Show-biz consequences as described by Algher notwithstanding, I agree that the result would have been a much more positive one for all of us, right and left both.
Ditto. (Oh, my achin’ head)
Except that, after his term’s up, W will simply retire to Crawford, clearing brush and staying out of the limelight, which means only Laura and his cows will continue to be exposed to his stubborn, delusional cluelessness.
If we’re lucky.
:dubious:
Isn’t he an all hat, no cattle Texan? No, seriously, I seem to recall reading somewhere (in the MSM, folks) that he’s got just enough cows there to support the place as a tax write-off. Not that he’d be alone in doing that sort of thing by any means, of course.
I remember a lot of Limbaugh, etc. froth in 1992 about how Clinton was a “draft-dodger.”
Funny how they all got over that by 1999, and supported Dubya.
All along, the wingnut positions on everything besides tax cuts have been positions of convenience. They were even more anti-war than the Clintons while Bill was President.
No point in giving credence that crowd, under any circumstances.
What “lies and coverups” are now being referred to in the Clintons’ past as if they were fact? Cite? I’m not buying it. Let’s not revise history too much and pretend all that right wing garbage from the past ever had any truth to it.
You’ll have to pardon me, folks - I need to step away from my keyboard to make sure we’re not having an Apocalypse outside. That said, I agree with what’s being said here. I doubt the Clintons have changed much over the years, and for whatever it’s worth I’m glad some more Dopers are seeing them for what they are.
The VRWC was real, by the way. Let’s not lose sight of who the real scumbags were back then.
And as an addendum, ETF, I would also add that the fault for this situation doesn’t necessarily lie solely with the right-wing media. If the mainstream media had been more forthcoming and substantiated the Clinton’s behavior itself, the message would have had an outlet more credible to the overall population than information coming from right-wing sources only.
I notice that even today on CNN’s website, that there is no mention of Clinton’s Bosnia trip, nor mention of Colonel Changose’s comments regarding the true facts of the landing, but there is still coverage regarding Reverend Wright. And I’ve seen virtually nothing about them on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc.
It’s been mostly through Drudge that I’ve been able to find the things that I’ve been linking to in these threads lately, although the story about Bill above did come from a front-page link on CNN.
A serious question deserves a serious answer. But I am not sure I can give you my serious answer without making it sound like casting blame instead of accepting it.
Put it this way - do you believe that an absence of foaming hostility from us VRWConspirators towards Hilary in this election cycle is the reason that former Clinton supporters have come to believe she is as bad as we have said?
Because her behavior now is not all that much worse than her behavior from 1993-2001. She (and her husband) were lying sleazebags then; they are lying sleazebags now.
But still, the serious answer - yes, if there were no over-the-top accusations against the Clintons, it may have been easier to convince some people that they were sleazeballs.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, no Bush voter would ever make excuses or go along with lies and coverups.
Looks like a fourth instance of Hillary’s sniper-fire tale has turned up, this one on Feb. 29 in Waco, TX.
The other three we know about are (1) in Iowa on December 29, (2) her talk show dissing of Sinbad’s refutation, and (3) her GWU speech on March 17, all of which are linked to in my first two posts in this thread.
She’s blaming it on sleep deprivation now. Guess she’s missed a lot of sleep over the length of this campaign. I’ve got an idea for how she might catch up a bit…
Quite. I really think what we’re seeing is that the Clintons are manipulative bastards. Most any other election, that wouldn’t be so bad, because they’d be playing against other manipulative bastards. But Obama’s been pretty clean (and no, he’s not perfect, yes, he has slipped, but on the whole he’s a hell of a lot cleaner than most politicians), and against an opponent like that, manipulative bastards look quite a bit worse, and they’re floundering hard when the usual tactics just aren’t gaining much traction.
I’d still vote for her over McCain, but it’d once again be the lesser of two evils rather than actually voting for someone.
If only McCain had gotten this kind of media bludgeoning for his lies about being able to walk around Baghdad without a bodyguard.
It’s all those damn 3 AM phone calls that are keeping her up.
I agree the Clintons can be manipulative, selective with the truth and ruthless, but so is just about every other politician out there. I think they’re pikers compared to the neocons and I don’t think they’re any [worse than McCain (another adulterer who shades the truth and has had questionable finacial dealings in his past). The Clintons are not extraodinarily evil or unethical. They just get called on it more than anyone else.
One wonders if Bill truly wants his wife to win the nomination. Maybe he’s just half-assing it, leaving some charm in the bag as it were.
Just remember, Dio, three lefts might make a right, but two wrongs don’t. 
It’s just that the Clinton’s are so much blatant and arrogant in their manipulations and lies. It’s just standard operating practice with them…so much so that it practically defines them as people. It’s as if they believe that, all things being equal, it’s better to lie.
Shayna’s example above is a perfect example of this. Had Hillary just put a more positive spin on her trip it would have served her purposes superbly. Instead, she chose to completely make up a story out of whole cloth and now it’s backfired on her.
I can’t think of another politician in my lifetime with anywhere near as aggressive a record of dishonesty than either Bill or Hillary Clinton. How on earth are we to take seriously anything she says from now on?
Suppose she was elected. Could we depend on her to tell us the truth about her dealings with other world leaders? About the circumstances involved in this political issue or that? How can she rally public support when by now almost everyone but her die-hard fans know that the truth rarely passes her lips?
Strangely enough, I’m getting virtually ALL the information I’ve seen lately about her Bosnia lie and Bill’s “girl” speech from Daily Kos, which is something like the ideological polar opposite of Drudge…
You do know that, at least among us Left Wing Daily Kos Crazies[sup]tm[/sup], CNN is known as the Clinton News Network, doncha?