Poll: Does Bill Clinton campaigning for Kerry help or hurt Kerry?
Helps
Hurts
Helps
Hurts
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Clintons & Bushes will not go away
#1
From this article, we learn that top Democratic party advisers have asked Bill Clinton to play starring role in the final months on the campaign.
Quote:"There has been talk about the danger of Bill Clinton overshadowing John," a senior Democrat told the London Telegraph, "but the decision has been taken to accept him as being center stage and hope that some of the magic rubs off."
and
Quote:Kerry's senior strategist Harold Ickes contacted Clinton this month to discuss how the two-term veteran of the White House could best be utilized leading up to the polls in November.

Anytime we talk politics with our brethren on the left, they denounce us for bringing up the many shortcomings of Bill Clinton (personal as well as public). But it is the left who will simply not let Clinton fade away. Personally, I am sick of talking about Clinton and his failure of a presidency. I would love to move on and never talk about him again but the left simply will not allow it.

Clinton will overshadow Kerry, no doubt about it. Just about anybody with even a modicum of charisma will overshadow Kerry and say what you want about Clinton, he does have charisma. The left's love affair with Clinton continues unabated, he will overshadow Kerry from that perspective. The right's animosity for Clinton assures he once again becomes a focal point for criticism, again overshadowing Kerry. The moderates will simply be entertained by the inevitable spectacle that will ensue between right and left and completely forget Kerry.

Perhaps this is the strategy now, obscure Kerry to the point nobody criticizes or even notices him. Make him seem invisible so he can be the first "stealth president" in US history. Can Kerry walk out of this smoke screen and secure the vote for president or will he disappear into the obscurity Bill Clinton has forsaken?
I have seen the fnords.
Reply
#2
Well Im sick of Bush and his failure of a presidency, but the republicans keep bringing him back.

And what failures did Clinton due beside lie about his BJ?? Bush lied about WMDs and the cost of medicare, but nobody seems to care.
Reply
#3
PoliticalGamer Wrote:Well Im sick of Bush and his failure of a presidency, but the republicans keep bringing him back.

He's not being brought back, he is the president. Previous presidents have avoided the spotlight to a great extent after their adminstrations. Sure, they come back and do the occasional speech but it's typically pretty mundane stuff. Clinton is constantly engaged in the political arena.

With the negatives surrounding him and a poor track record since he left office for those he endorses (ask Gray Davis), how does this serve the Democrats to keep him around?

How was Clinton a failure? Under his watch, the Democrats lost the house and senate for the first time in a generation. The GOP took a commanding lead in governorships and state legislatures. In virtually every level of govenrment, the Democrats lost considerable ground under Bill Clinton. His political legacy was one of loss and failure.

His personal legacy is one of scandal. When the personal legacy of a president is the debate of oral sex and other salacious and embarrassing events (Kathleen Willy, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, et al). How can that be judged anything other than a miserable failure? If not an outright failure, it's a least miserable. Note that I'm talking about a personal legacy here.

Not to say he didn't accomplish some really good things (like NAFTA) but who thinks of those successes when there is a sea of scandals that wash away those few islands of accomplishment?

When will the left let go of Bill Clinton? I assure you the righ won't before the left does. S7
I have seen the fnords.
Reply
#4
Politicalgamer: Clinton lied about almost everything in his Presidency including his BJ's, as you called it. His Bimbo eruptions even before his initial election was covered up by his staff at a huge cost - and the only reason he didn't pay for it was because Bush 41 told his campaign staff not to use it as a weapon against Clinton.

As a matter of fact, Mary Matalin controlled the money in the 1992 Bush campaign and said:
Quote:Betsy Wright announced that she was putting $28,000 on the 'bimbo' patrol and on Jack Palladino and Pellicano, the other guy. [These are the operatives who threatened the families of the "bimbos" if they talked.]

"And $28,000 to me, the political director, was four states in the Rocky Mountains. You had a limited budget. I said, how could they spend this much money? How could they basically give up four states to track down 'bimbos'?

"That's why it was kind of shocking to me that it must have been a bigger priority than putting money into states for the purpose of winning and that's why I flagged it at the time. I don't even remember how many or what kind of women."

However, even though Pellicano's tapes and letters offered smoking-gun proof of the Clinton campaign's heavy-handed attempts to silence the future president's ex-girlfriends, then-President Bush refused to use the damaging info to save his re-election bid.

Matalin explained: "When I went to my boss in the campaign with this information and then they went to Bush, Bush himself called me up and said, 'I don't want to hear it. Don't even tell me what you have. Throw it all out!'"
Oh wait! wasn't this when James Riady gave Clinton that $3.5 million unsecured loan? Of course it was - but let's not worry about the payback by giving away our military technology to the Chinese.

