mertmh, The Distillery

          Basically a lot of the bad policies we have now are just extensions of the bad ideas Reagan had back in the 80s. The Republican ideas continued under Clinton because the Democrats decided to become the party of capitulation rather than a party to fight for the common people.

          Initially, I think they did this because they thought they had to to win elections. But eventually a lot of Democrats seemed to just become slightly less extreme versions of their Republican adversaries.

          •  Bingo (0+ / 0-)

            they did this because they thought they had to to win elections

            And there we have it folks. In a nutshell. Pay attention to bringthenoise because he's got it right.

            Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

            by dawnt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:39:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  More than luck. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ben masel, bebacker, limpidglass, dawnt

      He didn't deliberately try to destroy the economy. Like a Republican would.

      That's something anyway.

  •  Don't forget (9+ / 0-)

    That wonderfully progressive Don't ask don't tell.

  •  Disappointment (7+ / 0-)

    Your diary is exactly right. Someone said Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the century. I became so disaffected from the Democratic party because of him. My parents were FDR democrats and I'm an Edwards democrat but I'll happily vote for Barack Obama even if I think he needs to improve his ideas on the environment and health care.

    •  I'm an Edwards Democrat too... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, The Totalizer

      ...but I think Obama is going to surprise us...in a really good way.

    •  I would be more comfortable voting for (0+ / 0-)

      Senator Obama if he would reconsider his position on nuclear energy.  John Edwards had a clearer understanding of corporate control over energy resources which Mr. Obama doesn't.  
      As for President Clinton's overall record, I'll just say, never have so many had such great expectations and ended up with so little in political results.  We hoped for progressive leadership from a liberal Democrat and got a "moderate Republican" administration instead.

      For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

      by The Totalizer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As usual (5+ / 0-)

    Voting for Clinton was far better than the alternatives. He wasn't so bad.

    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

    by yet another liberal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:20:32 PM PDT

    •  Your comment is the best statement on (4+ / 0-)

      why our system does not work. Thank you.

      bebacker

      "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

      by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:25:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the new system you get to vote (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mia Dolan

        In the old system they just lopped off your head for saying anything negative about the King.

        In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

        by yet another liberal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:32:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  or, more to the point, in this grand "new" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, dlh77489, Uebermensch

          system you get to vote for who you want and Diebold takes care of it. No lopping needed. Or, if you prefer, the supreme court will handle it.

          "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

          by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:35:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The fact that it was close to 50/50 (0+ / 0-)

            Made that sort of thing possible. Though I am completely opposed to voting machines that have no verifiable paper trail.

            In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

            by yet another liberal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:37:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Check out W's approval ratings for '04 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              myboo

              First time in polling history that a president was reelected with an approval rating under 50%!

              Also, when has a democratic presidential candidate gotten over 50%? I think the last time was 1964?

              Anyhoo, the closeness is only controlled by the media and the polling companies .

              It will always be close if it is needed

              "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

              by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:41:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  man, you are cynical (0+ / 0-)

                In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

                by yet another liberal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Want proof? How about Clinton not dropping (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattman, Indieman

                  out of this race? If her last name was Edwards, Kucinich or Richardson the "press" would have made sure that the coverage was "why not drop out"/"drop the fuck out loser".

                  "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                  by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:45:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, I know (0+ / 0-)

                    Hillary is an elitist now. Not sure how true that was 10 years ago, but it sure is these days.

                    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

                    by yet another liberal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:51:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The point is the press! n/t (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      yet another liberal

                      "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                      by bebacker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  most politicians either belong to the elite (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bebacker, Mia Dolan

                      or seek to join it. There aren't a lot of politicians who, once having become a member of the elite, still fight for the people.

                      •  well, if they do fight for us they end up (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        limpidglass

                        in a smoldering mass of small airplane etc...or a hooker....or, the Dems blame someone for losing them an election they could not win anyway(the worst run-gore, even worse than kerry)...

                        "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                        by bebacker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:00:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  don't agree (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ahianne, myboo, Mia Dolan

                          Gore's campaign was fine. He started sixteen points down in the polls; Clinton's personal scandals hurt him very badly. In the face of Nader's very successful third-party candidacy and a media that painted him as a congenital liar at every turn, he closed that sixteen-point gap and won the election.

