So it’s better to have a “natural” low self-esteem than to stand up for one’s ideals?
Also, remember, the Clintons gave lip-service (now, stop, you know what I mean!) to gays and atheists. They may not have done a lot for them, but they acknowledged them, which infuriated a lot of right-wingers.
What exact “specifics of the iraq war” do you want me to cite?
- The the preemptive war was not justified by international law?
- That no connection could ever be made to 911?
- That the WMD which were claimed to be the reasons have never been found?
- That Rumsfeld openly admitted that these reasons were “tactics”?
No, you are right, Bush did not give us “lefties” enough ammunition, we all hate him for pure personal reasons, we are so pathetic.
Huh? Is that supposed to be the opposite of what I accused the Clintons of being. I don’t think so. Maybe you can expand on that a bit, because I definitelly missed something.
Being snobishly intellectual is hardly standing up for one’s ideals. Unless the ideals are snobish inettelectualism…
I think both Clintons, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan were smugly sure of their virtue. Thjeir arrogance drove their opponents nuts. Note that Bush Sr. didn’t have that attitude. He wasn’t hated the way the current President is.
Of course, all of these self-congratulatory leaders had imperfections and did wrong things. ISTM the Clintons did more petty wrongs than the others IMHO. Getting blow jobs in the Oval Office, trumped up charges to fire the Travel Office employees, “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom, pardoning scum in exchange for donations – these weren’t impeachable offenses. But, they demonstrated an unseemly lack of seriousness.
That’s simply not true. I could come up with a laundry list of reasons why Bush should be unseated.
I think one reason no one has gone after Bush with the same fervor is that this would be a bad time to do so. And anyone who tries to can effectively be called unpatriotic, which would be political suicide. I think Bush knows that, and is milking it for all it’s worth.
IMO a politicians needs to be sure of himself and of the correctness of the path he is going. A politician who changes his mind and opinion whenever he is questioned or challenged is not a good leader.
This quality is often interpreted as snobism by people who do not share the politicians opinion. It’s as easy as that.
I have to admit, when he wasn’t throwing up on the Japanese, he did manage to pull off a sort of dignity without appearing snobbish. He sold himself well.
Clinton came off as your best buddy, but also as an intellectual. The general populace – especially the right wing – has no great love of intellectuals. In fact, some totally despise them. I wonder if this was a component in the Great Firestorm of Hatred.
Hell, my ideals are snobbish intellectualism! I even know how to spell it . . .
Interesting point, Eve, although you are correct. They didn’t actually do much for them.
I think that after holding the office for 12 years after Carter, the Republicans didn’t think there were any Dems capable of even putting up a decent fight. Then this obscure Clinton guy shows up, and no matter what the pubbies try to do to tarnish him, it just doesn’t faze Clinton or his following. Unlike Carter, lots of people adored Clinton. The republicans couldn’t stand that.
Wishy washiness = snobishness (per my bolding in your quote, baove)? I never heard heard that before. I don’t like either, so I’m not sure we are in disagreement about anything there.
But I wouldn’t characterize either of the Clintons as being particularly wishy-washy. Certainly no more so than the average politician, either on the right or left. But WJC was the master of the “triangulation”. I wouldn’t call that being wishy-washy, but I wouldn’t call it being “sure of himself and the correctness of his path” either. I’d call it “whatever I have to do to maintain power” attitude. And I think the Clintons are some of the worst brand of this type of politician. Power for the sake of Power. How many “friends” did they toss aside when it was politically expedient to do so? Yeah, all pols do this to some extent, but these two are at the extreme.
That Bush hasn’t been attacked with equal fervor belies the myth of the “liberal media.”
There is plenty of ammo.
I think you did a complete 180 on what flonks said. Change your “=” to “!=” and you’ve got it right.
One can hardly blame them considering the amount of effort put into taking them out of power.
Can a republican tell me why Clinton being an intellectual could possibly be a reason to hate him?
I agree on the subject, but I would like to hear on explanation from a republican - I just don’t see anything negative in being an intellectual.
I understood it with != anyway 
Uhh, to clarify, Eve, I was talking about your remark concerning gays and athiests.
You may well (in fact, clearly do) have well-articulated reasons to oppose the war.
However, a substantial part of the anti-war protests, not to mention the anti-globalization protests, were made up of people who detest Bush with the intensity of 1000 suns (to coin a phrase), but when asked why, can only fall back on “well, gee, he’s so dumb”.
As to whether or not you are pathetic, well…I’ll just have to take your word for it.
December, I think you may be onto something here…
Can this Dem take a stab at it?
Intellectuals would rather think than do. Rather than engage in useful work that benefits society, they sit around and theorize. They also cannot be trusted – since we can’t understand what they’re up to, they must be up to no good. They are also snobs, instead of regular Joes. And in the 20s, they took power away from the the old Victorians, and asked us to trust them in running things. In fact, (now I get to Godwinize!) a large part of Hitler’s rise to power was in vilifying the new intellectual class (read: Communists) and championing just plain volks.
At least I think that’s what it is. I could be wrong.
If the point you are trying to make is that mobs on the street are largely composed of idiots, I concur. Nothing new here. But while some people detest Bush with the intensity of 1000 suns, it is nowhere near the 4542 suns of hatred directed at Clinton. I sense a huge difference, and I don’t think I’m imagining it.
While reading this and other message boards, It seems to me that the venom directed at Bush is similar in intensity (and irrationality) that I saw directed at Clinton during his administration. Actually, it seems to me to quite a bit worse, but I’ll give Clinton the benefit of the doubt…
Cite? I have yet to encounted ANYONE who was against the war because it was Bush’s idea and “he’s so dumb” (which he sure as hell is not - the man is slick as an eel!).