No, saying Clinton is a paragon of virtue when it was so evidently the other way around is not something to put forward here.

When I say Clinton lied about almost everything in his Presidency - try to name something that wasn't tainted by a spin of one kind or another.
  • Billy Dale and Travelgate?
  • Fundraising from the Chinese covered up by Jaime Gorelick's Counterintelligence Firewall that allowed 9/11 to happen?
  • Bombing Kosovo so the media wouldn't focus on the Cox report on losing a 20 or 30 year lead over the Chinese military?
  • Bombing an aspirin plant and some empty tents to distract the media from a blue dress with stains on it?
  • Lying about the economy in 1992 when he already knew the economy had straightened out and the recovery had begun? (It's the economy, stupid?)
  • Lying about Lewinky was stupid because he was already under investigation and could have been blackmailed by someone -- a lobbyist or a political opponent or worse.
  • He lied about how deep he was indebted to James Riady. (The Riadys gave $450,000 to Clinton's presidential campaign and another $600,000 to the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties. After losing the New Hampshire primary, the candidate faced a crucial test in New York. But he had also run out of money. At this critical juncture, James Riady stepped in to arrange a $3.5 million loan to the Clinton campaign. New York proved to be the last real competition that Clinton faced on his path to victory. The Riady relationship extended beyond the Clintons themselves to their friends and to Hillary's associates at Rose, including its head, Joe Giroir, and a White House aide named Mark Middleton, who later invoked the Fifth Amendment when he was called before a congressional committee. It was the Riadys who provided a $100,000 "job" for the indicted Web Hubbell, at the moment when he had indicated to the Starr prosecutors that he might be ready to talk. After the payment from Riady and others, Hubbell changed his mind and chose jail instead.)


Why bother? "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" quoted by Bob Kerrey.

The other thing to remember is that Bush did not lie about WMD - no matter how much the Democrats want to believe he did. And the cost of Medicare is an interesting target for the Democrats to lecture Bush about, isn't it?
Reply
#5
This on Drudge.

Funny, this is one of the guys that Clinton paid $28,000 to "fix" the "bimbo eruptions" when he was running for President against Bush 41. Who knew?
Reply
#6
Face it Lambert and Gary - niether one of you can accept the fact you have the dumbest and most incompetent president in history! So you have no choice but to rehash everything you can make up about Clinton.

Quote:But it is the left who will simply not let Clinton fade away. Personally, I am sick of talking about Clinton and his failure of a presidency.

Failure - this is rich! He built the military that Bush is now destroying and he got rid of the republican deficits by turning them into surpluses and now Bush 2 (A continuation of the Bush legacy as PG said) has squandered that too. And Political Gamer had it right - you never address the faults of Bush - you all suck at his teats like a bunch of mewling babies - filling yourself so full of his bs that you can hardly think.

Gotta love you republican apologists! If you can't explain it - change the topic! Very rich!
Reply
#7
Murdok Wrote:Face it Lambert and Gary - niether one of you can accept the fact you have the dumbest and most incompetent president in history! So you have no choice but to rehash everything you can make up about Clinton.
This has nothing to do with Bush. The left always complains about bringing up Clinton but you do the same thing about Bush! This thread has nothing to do with Bush but everyone from the left refutes the Clinton failures by mentioning Bush and tossing in a few personal insults just to muddy the water a little.

The fact is he lost the entire federal government and most of the state and local governments to the GOP. By any measure that is a significant failure in the political arena. His personal failures can be argued as irrelevant but in the sensationalized media we now live with they are impossible to ignore.

The question remains, with everyone he endorses losing elections and the continued polarization he brings to the table, why does the DNC and Kerry seem to want to rely on Clinton so much? Did Kerry learn nothing from Gray Davis?
I have seen the fnords.
Reply
#8
Okay - Clinton was far from perfect. In fact he was pretty much a hypocrite and lied about sex. He was a damaged individual...can you be as honest about you own president? - who by the way IS President and not a former leader.

So as he is the guy in office - you still insist on changing the topic when ever someone brings up your guy...why is that Gary? Can you say...embarrassed?
Reply
#9
Murdok Wrote:... you still insist on changing the topic when ever someone brings up your guy...why is that Gary? Can you say...embarrassed?
Uh, Chuck ... the topic of this thread is Bill Clinton ( Bill Clinton will not go away ). I'm not changing the topic, you are. :lol:

Actually, the topic is not so much Clinton personally. It's how he continues to linger to the detriment of the Democrats. Does anybody he campaigns for ever win the election? They would be the exception to the rule. It generally appears that he brings out just as much of a negative vote for whoever he is campaigning for as he does postive votes.