                          Kerry was worse in that he eventually admitted that he'd have voted for the AUMF even if he'd known beforehand there were no WMD. Once he said that he was finished. Still, he fought against the worst smear campaign in living memory and a hostile media, and he held Bush to a victory margin of 2.5% of the popular vote, which is pathetic for a wartime incumbent.

                          •  Again you are spewing the loser reasons spewed (0+ / 0-)

                            by the people that lost the election for Gore! Gore would not allow Nader to be involved in the debates because he had not "impact" on the elections! To even mention Nader is admitting that the Gore camp was clueless! Clinton had great approval ratings at the time! Why would you lie about the "scandals" hurting Gore when you KNOW that he removed himself from Clinton as soon as was running. Strange......

                            "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                            by bebacker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:24:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  calling me a liar? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ahianne

                            Here's a Pew Center poll from 1999 backing my assertions. Some highlights:

                            In a Gore-Bush match-up, Clinton's mixed favorability ratings are a stronger predictor of support for Gore than is Clinton's job approval.

                            While Gore does benefit from Clinton's robust job approval ratings, he is clearly being hurt by weariness with problems of the Clinton administration. An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, "I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration." This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. Among those who express fatigue, 60% say they would vote for Bush over Gore in a two-way 2000 match-up; only 35% pick Gore.

                            Gore couldn't use Clinton on the campaign trail, thanks to his toxic personal approval ratings. Remember, Bush ran on "restoring honor and dignity to the White House."

                            And as for Nader...did you vote for him in 2000?

                          •  Unreal. The Gore campaign itself SAID that (0+ / 0-)

                            Nader was of no impact on the election!!! That was their, and the bush team, reasoning for not allowing him to be in the debates. To then BLAME the NO IMPACT candidate for your losing campaign??!?!? UNREAL.

                            No I did not vote for Nader. I should have though. the DNC at the time was a waste of space losing org along with all of the other democrat elitist orgs at the time. There is a reason we lost every election since 1980!!!! Well, until DEAN took it away from those losers after the 04 election. 2006 was Dean and the 50 state strategy. Say what you want. The proof is in an actual fucking victory!!!!! No one to blame! Isn't that nice.

                            "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                            by bebacker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:42:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  You Get to Vote But It Doesn't Always Count nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yet another liberal

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:31:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But look who we're comparing him to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bebacker, Rex Manning

      Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

      by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:25:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Lewinsky affair genuinely disheartened me. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Mbuto, Uebermensch

    No, I don't believe it was an impeachable offense.

    Yes, I believe it was a fishing expedition.

    But I remember defending vociferously a man who stared straight into my eyes on TV, wagged his finger, and lied to me.

    I think he did a lot of good things for this country (Ginsburg and Breyer, if nothing else).  I think he was a good manager, a decent president.

    But I really do not tolerate lying like that.  If he had been my personal friend, and he did that to me in person, he would no longer by my friend.  It's really that simple.

    WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

    by Anarchofascist on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:27:42 PM PDT

    •  When I saw him admitting he did it on TV, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Distillery

      I thought it was a skit on some kind of comedy show.

      As for the diarist's question, I honestly don't remember "The Clinton years" very well.  I remember what I was doing, but I don't remember being particularly involved or seeing so much political coverage (to be fair, I was about 7 when it started).

      I guess there was (in my circles, at least) a belief that if the government was just doing ok, you didn't have to pay too much attention (we had at least that much back then).  Not that it did any good anyway, since they all just said anything to get elected (a lot of family in bitter ol' western PA).

      I hope we don't get complacent or compromise our values the way a lot of Republican voters have for Bush (honestly, does the remaining 20-something percent actually believe in all this stuff?) just because it's "our guy" doing it.

      Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

      by someone else on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that it was a fishing expedition. (0+ / 0-)

      But after these years of reflection, I realize that he did commit perjury.  If it had been a Republican President who had lied in a deposition on a sexual harassment case, I would have been all over the impeachment.  But because he was a Democrat, I thought it was wrong.

    •  Personal Sex. People In Power Get Some. (0+ / 0-)

      I did, as president of a "fucking" college minor sports team.

      I mean really minor, like on the order of cement canoe building minor.

      Why has this anything to do with governance?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:33:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was a pretty young adult in 1992 (4+ / 0-)

    but I remember thinking he was a bit smarmy, and there was something I didn't trust about him. I really hoped that he wouldn't win the primaries.

