"He applauds Clinton's 'courage, at the end of the Reagan era, to argue inside the Democratic Party that the liberal orthodoxies of the New Deal and the Great Society, as well as the culture of the anti-war and civil rights movements, had become excessive and inflexible. Not only were Democratic attitudes toward government electorally problematic, Clinton argued; they were just plain wrong for the time."

It was also a bunch of the people who voted him in and the Democrats out during his two terms. If Clinton wins the nomination, it will because of a mixture of those who want her and what she stands for and others not grown up enough to just say no. Insofar as Obama is a neoliberal like Clinton, the same stands for those who would vote for him. I don't really know about Edwards anymore, but his shaping up demands even closer scrutiny. At any rate, we are not just fighting the Republicans and the neocons, but large parts of the Democratic party and their attendant neoliberalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let us not forget Clinton's WTO membership for China ... Wal Mart certainly remembers ...

"The Chinese and U.S. governments released a press communique on the signing of a bilateral agreement concerning China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Beijing on the afternoon of November 15, 1999."

Then there was an embargo on Iraq that cost the lives of 500,000 children ...

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:" I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

What does Hillary say about all this ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Clinton does look pretty good next to the two Bushes, which is not saying much, and Hillary is shamelessly riding on her husband's fraying coattails. Both of them are neocon lite, and her ties to corporate interests and hawkish foreign policy justify the beating she took in Iowa. If America is looking for change, they won't find it with her. She talks about her competence, but what evidence is there for such assertions? Monica Lewinsky might as well run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both Clintons are stealth Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The “neo-con lite” and “stealth republican” monikers for the Clinton camp on this thread are amusing but a bit of a red herring. Both parties at Washington are glorified play actors rather like good cop / bad cop in a bad high school play.

Keep the suckers on the plantation and keep them in the dark via corrupt MSM and “education”. It’s three-card monty.

Real monopoly Fascist power falls to those that run illegal private central banking, Big Oil, Big MSM, etc, and therefore western nations dominated by such.

Billary, village idiot Bush and the rest are groomed actors assigned temp MSM stage parts. The quote below by Clinton is hardly an exaggeration. Slick Willie’s reference to “someone else” refers to freeload robber baron oligarchs that never left power...


“You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions.”
President Bill Clinton (in answer to impeachment over a sexual incident. 9/4/1998)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is the corporate takeover of the American government.

Edwards, disadvantaged financially by his refusal to take corporate donations, is leading the field on that. Take away their big corporate bucks and where would Obama and Clinton be today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, I actually have a thank you for a compact summary on AlterNet. Now I would like to see an overview of the Clinton years that includes the excitement surrounding his 1992 election and the less thrilling, but still eagerly-anticipated 1996 re-election.

In 1992, Democrats made a conscious choice to go with a politician slanted at an ever-increasing angle towards large business in order to win the White House. I still think the best assessment of the 1990's and the change in the Democratic Party comes from an article in the Minneapolis City Pages after Paul Wellstone’s death. The writer noted that Fritz Mondale had to be pulled out of retirement to run for the senate because Wellstone did not build the party in his state. Indeed, Wellstone’s priority of off-shore issues, such as U.S. troops in Columbia, trumped the domestic needs of his constituents while it drew praise from party leaders.

The Democratic Party academics and other party members with relatively secure jobs were excited about cleaning up Reagan’s “Communist behind every bush” foreign policy. Meanwhile, those on welfare, the working class that was becoming the working poor, and people concerned about loss of civil rights and freedom (long before Sept. 11, 2001) were ignored.

I lost interest in the current crop of presidential candidates months ago. No matter who wins, I’m still not going to have decent public transportation. I’m still not going to have options for good jobs or an economic plan that looks at anybody other than the young people. I’m still not going to have health care, even though I may be forced to buy health insurance. I’m still not going to have recycling because local programs only reward homeowners in many cities. I divorced the Democratic Party after almost a decade of being ignored, and in some cases being told point-blank by staff and elected officials that my concerns, such as opposition to the Real ID Act, were not important to them.