Even with that track record, they are still bringing him out for the presidential election. Given the history, does this help or hurt Kerry?
I have seen the fnords.
Reply
#10
Well - I'm learning from the best - now about George W. Bush... S6
Reply
#11
Regarding Bush, Gary first wrote:

Quote:He's not being brought back, he is the president.

Then, again regarding Bush, Gary later wrote:

Quote:The left always complains about bringing up Clinton but you do the same thing about Bush!

I think you're dead on there--he IS the president. Clinton is not elected, today he's just another talking head. Unfortunately, reality is that the past can't be changed, no matter how many loud republican whines ring out.
Reply
#12
Sorry everybody, I edited my post and you guys were waaay faster that I thought. I added:

Actually, the topic is not so much Clinton personally. It's how he continues to linger to the detriment of the Democrats. Does anybody he campaigns for ever win the election? They would be the exception to the rule. It generally appears that he brings out just as much of a negative vote for whoever he is campaigning for as he does postive votes.

Even with that track record, they are still bringing him out for the presidential election. Given the history, does this help or hurt Kerry?
I have seen the fnords.
Reply
#13
Can I have some Cheese whith that whine? :twisted:
Reply
#14
Helps Kerry - energizes the Base - which was Gores mistake, he did not capitalize on Clinton's popularity.

And remember - Gore won the popular vote - if he had used Clinton - he probably could have won the electoral as well.

So yes - the dems use what tools they have. No surprise there.
Reply
#15
Helps--What Murdock says.

Plus, the more negative Bush goes--and he's bucking to break all the records on negative campaigning--the better Clinton will help Kerry. We've had these last four years, four more years, of stupid, pointless, dreadfully dull Clinton bashing and rehashing. Bush lied. So what, Clinton did Monica! Bush loves coke. So what, Clinton loves toke!

While this ploy has had some impact of uniting the Republicans against goodness and light, this low level of discourse is wearing thin for all. Suppose everything nasty every Bushie said about Clinton was just and true. Who cares? Unless it brings Iraq under control, creates jobs or lowers gas prices--and it couldn't possibly--it's irrelevant. And it's tiresome. And immature. And people are beginning to notice.

[Edited for stupid tags!]
Reply
#16
Sorry, my post stands. I was pretty specific about Clinton's lies and his failure to have any kind of legacy except as a failure. He ruined the economy which Bush had to rescue. He ruined the confidence in corporate America by nurturing the Enron and Global Crossing sort of pragmatism that Bush also had to heal. He ruined the International respect that Reagan forged by blue-dress bombing and Somalia retreats - again what Bush has had to repair.

Gore hated him and refused to let him in his campaign. Gore lost so a person can rehabilitate Clinton's ability to hurt other candidate's campaigns by asking what would have happened if?

No one takes anything Clinton says at face-value: it's all about what hidden agenda is he working on. Is it to hurt the candidate to give Terry McAulliffe continued sway over party finances? Is it something to benefit Hillary down the road somehow? Is it to keep his own name in the headlines to bolster his speaker's fees or to hawk his book? Is it to win the U.N. Sectretary General role after Kofi Anan is kicked out for malfeasance? Is it to replace Gorbachev as world Environmenmtal gestapo? Or is it that damn legacy thing again? - no... that's Carter.
Reply
#17
Quote:Helps--What Murdock says.

Yeap. Kerry does best when he is not seen; anything that pushes him out of headlines should help. Iraqi abuse, Clinton giving speeches, Bush giving speeches, or Michael Jackson molesting a few more catholic priests: any of these should help. Wink1
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#18
Clinton does not want Kerry elected. it would interfere with Hillary's chances. Its for this reason Clinton sabotaged Dean who could have been a real challenge Bush by more seperately defining the democratic party.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply
#19
So Baldar is now the ai-jane version of John Edwards - do you read palms too?
Reply
#20
Bill as for your so called failure - the economy was just as much a testament of the GOP house as it was the policies of Bill Clinton. You can't have it both ways pal. And you cannot argue that under Bill Clinton the deficits disapeared...because if you want to say it was the policies of Reagan or Bush the elder - then logic dictates that the recovery we are now seeing is the policy of Bill Clinton - set in motion some years ago.

As for the rest of your - very light weight post on the so called failures of Billy boy - pretty damn thin. You should try reading some of the more meaty stuff from the White house insiders who were actually there. You just mught learn something.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Future Bushes John L 14 2,177 11-10-2014, 07:32 PM
Last Post: John L
  Clintons Overboard! John L 25 2,385 06-05-2008, 10:23 PM
Last Post: quadrat
  Bushes bait and switch scheme get_involved 8 1,672 05-13-2006, 09:31 PM
Last Post: WmLambert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)