    Growing up during the Reagan years, I- like my parents- remained Democratic. I was so unimpressed with Bill though that I didn't even vote in 1992. (I had just moved to another state and hadn't registered in time for one thing, but I was seriously considering voting for Perot as a protest vote.)

    I remember Bill's years as being very divisive. I place a lot of that blame on Gingrich et co., but Bill always seemed to cave on issues and didn't seem particularly trustworthy.

    I lived outside the country for much of the latter part of the 90s and didn't vote again in 1996. I was unenthused with politics by then anyway. There didn't seem to be all that much difference between Dems and Republicans, but the Republicans were just more mean-spirited. Bill was popularish outside the U.S. though.

  •  I remember them (5+ / 0-)

    I remember being madder than hell at him handing our technology, taking donations from and being bought by the Chinese.

    I remember screaming at the TV every time NAFTA came up and wanting to throttle Bill with my bare hands with his casual smile saying that it would improve the environment and working conditions in Mexico!!!

    I remember being constantly disappointed that we didn't have a comprehensive health care plan yet.

    I remember it was one scandal after another.. there was always some melodrama going on.  I joined Move On because I really thought that what Clinton did was between he, his family and Monica and his god and the rest of us should butt out.. but I was madder than hell when it was proven that he looked right at us and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". It was embarrassing for those of us who'd defended him.

    Oh yeah, I remember the Clinton years...

  •  I remember disappointment after disappointment (4+ / 0-)

    starting with his abandonment of several excellent female appointees, and his "don't ask/don't tell" fiasco.

    Then there was the whole Bosnia/Serbia mess, and the attacks on Iraq, and the failure to act on Rwanda-- I could go on, but one of the worst was the whole pandering about "deadbeat dads" which was really absurd since most of the non-paying non-custodial parents just didn't have jobs !

    Ah well. Those are supposed to be the good old days. I don't really think so.

    Let's get some Democracy for America

    by murphy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM PDT

  •  I blocked it all out ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... after the 1994 elections.

  •  Prison building (6+ / 0-)

    Limitation on Federal Habeas review of State convictions.

    Free Speech zones.

    Cellphone location tracking.

    Expanded authority for FBI to monitor political groups, undoing Ford era guidelines.

    Vote Republican on November 5th.

    by ben masel on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:37:48 PM PDT

  •  Short memories (6+ / 0-)

    I am not supporting his wife, and agree that he wasn't perfect, but this is ridiculous.  Clinton was handed a large budget deficit and left with a surplus.  The poverty rate declined every single year he was in office.  Do you know how many combat deaths there were in wars started by Bill Clinton?  Zero.

    And for those who claim that the economic growth of the 1990s was just luck or the internet boom, that's just outright freeper talk.  The economy worked under Clinton because he had people running things who had an answer other than to just cut taxes- such as balancing the budget.  Do you really think it was a coincidence that the economy went to shit when an idiot like Bush took over?

    •  Welcome back! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Distillery

      When did the strike get resolved?

    •  Actually before Bush got there the internet (9+ / 0-)

      bubble had already burst.  

      Now, I'm not taking up for Bush, and I'm not completely tearing down Bill.  But I think too many people have been and still are treating the 1990s like some idyllic utopia.  Bill Clinton was a much better president than the guy who came before him and the one who came after him, but he wasn't a saint.

      He was (excuse me) a whore.  He triangulated gays into Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA, single mothers into three or four jobs, and his own party to wander in the political wilderness for 12 years.  He also left mandatory minimums on the table, and built prison the way we should've been buildin schools.

      So, if I graded him, I'd be giving him a B-.  Not a particular reason to kiss his ass. (BTW, I'd give Bush I a C-, and Bush II an F, and only an F because there's isn't a grade below that.)

      Comparing Barack Obama to Dubya is like comparing Beethoven to Sanjaya!

      by dlh77489 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:49:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with your points, but to me, all of those (3+ / 0-)

      things just indicate doing an ok job.  It should be the bare minimum to balance the budget, put competent people in appointed positions, etc.

      Our standards have just fallen. A lot.

      Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

      by someone else on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:00:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        someone else, lotlizard

        but the only balanced budgets in the last 40 years were under Clinton.  Maybe is should be a bare minimum, but it hasn't been.  And while Clinton appointed competent people, The Bushes and Reagan largely did not.  If you grade on that curve, Clinton comes out way ahead.

        •  I do give Clinton some credit for balancing (0+ / 0-)

          the budget, but I also think that was largely a result of Paygo, which was enacted in 1990, relaxed in 2002, and finally reinstated in 2007 with the return of Democratic rule.  Linkee

          So yes, he did balance the budget, but it was the legislation from the Democratic congress that enabled this.  I think any Democratic president would have balanced the budget in the 90s.  He just happened to be the one who got nominated.

          •  OK (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard

            He just happened to be the one who got nominated.

            He is also the only Democrat do get elected during the past 30 years.  Gore and Kerry and Dukakis and every other Democrat that has run for president might have balanced the budget, but Clinton was the only one who managed to get elected.  

            So there are two parts to why the budget got balanced:

            1. Clinton was smart enough to get elected.  Twice.
            1. After getting elected, Clinton was able to balance the budget - with a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS for six of his eight years in office.
            •  Twice: (0+ / 0-)

              Clinton was smart enough to get elected.  Twice.

              He got elected in 92 because of Perot's run the same way Bush got elected in 2000 because of Nader's run (and the help of some justices).

              He got elected in 96 because he took the Republican position on welfare.  Welfare Reform was one of Bob Dole's few positions.  Clinton signed the bill in July/August of 96 (thereby selling out Democrats) so Dole would have nothing to run on.  It may have been smart but it sold the party out.

              Again, paygo balanced the budget.  Just because republicans were in office doesn't mean it was in suspension already.

    •  call me a freeper, but I've never voted for a Rep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, The Distillery

      at the national level.

      But, in response to this:

      The economy worked under Clinton because he had people running things who had an answer other than to just cut taxes- such as balancing the budget.

      the Republican Congress had their own agenda at the time. The legislative branch funds the executive branch, so this cannot really be solely attributed to Clinton.

      And as for this:

      Do you know how many combat deaths there were in wars started by Bill Clinton?  Zero.

      Well, it depends on what you mean by "start" and "combat deaths." There were American combat deaths in Somalia. But there was "collateral damage" (read: non-American combat deaths) in Serbia, Iraq, Haiti.... And "genocides" allowed to continue in Rwanda, Bosnia.

  •  I'll give him a few good points. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry

    Course any rational president would have done the same but still....

    Bill blocked the Republicans in congress from deregulating the banking industry. Like the S&L deregulation wasn't fresh in everybody's minds but they still tried.

    Bill blocked them from dismantling the clean air act and clean water act. They tried and he said, "Sorry...but no f*cking way!" (paraphrase)

    Gingrich wanted to completely deregulate the Wall Street crooks who run the stock market. Bill said "Sorry, ain't gonna happen".

  •  I wasn't upset at getting arrested 3 times (3+ / 0-)

    for leafletting against inclusion of the Death Penalty in the Platform at the '96 Democratic Convention.

    Getting actually prosecuted for 30 years worth of trumped up felonies, however, still pisses me off.

    Vote Republican on November 5th.

    by ben masel on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:41:30 PM PDT

  •  There's a great essay just on that (5+ / 0-)

    ... here. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few on that website. The gentleman who owns it is very knowledgeable and he does not like Clinton either.

    But the one that really gets my goat is this one. Couple of days ago, there was a great discussion at TPM on whether Bill Clinton was a neocon/neolib (can't find the link). I am now convinced he was one.

    In Clintonomics: a Reappraisal - The Hollow Boom, Robert Pollin writes:

    Clinton never abandoned the idea that "it's the economy stupid" should remain the watchwords of his Presidency. It was just that the "Putting People First" agenda of his 1992 campaign would have to yield top priority to the prerogatives of the financial markets and the wealthy. How could Clinton have undergone such a lightening reversal from the program on which he was elected to office? The answer was straightforward, and explained with unvarnished candor by Robert Rubin, who had been Co-Chair of the premier Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs before joining the Clinton administration and who was to become Clinton's most influential economic advisor and Treasury Secretary. Still during the interregnum before Clinton's first inauguration, Rubin pointed out to members of the more populist camp within the newly forming administration that the rich "are running the economy and make the decisions about the economy." - Link

    •  Are We Sure His Conversion Didn't Happen During (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gene12

      the nomination race when he began losing because of Paula Jones?

