I will admit that this one bothered me quite a bit. He puts off the vibe that he’s being evasive, while under oath. Kinda hard for most people to be okay with a person who does that sort of thing.
I think there are 5 basic reasons, all of them touched on already (Whitewater, Travelgate, and Monica are red herrings. The Clintons were despised before any of that came to light.)
-
He was the first “60’s” president, with all that implies. Bush has many of the same “faults” (draft dodging, dug use), but they weren’t hounded on like they were with Clinton. Part of that is the “liberal media” seems to have dropped it. Most, I think, is that people just don’t care about it now. Clinton was a trailblazer, if you will, in that regard. He brought the concept of a president who once behaved like a pretty normal teenager/young adult to the front and people have now realized that it’s really not a big deal. As that generation gets to presidential age, it’s going to be tough to find someone who’s never done anything that could be considered immoral by some group or another.
-
Hillary. She was the first presidential wife who actually got into the mix so visibly. That didn’t sit well at all with a lot of “family values” type people (remember her baking cookies to prove she was a “real” woman?). Too, many people felt that Hillary was an unelected psuedo vice-president that came along with the deal. Other first ladies of course had their agendas and issues (Nancy’s just say no campaign, for example), but they were all done outside of government channels. Hillary actually tried to get in and get legislation passed.
-
He happened to come along at a time when various forces congealed to make criticism and rumormongering easier and more effective. Talk radio exploded in the 90’s, much of it based on on Clinton bashing. The internet came into public use (to say the least) in about the middle of his 8 years. How many times did you get that chain letter listing all the people he had been involved with who had died mysteriously? If only 5% of the people who got that believed it, that’s a whole lot of people who all of a sudden think the President is barely more than a serial killer. Cable TV and 24 hour news channels also exploded. Got to have something to talk about to fill all that air time.
-
He was bulletproof. Despite all the things people were able to dig up on him, both factual, exaggerated, and completely made up, the public didn’t seem to care. In fact, the more he was attacked, the more people liked him. This infuriated and exasperated the right, who then responded by coming up with ever more fantastic claims
-
Lastly, and I think this is the big one. Clinton was the best politician any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes. I mean politician in all its good and bad connotations. He was a good speaker. He was able to convince just about anyone that he deeply cared about them, when all he really cared about was getting votes (like any politician). As Sofa King said, he took ideas from others and made it seem like he came up with them. He made grandiose promises and pledges, then abandoned many of them if it made more sense for him politically, then shifted the blame for his failures to others. None of this was unique to Clinton, but he was an absolute master of it.
I think it will be interesting to see what history has to say about him and his presidency in 30-40 years when most of the original cast isn’t around to spin everything.
I think the premise of the OP is wrong. There are a few who really hat(ed) Clinton, but there are about as many in number as the few who really hated Bush, but these are relative minorities compared to the overall opinions of the right leaning portion of the electorate. The primary feeling about Clinton as the country got to know him throughout both terms of his administration, was admiration and respect for his communicative gifts and intellectual breadth, even among conservatives, but abject disappointment at his slippery personal morals and incredibly reckless behavior.
I voted for Clinton the frst time and I didn’t the second time around. I was simply somewhat disgusted and tired with his antics at that point, but I didn’t “hate” him and I don’t think most middle-right leaning people hated him. They were just tired (on many levels) of him at that point.
With respect to Hillary Clinton I have to admit I was somewhat stunned by her. I don’t think I have ever seen in man or woman such willingness (and strength on some level) to endure such public humilitation without breaking, coupled with an aggressive, ruthless and obvious lust for power. There is no question in my mind that WJC would never have been POTUS without her. Quite frankly she frightens me, and not in a good “Wow she’s a formidible force” way, but more in a “God forbid she grasps the reins of power” way. On a very visceral level I simply don’t trust her.
Sainthood? Sorry, I’m not Catholic, I don’t deal in saints. All I did was refute the laundry list you put up, composed mainly of apocrypha, distortions and outright lies that the VRWC (again, mainly funded by R.M. Scaife) keeps throwing up again and again and again in hopes that, someday, we’ll believe it.