In 2000, I heard much about people voting for Geo. W. Bush because he seemed likeable, unlike Gore. I heard in 2004 that people went with Bush because people wanted him as a neighbor, unlike Kerry. I heard between 2000 and 2008 that people realized they weren’t voting for a drinking buddy, they were voting for a president. Yet, here we are in 2008 and we’re talking about how friendly Obama is and how uptight Clinton is.

The day after the 2004 general election, I read and heard many comments from people lamenting that they ignored the issues. Since I went into debt trying to push issues, I was not pleased with the post-election insights. Yet, here we are in 2008 and issues are nowhere in sight except as the broadest banners hung as a backdrop.

Heck, I don’t even know where the Democratic candidates stand on the issue of abortion. Do they favor limits on methods, limits in the second or third trimester? Do they favor parental notification, and then of one or both parents? What about aiding travel across state lines, including just loaning money? What about paying for abortion by the military? What about the entire family planning policy, both domestically and overseas? I must admit, until now, I had just assumed that the candidates even supported keeping abortion legal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"By the numbers, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows." This is one of the silliest statements I've ever read on a blog. The 1994 realignment was coming a long time before Bill Clinton, as Southern states finally purged Dem officials who represented a party that is not viable in the South (and you dont want it to be, believe me). If anything, it was two of Clinton's most laudable efforts -- national health care and an effort to protect gays in the military -- that cost Dems the most in the South in 1994. What this writer ignores are cold facts about the US electorate. Clinton is the ONLY Dem candidate since FDR to win back to back elections. Prior to Clinton, Dems had won only ONE presidential election since 1964, and that was Carter's fluke win after Watergate. Writers like this one invent a non-exisistent progressive American majority and then blast Bill Clinton for not trying to appeal to it. The truth is that Clinton's wins prevented Newt and Co from doing a lot more damage than they did, and his court appointees are the only sane judgees we've got left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about time somebody pulled this stuff together for a newspaper review.

Let us also not forget the great strides the Clinton administration made in destroying the military through various 'privatization' efforts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first electric computers were the size of buses. They were huge things with vacuum tubes and greased wheels, and would take days and truck loads of punch-cards to process even the simplest of calculations. They were awkward, cumbersome, and broke down easy and often. However, people persisted over the decades and now we have these handy little computers that we can carry around with us that can do the most amazing calculations in a fraction of a second without the need of any punch-cards or grease guns.

At its best, democracy is a computer that processes and calculates the data that is the publics' will. It is my opinion that our current democracies is one of the first and has shown itself to be too large, clunky and inefficient. I do not wish to give up on democracy; I would rather see if we can't move a step towards making it sleek and effective as a laptop.

The Next Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember the outrage over the White House sleep overs? That turned out to be small potatoes...
When the republicans took over congress Tom "The Hammer" Delay started the pay to play K Street scheme.
Once W was in office, corporate interests rewrote the laws and passed new regulations for energy, media and health care. All in secret.
I agree with the comment above:
"The overarching explanation of all our ills
is the corporate takeover of the American government."
America was already rolling down that path when Clinton was elected, but he certainly accelerated that unfortunate process.
Now we have a major corporate contractor, KBR, accused of kidnapping, obstruction of justice and covering up rape. And even though congress has held hearings on said matters there is no investigation on any level by the Feds.
What does that tell you about who runs the show?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need John Edwards. That he's still in the hunt with all of the money spent against him tells us that his message is getting through. It did in Iowa even when C. and O. each spent $20 million against his $4 million. I just hope there is still time for his programs and his courage as a fighter in the sense of Teddy Roosevelt or FDR to resonate in N.H., too. E. is the only candidate I know of who has written down his positions in an 80 pg. booklet, so we can know what they are, no matter what some might say they are. He is consistent, he doesn't waffle and he is the only true progressive who is a viable candidate. Kucinich just isn't. I'm from Illinois, and how I would like to support the 1st woman candidate who is a native of Illinois...or the 1st Black who lives there now. But, it's just not possible. Both have way too much to overcome to be elected, and it is crucial that we elect a Democrat. If you have time, please read Edwards' book, Four Trials, to learn more about him or the recent Newsweek where he is called "The Sleeper." It is no wonder that several of his former clients are on the campaign trail for him now. He fought for his clients over 20 years with the same tenaciousness and smarts that he is now showing in the campaign. He had 700 volunteers with him to help after Katrina when our government failed yet again so miserably. He's a smart man who remembers those who came before him, who remembers he was too poor to go to Clemson but graduated from N.C. State and UNC law school and started then to give his best to try to make things better. He worked for that in the Senate, too, with John McCain and Ted Kennedy to get the Patient's Bill of Rights through the Senate...altho Bush stopped it as he has so many substantive progressive programs. Please do learn more about John Edwards and then vote for him to give him a chance to do for us. He wears well...as we say in Raleigh, N.C., where I've lived for many years now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is a bit of revisionist history, now ain't it? Bill Clinton was the liberal from Arkansas until the 1996 GOP revolution. That's when the country, not one man in the White House, made clear its rightward lurch. And it was the bible thumping, corporations-at-all-cost right wingers who we voted in.