      My dim recollection is that that's when he went to Wall St. et. al. for help with its consequent conditions.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:35:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't be surprised! (0+ / 0-)

        My feelings are that there are trappings to his conversion, as you say, that we are not yet ready or willing to talk about. Perhaps, also, we are too close to events to see and link the dots.

  •  I remember the government shutdown. (0+ / 0-)

    Here you are with a handful of holes, a thumb up your ass and a big grin to pass the time of day with.

    by jazzence on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:38 PM PDT

  •  My favorite memory of the clinton years (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, mattman, Mike Erwin, bebacker

    was the battle of seatlle.  Himself was about to speak to the WTO, they had a deal in place, the speech was written, but the anarchists, the environmentalists, and the unionists took it to the streets and the WTO had to change their deal and Clinton had to rewrite his speech.

    In fairness, life for those of us who live on the down side of town was much better during the Clinton years than it was during Bush/Reagan.  Sadly we are paying for that now --our money isn't worth much, a lot of the jobs are gone, that boom was an irresponsible charge card binge that promoted consumerism at the expense of common sense and the environment.

    But he was WAY WAY better than either of the Bushes.

  •  Lani Guinier opened my eyes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not

    The cowardice and dishonesty displayed on this issue by Bill took away the rose color from my glasses. He threw her under the bus so fast i got whiplash.

    Standing on the shoulders of John Brown-Ida B Wells-David Walker-Paul Robeson-Fannie Lou Hamer.

    by kiki236 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58:19 PM PDT

  •  I don't remember much (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal, Samwoman

    I was in high school and college from 1993 to 2001. I had plenty of socio-narco-sexual distractions. I do remember Gingrich, though. And OJ and Rush and Cobain and Dre and Radiohead and Ward Connerly and nubile Campus Democrats and vicious Campus Republicans and explaining how 1996 wasn't much of a victory for anyone.

    Ugh, thanks for the flashbacks, dude. :)

  •  GREAT diary! As I was reading I kept moving my (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, The Distillery

    mouse over to the Rec button, wanting to click it again and again and harder each time! (hmm--I didn't actually mean for that to sound the way it does.  ;-))
    Thank you for bringing all this up--there seems to be a general acceptance that The Clinton Years were so wonderful--and I suppose that's because he was the only (supposed) Democrat in the last 28 years! (and of course, except for lovely Carter, MANY for many more years before then we were saddled with Republicans in the White House).

    I think that because people are so Republican-weary, a Democrat from yesteryear, during the TECH BOOM, seems like the good ol' days.

    PLEEEEEASE not again--

    HOPE: It's the new black.

    by Samwoman on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM PDT

  •  Ain't gonna lie. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dcoronata, The Distillery

        The vast majority of the people I knew then got PAID then, including myself.

        The Clinton economy had us working overtime in high-tech to meet demand.

        Granted, the oversize paychecks were NOT a result of clinton's policies, and in fact, at least 3 million good jobs have been exported as a direct result of clinton being preznit...

        Sad to say that the formerly manufacturing workers are blaming baby bush instead of properly blaming daddy bush and clinton.

    •  I Was In Hi Tech Then. Don't You Get It? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, The Distillery

      We were building the infrastructure of outsourcing.

      I got it.

      Of course, I lost my career due to outsourcing when he was still in office.

      I thought programmers and sytems analysts were supposed to think about how things work and what they're really for.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:38:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I lost my job just slightly later than you did! (0+ / 0-)

            I was in high-tech, but the clinton inspired outsourcing hit me later than you.

            I saw it coming from a long ways off! I got it long before YOU did!

            That is my whole point!!!!!

            People like us were jettisoned by daddy bush and clinton, for the sole purpose of inflating corporate profits.

            So yeah, I "got it" long before clinton exported your job.

            FWIW, I'm on YOUR side, no matter what.

      •  I'm still in high-tech (0+ / 0-)

        and I think you're dead wrong.

        IT was the "infrastructure".  Instant worldwide telecommunications made it possible for someone in the middle of the night in India to pick up the phones and do help desk work, or remotely diagnose your PC's woes.  This had nothing to do with any political or financial malfeasance but simple economics- when in world history have more expensive forms of labor replaced cheaper labor?  I understand how labor unions enhanced the value of worker's lives but those guys were LOCALIZED.  You couldn't ship a car from China to the US back then economically.