Speaking of which…
Three years after the guy leaves office, they’re still regurgitating the same old crap. Let’s face it, without WJC, they’d have to go out and get real jobs.
Y’know, “Just Say No” aside, Nancy Reagan was not exactly the little wallflower that her apologists try to make her out to be. She was the one who scheduled meeting for Ron, based mainly on advice from her astrologer!.
And you wanna talk about “frightening”…there’s ol’ Bar. I remember Election Night '92, when the end was no longer in doubt. George the First looked like he’d been hit with a wet frying pan. Barbara,OTOH, looked pissed enough to chew glass and spit sand. BBRRRRR
Say what you want about Hilary…she’s a lot easier on the eyes than Nanc or Bar.
It seems to me that when evil President X said something to the press, they lapped it up with adoring praise. If it’s found out to be false later on, they say “Oh, what a politician, he fooled us again, the slick devil. Ha ha love that guy.”
But when good President Y was in office the press took him to task on everything and wouldn’t leave him alone… even on personal matters. Evil President X did the following things:
- Evil thing one
- Evil thing two
n. Evil thing N
And he was constantly praised by A while good President Y is always vilified unfairly. That’s why X was president and Y is considered Evil by the idiot electorate.
That sort of thing never happened before! It has gotten worse!
Replace in X,Y,A in the above statement with:
Bill Clinton
Hollywood
George Bush
Talk radio
-k
The real question is why do Democrats stick up for him.
Where do I begin.
-He dodged the draft so he could participate in anti-war efforts in England.
-He is a socialist that ran as a Democrat. His first act as President was to appoint his wife the head of a commission to socialize the medical industry (stopped only by the Republicans who were swept into office because of it).
-Hillary sold short in pharmaceuticals while she was out bashing drug companies for making too much money. She should have served jail time for that.
-There is a line of women who willingly helped him cheat on his wife. Hey, JFK was his hero, now we know why.
-There is another line of women who unwillingly helped him cheat on his wife.
-Hillary was the lead lawyer for the Whitewater group. Amazingly, she claimed her signature on a document did not mean she was directly involved with its’ contents. (Wish I could use that line at work).
-His outspoken criticism of the standing president (not against the law, just low rent).
If I had to narrow it to one item it would be his socialist agenda.
Yeah – supporting NAFTA, giving China Most-Favored-Nation trading status, cutting back on aid for low-income families, “don’t ask/don’t tell,” real socialist agenda there. :rolleyes:
Yes, and if one really needs catharsis, post that rant in the PIT, rather than disguising it as a “debate” here.
BtW- thanks.
Exactly!
There is a pretty small bunch with a visceral hatred of Clinton, and a similar bunch with the same feeling for Bush. The broad majority likes or dislikes either for his politics or his character, but without the visceral hatred of the extremes.
There is an even smaller group on either side (many of whom post in this forum) who view any criticism of or even disagreement with their hero as “hatred”. We need not take that view terribly seriously.
With respect to Hillary: There’s a story about Bill and Hillary stopping at a gas station in rural Arkensaw, and, noting the guy right out of “Deliverance” pumping gas, Bill tells Hillary that things could be worse, she could have married that guy. Hillary replies, that if she had, he’d be President and Bill would be pumping gas.
I think there’s some truth to this…
Refute? I don’t think so. You didn’t prove anything outside of the fact you’re trying to be clever. I provided a “laundry list” of reasons why people feel so outraged by Bill Clinton. (That IS what the OP asked for). I think you give your snappy retorts more credit than they deserve. I mean, you can pat yourself on the back if you want to but you didn’t “refute” anything, you just threw yourself into “countercharge and deny mode”.
All I did was cut a paste a link.
Thank goodness for St. William otherwise we would ALL be out of jobs (in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Network of course)
How you think these people are making this all up is beyond me. There’s plenty of journalists out there who don’t work for the left or (gasp) even non-partisan media. I’ll admit one thing, when the Clintons were in the White House, it must have been one heck of a time being a journalist.