Blame it on Clinton all you want. What it comes down to is a failure to beat right wing candidates on a state by state, seat by seat basis. The Democrats have taken some of that momentum back and will likely get the presidency. Success breeds success, Dems. Faulty historical memories do not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop nitpicking MOOGUMBOO--NEWT's $110,000,000 spent (per gao) trying to destroy Clinton ws enough.
NAFTA--good intentions unintended consequences.None of you smear agents point out consequences of PESO tanking.

READ TRUTHS--
PRAISE CLINTON AND GORE WITH PLEASURE
GDP--rose from 6,300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--
JOBS CREATED—237,000 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record of 218,000.
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say this-except Reagan)
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior 12 years by Conservatives.
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---+80% under Reagan- who is da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000. All it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world. Amen”.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.
clarence swinney-political historian-Lifeaholics of America- burlington nc
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net
6-28-03

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CLINTON TERRORISM
CLINTON ANTI-TERROR————Terrorists Attacks Stopped, under Clinton, by Richard Clarke

1.Millennium hi-jack and bombing plots
2.Plot to kill the Pope
3.Plot to blow up 12 US Jetliners simultaneously
4.To blow up UN Headquarters
5.To blow up FBIHeadquarters
6.Blow up Israeli Embassy in Washington
7.Blow up Boston Airport
8.Blow up Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel
9.Blow up George Washington Bridge
10.Blow up U.S. Embassy in Albania

Brought perpetrators of first World Center bombing and CIA Killings to justice.
Did not blame Bush I for first World Trade Center Bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office.
Formed Hart-Rudman Commission –report put on Bush desk 1-31-01 Nothing happened.
Send legislation to Congress to “tighten Airport Security” It was defeated by Republicans because of opposition from the airlines. “secure cockpits”.
Sent Legislation to Congress to add Tangents to explosives to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. Republicans defeated it because of NRA opposition.
Increased the Military Budget by 14%.
Tripled the Budget of the FBI for CounterTerrorism .
Doubled overall funding for CounterTerrorism
Detected and destroyed Al Qaeda Cells in over 20 countries.
Robert Oakley-Reagan Ambassador for CounterTerrorism “Overall, I give Clinton Very High Marks and the only criticism I have is the obsession with Osama Bin Laden.”
Paul Bremer believed Bill Clinton had “correctly focused on Bin Laden.”

Bart Gellman—Washington Post–“By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton was not the best President in the world, but who would you guys have rather voted for at the time? He was the best choice. Plus, compare him to Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan. He is a much more competent President than those three. He helped the country in a lot of ways and a lot of people miss the Clinton era.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many like David Morris are Smearathugs like Newt's $110,000,000 trying to destroy an administration.

President Clinton had --ONE--ONE if you can read--name more than one member of his administration CONVICTED of a FELONY committed while WORKING FOR President Clinton. Evil man took $12,000 worth of trips to ball games. Shame.

I will not list the 137 Reagan members charged with crimes usually from fraud.

Also, I challenge Smearathug Morris to list one lie Bill Clinton told us on POLICY.

Try me.

Yes! Hindsight can criticize many things. Intent. What was intent? Iraq Invasion. Intent?Unintended consequences?

