Unlike the GOP, and their treatment of folks like Vitter and Gingrich, who in the Dem power structure is supporting Edwards?
You fucking twerp.
For some reason, I don’t expect Bill Clinton to rummage through the desk of his wife to find secrets he can sell to the Russians. That scenario, and the description of that scenario as “actively sabotaging [my] favored party”, comes only from the fevered shit-for-brains of scum-licking troglodytes like you.
John Edwards is a ridiculous bag o’ hair, and the Democrats seem to have been happy to see the back of him. But he actually could talk like a progressive, and I appreciated his “Two Americas” rhetoric.
Anthony Weiner is a bit neurotic, and the Democrats seem to have decided he had to go. But his proposal to allow citizens to buy into Medicare was relatively straightforward and sane, and I’m sorry that side of him isn’t leading the party.
Bill Clinton may have poor impulse control. (He’s thinner now, but he used to be the McDonald’s President. He has been accused of sexual harassment that may have involved a mild form of assault; fortunately he denies everything. He has a longstanding problem of “bimbo eruptions”; but hey, it’s Washington, who doesn’t cat around?)
However, to progressives and those who favor integrity in government, he’s offensive for policy reasons: Ending AFDC; limiting federally funded training of physicians to create a shortage; sending mercenaries into Bosnia with immunity from all forms of prosecution for their crimes; signing a law that legalized bucket shops, which helped precipitate a global depression a decade later; and closing federal auditing and research agencies that were supposed to make government work better, in the name of making it “leaner” (but really just simpler). Clinton repeatedly abandoned liberal policies to “triangulate” a place in the political center for himself, not that that could salvage his bad reputation on the right.
Clinton’s term in office saw the Democratic Party fall apart nationally, as their President both became an outrage magnet and failed to maintain the economic stances that had given the party success historically. But the Democratic Party stand by him; they think he’s popular with voters; and, anyway, he’s retired.
Hillary Clinton, however, is* not retired. She has a husband who was a well-liked but perhaps ultimately economically reckless President; she has not come out in favor of fixing his mistakes. She still doesn’t endorse a new Glass-Steagall, unlike most of the Democratic Party. She was responsible for a weirdly complex and apparently dirigiste proposal to reform health insurance that seems to have pleased almost no one. She’s in bed with Wall Street, to the point of moving to New York to better and more plausibly be their *representative. But the Democratic Party stand by her; they think she can sail in on her (dubious) husband’s name, her gender, and a mix of nostalgia and newness. This is a huge difference from 2007-2008, when much of the party was trying to get rid of her and elevated Barack Obama.
Is this rational? I don’t know. But it looks to me like sexual pecadilloes have been an excuse to dump the economic progressives, but not the finance-affiliated and “important” Clintons. Or maybe the party is so beaten down after the loss of Congress that they’ve decided to give up and let HRC have the nomination.
Me? I’m voting for Sanders. And I would have considered voting for Weiner. Probably not John Edwards, who seems like a nice guy, but a bit of a pathological liar. There are some reasonable social liberals and social democrats in American politics. But I don’t trust Clinton (either of them) to hold the party together, let alone hold the party up.
(Well, that got serious. I may have to edit this into a post for a non-Pit thread.)
It just occurred to me that if not for Democrats letting people who can’t control their urges getting to the top of the party, that we would never have seen a President Bush.
Democratic president can’t control his urges – so he cheats on his wife.
Republican president can’t control his urges – so he invades a country based on a lie, wastes billions, and gets thousands of American servicemen and women killed for nothing.
I don’t know that that was an uncontrollable urge. It was a choice, made after long consultations and a long process.
Contrast that to Obama’s war, which was pretty much decided on instantly as a reaction to headlines. No debate, no attempt to go to the UN, no attempt to build support for the war at home.
I’d note that in Bush’s case, his actions also led to President Obama, just as Gary Hart’s actions probably led to Bush 41 and Clinton’s led to Bush 43.
Yeah, it was a long process. It takes a while to fire everyone that tells you that your plan it’s stupid, to manufacture your own faulty intelligence, and to browbeat one ally into supporting you. That fact that it took Bush a while to make the biggest fuck up in either of our lifetimes isn’t a bonus.
Nice job trying to equate thousands of dead, destabilizing the entire region, creating ISIS, alienating all of our allies, burning trillions of dollars, and not accomplishing one God damn thing with launching some missiles. Same thing…
Is it better if you’re willfully obtuse our just too stupid to know the difference? Or shilling for the GOP could be a pastime? A job astroturfing?
The Spanish name Agapito is frequently shortened to “Pito,” which also means “whistle,” and hence is slang for “dick.”
In the movie Spy Hard, Leslie Nielson’s character was named Dick Steele, leading to much double entendre using the other meaning of dick. In the Spanish subtitles, the character was called Agapito, so they could make the same jokes with pito.
He would, except he’s run out of options. He may be almost on the verge of admitting it, too.
I had him pegged as a retiree who spends half his day in the recliner yelling at Fox, and the other half stenographing what they tell him on this message board (and perhaps others).
Can we put that in the Predictions thread? “A Republican” will win the Presidency despite not having a name? :rolleyes:
Quote: Anthony Weiner is a bit neurotic, and the Democrats seem to have decided he had to go. But his proposal to allow citizens to buy into Medicare was relatively straightforward and sane, and I’m sorry that side of him isn’t leading the party.
a BIT neurotic? Posting pictures of his genitals online? You have a starnge opinion of this creep. I guess he and his “wife” have a sort of undertsnding, much like Hillary and Bill.
It’s the usual “Generic Republican.” The only one that can beat Democrats.
Why do you write “wife” instead of wife? Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin are married.
Marriage of convenience. You think any woman would want to have sex with somebody like Weiner? I’d be afraid of all the VDs he’s bringing home.
With what benefit?
It just occurred to me that if not for Republicans letting people who can’t get it up control the top of their party, that we might never have heard of Bob Dole (among others).
Does no one remember Warren G. Harding?!
So no response to my post?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18963395&postcount=198
Per the title of the OP and further posts, what is ‘a lock’?
Seriously curious.
Do you not see the causal link? 
Democratic voters made up of those who sexually harass their co-workers, or those who are harassed, and think it’s normal; so they think Bill Clinton is completely acceptable.
Americans who were taught manners vote Republican thereafter. GOP President invades a country and kills hundreds of thousands of persons.
The Democratic Party can insist that therefore we should accept that sexual harassment is good. Then those of us who were taught manners will vote Republican again. Maybe not for Trump, but downticket.
[del]Expect[/del] Demand respect for women from your menfolk, and you might win an election without needing an eccentric billionaire like Ross Perot to lower the vote threshold for you.
That was before the New Deal realignment. The parties were a little different then.