        If you want to return high technology jobs to the US, the only way to do it is to boycott companies that stockpile H-1b's and demand higher wages for the best technicians, engineers, and software writers on the planet; those educated in the USA.

        •  Uh- What can I say?. (0+ / 0-)

              Because the clenis demanded that any and all good paying jobs MUST be exported, many people far smarter and far more talented than YOU lost their jobs.

              The fact that you are far too ignorant to understand the impact of that fact, proves to  thinking people that you are far too ignorant to have >STANDING<in this discussion.</p>

              Please stop branding yourself as an ignorant moron, and google "standing", "IT jobs outsourced"

              You voted for bush, and the fact that he hates you because you work for a living, and he exported your semi-skilled job to India may cause you to complain. The fact is, if you and your fellow morons had voted for Gore in 2K, instead of sucking bush dick, you would be retired with riches enough to travel the world over.

              But you all voted for a punk who hates you all.

              You treasonous traitors are sowing what you reaped.

              It was daddy bush and the clenis and baby bush  who nuked your worthless job.

              Get the fuck off your worthless Repug welfare, and least provide evidence enough to prove that  there might exist a single repug smart enough to spell "United Nations"

              Ok- You failed that.

              Bugger off MORON

              Terrible shame that Dcoronata is a repug whore.

              Dcoronata is a repug whore.

              Dcoronata is a repug whore.
              And google wil record this fact FOREVER

  •  I remember a bridge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, The Distillery

    And it was supposed to lead into the future.

    But now I see that it just leads back the way we just came.

    •  That Was Gore's Bridge Not Clinton's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Distillery

      Clinton's bridge was to the corporate future in which we would be serfs with doctors, as opposed to Gingrich's future which was serfs without doctors.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:39:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, we remember. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Distillery

    We remember NAFTA, losing the House and the Senate, the assault weapons ban, Monica Lewinsky, the impeachment trial, political triangulation, and a whole host of scandals.  

  •  Hell, I remember the Kennedy years. (2+ / 0-)

    And, frankly, the Clinton years look good in comparison to the 12 years before them and the 7 years after -- for many, many reasons.  But they're going to pale when set beside the Obama years.

    Si se fucking puede! - Melody Townsel

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:07:07 AM PDT

  •  I remember a decade of moral cowardice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry

    Two words: "Bosnia" and "Rwanda." I'm currently knee-deep in research on the Rwanda genocide for a play I'm writing, and the deep, deep cowardice and the  twisting of language to avoid being forced to act makes me ashamed to be an American.

  •  I do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davybaby

    And it was the best financial times of my life.

    My salary doubled (electronic engineer) my stocks went through the roof, inflation was almost non-existent and I paid $0.0909 for a gallon of gas.

    I didn't have to worry about my phones being tapped, crime in my city (NYC) plummeted, the murder rate went down by 65%, and the local neighborhood (Flushing, NY) went from a blight to a very successful community.

    I'd do whatever it takes to bring those times back.

  •  "Rendition" (0+ / 0-)

    It started during the 90's, right?

  •  Still (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davybaby

    if you ask most rank and file Democrats, they're going to tell you they liked the Clinton years;

    unemployment was low, the economy was good, the country wasn't at war. Nobody cared about DOMA, don't ask, don't tell, Telecommunications Act, welfare reform, or most of anything else.

    Just wondering, but would you have voted to impeach him because he lied?

  •  He was no friend of civil liberties (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    acquittal, Uebermensch

    He signed legislation creating a slew of new death penalty offenses, supported censorship of the Internet (the legal battle over the Communications Decency Act is still simmering), continued the failed War on Drugs, and used his bully pulpit to back small-bore authoritarian measures such as school uniforms and curfews.

    Charming.

    Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:08:37 AM PDT

    •  AEDPA (0+ / 0-)

      Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed by clinton.

      Besides expanding the federal death penalty, it vastly restricted the writ habeas corpus.  AEDPA changed the burden that a petitioner has to meet.   Now a petitioner for federal habeas relief has to show that no reasonable court would have ruled against him or her at the state level on his or her constitutional claim.

      Habeas was dying before bush was even inaugurated.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site