99% Perfect= Clinton Clean as Ivory Soap.

clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...try putting a tooth under your pillow instead.

Much of the economic prosperity brought about under the Clinton administration was due to large degree of deadlock between the executive and legislative branches. This offers at least correlative evidence that the less government re-gifts us with using our own resources, the better the average citizen fares.

Contrast the relative prosperity we enjoyed under deadlock with what occurred during the six years of aligned goals between the president and congress: I'll sign your pork, you pass my tax cuts, and we'll print money and start a perpetual war unrelated to national defense. Ah, unholy togetherness.

Of course, some of foot-dragging on non-obvious government initiatives such as piling up dirt to separate a giant cereal bowl-shaped, densely populated plot of land from large bodies of water can be deadly if neglected.

Wait, nevermind...priorities, folks, priorities! Let's build a giant southern fence instead of these silly things called levees. My (hypothetical) brother in law makes chain-link for a living...and he could also use a visit by the magical, gift-bearing federal toothfairy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Morris, Thanks for this article. It's going out to everyone on my list. The Era of Saint Ronnie never ended. We are still in it, very much to the detriment of this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Limbaugh- Morris

Brothers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Morris has a point, but if he wears a hat maybe no one will notice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

APOLOGY TO DAVID MORRIS.
David Morris on Clinton record in Alternet today.
Unfortunately, I did not read entire article before I started Smearing David.

When I pulled up to Print I read all.

I apologize.

Nonetheless, David printed good intent and unintended consequences.

He did not address success of Nafta prior to Peso tanking.

Telecommunications Big Big Goof by Clinton.

For each that turned out poor I can name many good ones.

Perfect. No. GREAT? Yes.

google clarence swinney + clinton

I strive to be honest but I am only 99.9% pure Yo ho ME dumbo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent article. I wish everyone voting in the New Hampshire primary tomorrow could read this first. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 but voted third party in 1996 after he signed NAFTA. He did constantly back down everytime the right strongly objected to any proposal, which i couldn't understand because they hated him and would never vote for him or any other Democrats no matter what he did. And the main reason he won in 1992 was not only the poor economic performance of Bush1, but primarily the entrance in the race of Ross Perot, who sucked millions of votes from Bush. This idea that the country is center-right is wrong. I would bet that a nationwide blind poll on the position of all candidates would show Dennis Kucinich the clear winner. But corporate media has inform us he can't win. Hmm, i wonder if that still would be true if we all voted for him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are plenty of people still fooled and charmed by the Clinton charisma. He has the ability to make you feel like he's on your side, regardless of what he's really doing, and he's smart enough to make it feel like his positions are inevitable. I considered myself a big fan until I started paying attention. During the 1990s it felt wonderful to have someone who seemed like a peer in the White House. But in looking closely, Clinton simply continued the process of pushing the debate further to the right to where today anyone challenging the inevitability of the free trade corporatocracy appears radical.

The bottom line is that Globalization is exactly what the name implies -- a transfer of wealth and power from nations to multinationals with allegiance to no specific country (Halliburton just moved its headquarters to Dubai, for Christ's sake.) Why on earth would anyone support a force that puts corporations above the laws of his or her country? Clinton had a very, very large part, with his brains and his charms and his professed caring for the working class, in convincing America that free trade and globalization were inevitable and ideal. America is rejecting that now as they watch Hillary attempt to turn back the clock.

The Clinton years were one of the steps that led us to where we are today, undoubtedly. They were not a swinging of the pendulum to the left but a slight slowing down in the pendulum's swing to the right. Try to find some independent media anywhere besides the internet and tell me he was good for democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just plug the two words, Clinton Mena (w/o quotes) into Google! If you follow the links, you will discover how the "Clinton drug use" actually leads back into, The Bush Crime Family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's the question. We have discussed "moderate" Republicans which connotes to those who are "socially liberal". This is bull for there are only 2 issues that are discussed regarding social policy, abortion and gays. It's clear that there is more at stake than only these 2 social issues, jobs, the economy, civil liberties, the Constitution, education, etc etc. Even the moderate Republicans are not really in favor of building upon the promises of education or understand the issues related to our losses of civil liberties or the rewards that the judiciary and legislatures grant corporations.