Let’s try some more just for fun;
Literature to put Clintonians into a Tailspin
or how about;
Bill Clinton: A Psychopath?
then there’s always;
The Skeleton Closet of Bill and Hilliary
Maybe somebody from the left could help you out.
Hunter S. Thompson said and I quote:* . . . . Gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson tells the New York Post that supporting President Clinton was “one of my greatest tactical errors in politics.”. . . . “I don’t want to go down in history or have my son read that his father endorsed Clinton two times,” Mr. Thompson said. . . . . “I had no idea what a treacherous bastard he really is. I’m shocked he went so low. You’d think after grappling with Richard Nixon that you would know where the low road is, … but Clinton’s treachery is really sleazy. It’s his character defects. I think Clinton will prove to be one of the great fascists of our time.”*
What do you think about them apples? Dr. Gonzo is pretty bright when it comes to politics don’t you think? He’s been around those types (ie: politicians and various treacherous bastards) for several years. I think he knows em’when he see em’.
Yeah, she’s a looker alright.
:rolleyes:
I don’t think Clinton was the object of more hatred than some other presidents. My grandmother used to tell me how her father loathed Roosevelt and shared that loathing with most of his upper-middle class compatriots.
Richard Mellon Scaife has already been mentioned, but I’ll bring him up again. Having someone fund a multi-million dollar investigation into the president’s private life created a high-profile for any and all rumors connected with Clinton. I’ve no doubt such a similar investigation of Bush would be as equally ugly. The difference is there is no obsessed left-wing millionaire around to fund it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CaptMurdock *
**>Gennifer Flowers
Not proven. Goodbye.
Admitted to on TV, HELLO
>Oxford protester
**He was there on a Fellowship. He didn’t like the draft – **
>>>what does a fellowship have to do with protesting against your own country IN another country.<<< Not to mention his trip to Russia.
>Paula Jones
Thrown outta court, as several of her statements could not be corrobarated by, I dunno, reality? Exit, stage down
>>>Led to Bill Clinton impeachment for lying, <<< refuses to exit stage down. Makes more speaches than the standing president.
>Whitewater deal
After $70 million spent in investigation, including attempted intimidation and jailing of witnesses…Nada. Pull! BLAMMO!!!
>>>33 convictions from a fraudulent real estate deal that brought down a financial institution<<<. Hillary’s name/law firm all over it. By all means, invest in Bill & Hill’s next venture. KLINK, sound of jail door slamming shut.
>Vince Foster’s death
Suicide, proven by inquest. Slamdunk!
>>>Seems to be a trait among Bill’s “friends”<<<
>Kathleen Willey
…whose only “witness” refused to corroborate her BS story, and was then hounded unmercifully by Kenneth “Win At All Costs” Starr, included losing her job, her house, and being threatened with having her only son taken away from her. You call THAT “justice?” Honor? Dignity?
>>>You left out rape. Not even a peep from Democrats to investigate.<<< Hope all the women in your life are treated with the same respect that Bill Clinton gives women.
flonks- I’m sure they cope w/ each other very well. If I were in Maria’s position, I wouldn’t mind listening to Arnold’s political views, I can’t understand 85% of what he says anyway, I just like to hear him speak…“Ah vil bee bahck!”
Yikes. The chipmunks are out in force today.
Just because I shot you down, and did it cleverly? I’ll take two pats on the backs, but no more…
Thompson??? An admitted drug fiend and gun nut? You’re quoting him on character? ROTFLMAO! Oh, the smell of desperation…
And now we come to the Ohio delegation…
Gee, I must have missed the part about freedom of speech ending at the border. That codicil seems to be missing from my copy of the U.S. Constitution, where you have to physically be in the borders of the country in order to protest against it.
Yeah, thanks to Ken “Blank Check for Justice” Starr. I still want the refund for my tax dollars that went for this dog-and-pony show. And by the way, was he sick that day in law school where they discussed “prejudicial vs. exculpatory relevance”? What a consensual (if extramarital) encounter has to do with sexual harrassment is beyond me.
