I remember her, yes. And he didn’t rape her. You’re quite wrong.
I remember the incident. And I repeat: Mr. Clinton was the President. He had the legal role to set foreign policy for the country, in accord with US law. You disagree that permitting COSCO to occupy the vacated space in Long Beach was a good idea. Fine. But it’s not your call to make. You cannot transform a difference of opinion into treason simply by wishing it were so.
No, no one forced him to lie under oath, and I agree that the behavior was despicable. But to deny that he was forced into a position in which lying under oath seemed an attractive option is sheer blindness. Regardless of the position he was forced into, I agree he cannot justify lying under oath. But let’s not pretend that it happened completely without the involvement of right-wing forces.
“I can tell you this: It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don’t care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth.”
It should be pointed out HRC is on record opposing gay marriage & has been moderating her position on abortion.
But this is a poll taken in early Spring 2005. People here (as well as in general public) still have a hangover from last November’s race. The next presidential election isn’t for another 1,200 days! No one’s paying attention - no one really cares. These results don’t read to me as support - but rather name recognition.
Oh, I dunno. Was Bill nationally known before he hit the 1992 primaries? Seems to me that was Mario Cuomo’s big chance. By 2008, I can easily imagine a charismatic, well-organized Dem governor or a minor state coming out of nowhere to win the primaries.
Frankly, I thought it was a mistake to dump Dean. He was charmingly hyperkinetic, just like Harry Truman.
But that was 1992, SSSR collapsed, Saddam was quickly beaten into submission and Americans went on a euphoric pleasure ride. Books were published with titles like “The End of History”.
We are back to the school of hard knocks now. No more charming foolishness, such as retired New Yorkers voting for Buchanan in Florida and thus tipping election for Bush. We need healthy margins, we gotta have mandates…
This is known as “playing to the base while saying nothing that can come back to haunt you in a future election.” This is how a savvy Democrat plays the field - establish a voting record you can use to show middle America that you are centrist. In the meantime, throw out the odd fire-and-brimstone speech to reassure the base that you are ‘one of them’.
You’re probably right. It jibes with some other stuff I read today. But I guess I’m part of a very small voter bloc and these guys wisely aren’t working that hard to get my vote. When I hear shit like HC’s speech I have nothing but contempt for the speaker, and an urge to donate lots of money to anyone running against them.
As for their supporters who justify it by saying it’s true, I have even more contempt. As a bit of an outsider (libertarian) I can’t believe that there are Dems who are stupid enough to believe it.
What? Bush and his team and their supporters in Congress clearly have no shame about what they’re doing. They are making decisions (or trying to, anyway) which will undermine our checks and balances. And if they have any acquaintance with the truth, they certainly have no respect for it. What part of that can you seriously dispute?
Fairly well, but more as an up-and-comer than a current heavy hitter. He didn’t have his face on every magazine cover, though.
Not as big as 1988, when he delivered the outstanding “Tale of Two Cities” speech at the convention, but he seemed happy just to get all the adulation without doing the heavy lifting needed to actually run.
I’d say so, too.
But he yelled at a pep rally! He must be psychotic! Temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency!
His aspirations were reflected in the pop culture, though, perhaps best by a November 2, 1991 SNL sketch titled Democrat Debate '92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush, in which the Dems slander themselves trying to avoid the nomination and eventual loss to Bush41, then presumed unbeatable. Bill Clinton was not represented. Cuomo announced that he was unsuitable because he had mob ties, and Tipper Gore spoke on behalf of her husband, who was not present because he’d taken the kids to a gay porno theatre.
I know I should be following Abe Lincoln’s advice here, but I’ll give it one more shot.
HC is saying Republicans:
have no shame about what they’re doing…
don’t care…
have never been acquainted with the truth.
I don’t particularly like polliticians - remember, I’m a libertarian, but even to me these are ridiculous overgeneralizations that are extremely hurtful not only to Republican politicians but also to the people who honestly support them for what they are doing. A leader who hopes to bring people together has no business villifying large segments of the population like this.
And anyone who responds by saying “yeah, but it’s true!” obviously has never taken the time to read anything outside of the small circle of allowable material. I could give you many examples, but let me try just one.
Since HC was apparently talking about the filibuster battles, I’ll choose one example from that discussion. I challenge you to read Jay Cost’s recent article about the filibuster and the reader comments and come away from it thinking that HC’s above points are true, or even worthy of respect.
No, Plan, I think when she says it is “very hard to stop people who . . . ,” she is not talking about Republicans, that is, the rank-and-file Republican voters, nor even about party activists or officers; she is talking only about the Bush Administration and their supporters in Congress; and her generalizations apply perfectly well to them. And I think most Libertarians would agree on all three points.
I’m not familiar with the context of her statements (you didn’t include a cite or link), but as for threats to our checks and balances and constitutional system, there are a lot of things Bush has done that scare me a lot more than the prospect of eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees – e.g., inventing a new category of “illegal enemy combatants”; getting us into the Iraq quagmire (with no end in sight) based on a lie; reviving the Cold War policy of “ideological exclusion” of foreigners; taking government stealth propaganda to unprecedented levels; and, as a Libertarian, don’t you find the USA PATRIOT Act potentially very threatining to our privacy and civil liberties?