Don't let the Republican ways of the Clinton group sway you their way. The only thing that we might get to keep is Roe V. Wade, there will be little else left.

Remember who is crafting the polling information in the news today. Recall also who is the biggest threat to Clinton, it's not Obama, it's Edwards (sorry Dennis). Don't fall for the propaganda when it's time for your caucus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You think he could have stopped the GOP congresses he had to work with if only he had thrown himself on the Demo's funeral pyre?

The fact that Gingrich was willing to actually shut down the government gives you no indication of what it was like to live amid the craziest crazies of the age?

And I'll bet you think Bill waited too long to go into Bosnia. He shoulda done it sooner, right? Like he shoulda vetoed NAFTA for a third time? Twice wasn't good enough for you.

I wish I could find someplace where I did not have to slog through political propaganda under the guise of political analysis.

I never voted for Bill. I didn't have to since he was so popular in my state, he was a shoo-in--even in a state that voted for Raygun twice.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Stop blaming Bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where does that leave Alternet? Are you then going to remember how you bashed one of the Democratic choices in a way that Newt and Karl would be proud of, or are you going to go ahead and endorse a Republican candidate? On any day, any Democratic is a far better choice than a Republican. Bill Clinton didn't pave the way for W, Al Gore refusing to let Bill campaign for him, and ignoring his own home state were big problems. Don't forget the millions that were spent to bring down the Clintons because he beat out Daddy Bush, and know for a fact that whoever gets the Dem nomination, Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, will be vilified as they were Satan incarnate. Articles like this just made those Repugs sit back and smile because this is totally self defeating. Don't forget about how much better it was during Clinton's term, and think about how bad it will be for everybody if a Repug steals another election and turns us into a totallitarian theocracy. Will Alternet assist in that takeover?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for addressing welfare "reform", which (it appears) few Americans understand. The primary function of welfare "reform" as we got it is the establishment of a massive (and growing) pool of super-cheap/no benefits labor (minimum wage or less)without choices, steadily replacing "regular" workers. Workfare labor does not have worker's rights and protections. Workfare continues to be a powerful tool for suppressing wages and maximizing corporate profits, getting rid of unions, eliminating workers' benefits (insurance, job security). I don't think Americans understand yet what wiping out the entitlement of fundamental aid (recognized by most nations as a protected human right)really means to the nation itself, but in a nutshell, it is a major step toward establishing a totalitarian government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't even read this article. The premise alone was enough to prompt me to comment. What's wrong with this idea is that these things weren't brought to us by "the Clintons". They were brought to us by "Bill Clinton".

However, let the record show that I am against relatives of former presidents being allowed to run for office. I can't believe this wasn't written into the Constitution. Can you say "favoritism"? How about "regime"? I also don't like Hillary, but that's not an acceptable excuse to pass her husband's fault onto her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Getting down to dirty money - that's what the Clintons were doing, and it worked pretty well. The real reason Clinton pissed off the Republican Party is that he was better at dirty money shakedowns than they were.

The economic approach that Clinton pursued was driven by Robert Rubin:

"From January 20, 1993, to January 10, 1995, Robert Rubin served in the White House as Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In that capacity, he directed the National Economic Council, which Bill Clinton created after winning the presidency."

The Wikipedia entry contains the conventional corporate wisdom regarding the Clinton-Rubin neoliberal approach:

"In January 1995, one year after the signing of NAFTA and immediately after his swearing in as Secretary of Treasury, Mexico was suffering through a financial crisis possibly resulting in default on foreign obligations. President Bill Clinton with the advice of Secretary Rubin and Chairman Alan Greenspan provided $20 Billion in US loan guarantees to the Mexican government through the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).

"In 1997-1998, Treasury Secretary Rubin, Deputy Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan worked with the International Monetary Fund and others to effectively combat and contain financial crises in Russian, Asian, and Latin American financial markets. In its February 15, 1999 edition, Time Magazine dubbed the three policymakers “The Committee to Save the World.”

The facts of the matter, however, are described in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. See The Shock Doctrine: Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin for a good short discussion.