What convictions? Cite?
Juanita Broaddrick wasn’t on Cholo’s list (God knows how he missed that one, but since you brought it up – she denied it for twenty years, then told the story, then recanted, then recanted her recantation… a second-year law student could tear her to shreds on credibility issues. No judge is going to entertain the notion of trying this case.
You guys just don’t get it. You guys cry “Wolf!” over and over and over again about Clinton, you wind up with a carton of egg on your face, and you wonder why nobody believes you anymore. Truly sad.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CaptMurdock *
**
Gee, I must have missed the part about freedom of speech ending at the border. That codicil seems to be missing from my copy of the U.S. Constitution, where you have to physically be in the borders of the country in order to protest against it.**
Gee, it isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Dodging the draft because you don’t want to fight someone elses war, then protesting it in another country, then getting elected and fighting someone else’s war is both cowardly and hypocritical.
What convictions? Cite?
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/20/80503
must be something wrong with your search engine. I got over 4000 hits.
The Clintons were directly connected to this investment scam. Hillary and her law office handled the paperwork.
Juanita Broaddrick wasn’t on Cholo’s list (God knows how he missed that one, but since you brought it up – she denied it for twenty years, then told the story, then recanted, then recanted her recantation… a second-year law student could tear her to shreds on credibility issues. No judge is going to entertain the notion of trying this case.
The information regarding Juanita Broaddrick was available during the impeachment proceedings. She didn’t deny it for twenty years because nobody ASKED her. Rape is a traumatic event and so is a rape trial. In her line of business, a lawsuit would have damaged it. It took a line of women complaining about Bill Clinton for her to come forward with the information. The lack of media inquiry was staggering.
How about Clinton/missile technolgy sales to China for campaign contributions?
Yeah, yeah, all politicians try to line their pockets, but not all do so at the expense of national security! If you or I were to so this it would be treason.
And yes I voted for him the first time, but I’d had enough after 4 years. I held my nose and voted for Dole.
Cite, Bob? I’ll help:
-
The biggest technology sale to China, the W-88 warhead, occurred under Reagan.
-
The only person recommended for legal action by the Federal Elections Commission for accepting Chinese campaign contributions was Haley Barbour. Know which party he was chairman of?
-
The “technology” allegedly sold by Clinton was the “secret” of making good solder joints. That was in trade for the design of the guidance system of the Long March missile.
You may want to consider the possibility that you bought into a misdirection play.
magiver, you might note the number of times Broaddrick changed her story, including her swearing under oath in the Lewinsky case that it had not happened. To say you believe the version that no news organization short of the WSJ editorial page would run is to accuse your own star witness of perjury. She also insisted it occurred on a date when Clinton wasn’t even in town, ya know.
Do you people believe everything your favorite commentators tell you, unquestioningly? Are you proud of it?
You really think you “shot me down”? AND you think you were clever? That is sad. Honestly.
YES I’m quoting Hunter S. Thompson…Thompson inhaled and admitted it. Don’t you see the irony? Oh, nevermind. Keep your head in the sand if you want to. Obviously, it must be comfy in there.
Well, like I said, I was naming the scandals off the top of my head, you gotta admit…there’s FAR too many to keep track of. That’s why I keep posting this link you don’t want to discuss:
Don’t go here for the truth…it’s a “vast right wing conspiracy” link.
Speaking of Juanita Broaddrick, she’ll be Hannity and Colmes tonight discussing her ordeal. Why don’t you watch it and gives us an honest review afterwards? Oh…I forgot, Hillary is on Larry King. Forget it.
C’mon, Cholo, citing Newsmax is just a hair away from citing the “We Hate Bill & Hillary Hate Club.” Don’t you have any credible sources?
Yes, because how someone looks is 100% dependent on whether they are good people, says supermodel Cholo. Keep with the Rabid Clinton bashing, just post in colors next time so we can set you aside with that Ice Cream guy.