So tonite, I decide to see whats up on Daily Kos, and I come across this crazy diary.
Now, I normally respect what people have to say, but I cannot do so when a source like the Daily Telegraph, a known conservative Republican source says. He goes through a discredited attempt to call Clinton a racist by spinning the "fairy tale" remark when Clinton clearly meant his stance on the Iraq War. The roll of the dice was referring to his lack of experience. But of course, the truth doesn't matter, only the spin to bash the only two term Democratic President since Franklin Roosevelt because he wasn't liberal on every issue while he was in office, and wasn't perfect. But then, for someone bashing him, he tries to have it both ways, saying
If Bill Clinton wants to remove the doubt about his racial views, he should be out on the campaign trail. He should be going to every rural town he visited for Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama's behalf. Bill Clinton, were he an objective and rational person instead of the selfish and irrational person he is, would realize that his legacy is caught up in the election of Barack Obama
So you hate the shit out of him, you say he made us into the party of liars, but you want him campainging for Barack? Then, you give us the ULTIMATE GOP talking point, saying
If Barack Obama loses, Bill Clinton will be remembered for the following things: botching health care, botching killing Osama bin Laden because a military strike would look too much like a movie which was out at the time, NAFTA and the decline of the industrial Midwest, and school uniforms. If Barack Obama loses, Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of the worst Presidents ever.
So you choose to recycle Republican talking points about not getting Bin Laden, even tho Bush never got as close as Clinton, and under Clinton, 9/11 never happened nor anything else like it? You accuse of of being scared of being called "wag the dog" even tho he DID launch missile strikes on him, and the 9/11 commission showed that he was concerned with nothing more than getting him. You blame him for the midwest decline, but fail to acknowledge that it was going to hell long before Bill, during the Nixon, Reagan, and yes even Carter years, along with Bush I. NAFTA may have been implemented by Clinton, but was negotiated by Bush I, and supported by EVERY LIVING FORMER PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. Was he an amazing President like Lincoln or FDR? No, but how dare you call him "one of the worst!" Was Reagan and the Bushes better? Were Ford, Harding, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Hoover, Taft, Harrison, Buchanan, Adams Jr., Carter, and all the other mediocres better? Maybe, except none of them kept our country prosperous, gave us a surplus, kept attacks like 9/11 off our soil, made us as respected in the world, stopped atrocities in countries like Haiti, Serbia, and Kosovo, and the only President in the 30 years prior to Clinton who lifted a finger for minorities was LBJ, did more for gays than any other President previous, appointed more minorities to important posts, gave us two solid SCOTUS justices, cut poverty, helped student loans, and countless things. Was he perfect? NO. Did he sign Telecom Reform, and DOMA? Yes he did. But remember both of those bills were passed VETO PROOF. Did he do welfare reform? YES HE DID. But even Barack Obama supported it, as he says in his book, and in his new commercial, he brags about moving people from 'welfare to work." Did he have an affair with an intern? Yes he did, but JFK, FDR, Bush I, and countless others had affairs too. Yes, his impeachment and "scandal" didn't help Al Gore, but we could go into a lot of other instances where Al Gore didn't help Al Gore either. But thats a story for another time.
Sadly, a lot of people chose to jump on the fun Clinton-bashing bandwagon. you know, the kind that goes on at Redstate.org, and Free Republican. Thankfully, not everyone is so willing. I will remind everyone that in the 6 elections before Bill Clinton, we used to average 113 electoral votes. That counts Carter's nailbiter victory in 1976. Not only did Clinton win twice, but even the candidates after him averaged 260, much better than the pre-Clinton candidate. This is because we used to be weak on issues like crime and welfare, which Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I used to whack us over the head with. Those were racially charged issues with obvious racial intent. Even the person who wrote the diary I linked above said
If Barack Obama wins, Bill Clinton will get a lot of credit for his dialog in the 1990s, which opened up the door for a politician like Obama.
And you're damned right.
Also, why not spend time talking about THIS election? Why not talk about Obama v. McCain, but instead, we sit here bashing someone who is very popular to bash amongst the press, and aparantly here. It is also a mean angry dialogue. It does not help in party building, but serves to alienate much of the party, most of which still reveres Bill Clinton.