The so-called Rubin wing of the Democratic Party includes both Clinton and Obama - Rubin associates are close advisers to the Obama campaign - see David Sirota on the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party.

Rubin's bio is pretty interesting reading. He used to be a senior partner at Goldman Sach, and is now is now chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup. That explains a lot of the funding given to Obama and Clinton. (opensecrets.org)

The real legacy of the Clinton era includes NAFTA and the 1996 Telecom Act. The only positive thing one can say is that the Clinton-era Supreme Court appointments were far, far better than the Reagan-Bush-Bush appointments. Thanks to the Republicans, we've now got a politicized and corrupt Supreme Court that puts corporate interests before Constitutional law.

The only leading candidate who openly rejects the Rubin approach - sucking up to corporate interests in exchange for large campaign donations - is John Edwards.

In that regard, I really don't understand why Kucinich instructed his supporters to get behind Obama. Perhaps Obama promised him a vice-presidential slot? Perhaps Kucinich thinks Obama is a better choice than Hillary, and that Edwards can't win? Who knows? Politicians will be politicians, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We often wring our hands over the supposed theft of the "American Dream", and the steady march toward fascism that we are currently engaged in, but this is nothing new. America has never fulfilled the promise of its Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And every little increment of progress in that direction has been met by vicious backlash and resistance. I truly do not know where the sentiments of the majority of Americans lie, but it's plain to see that at least a significant share of us are greedy, racist, bigoted idealogues who are either willfully ignorant of their public officials or are in agreement with them. In other words, we've got the government we deserve (collectively, I personally don't deserve this bullshit).

Clinton was hardly a Kennedy Democrat, he was much more centrist, with rightward leanings. If you wanted a Democrat for President, you would have supported Jerry Brown, who was pretty much the last man standing against Clinton in the primaries before the '92 general election. Brown was marginalized and villified by the MSM, who referred to him as "Governor Moonbeam". (This was a moniker hung on him by Mike Royko of the Chicago Tribune for his support of a telecommunications system that would be powered in part by sunlight refleced from the moon's surface. The system is in place and working quite well and Royko later apologized for the damage he had created)

If you want someone who promotes Democratic ideals, and policies that can turn this country around to head on a peaceful, more humanitarian path, Kucinich is the only candidate worth supporting, with Edwards possibly the second choice. Hillary pretty much represents "business as usual" while Obama has yet to prove that he is capable of anything more substantive than great stump speeches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you were really happy with the Bill Clinton era, you will love the Hillary Clinton era. After the Iowa caucuses, her appearance on the stage for her speech said it all. It looked like the same old same old. Not for me. I am supporting John Edwards in lieu of Dennis Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlerNet must put out these tedious and predictible anti-Clinton pieces for fear it'll lose its conservative readership. The conservatives always respond to these articles with painfully dull, and sleep inducing hate speech, fit for a deranged infant. Clinton acheieved popularity near 70% "when he was being impeached," and was among the most popular presidents in history. People love the guy, and still do. Clinton, is still the most popular politician in the world. What are these malcotents talking about? I'll tell you. They're cherry picking his worst moments, and mangifying them, at this point, simply to further hurt Hillary; and also to give their conservative readers some red meat to consume and bitch about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But haven't most of you Alternet readers been saying for the last year or two that Bush & Cheney will prevent the upcoming elections, in order to stay in power? If you really believe it, you have no worries about Hillary. Just reminding you of your past postings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're absolutely right. I will never forget that tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Filipe Suarez, Antonio Guterres, among others, betrayed social-democracy with the so called "third way", that allowed neo-liberals to absolutely corrupt american and europeian left wing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in Arkansas and know more about Clintonism than most.

The Clintons are about the Clintons- front and center. They are also quite capable of lying to anyone with a straight face- repeatedly.

Clinton governed as his wife has served in the Senate- as a moderate Repugnican that happens to have a 'D' attached to their title. DLC through and through.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kitty Lady Oregon lives in some kind of fantasy world. The evidence that "a majority" love the Clintons is plain for everyone to see. She was the clear front runner, till only a month ago. How did she do that? You mean to say, the general electorate is so stupid, it suddenly became wise to Hillary in a matter of days? It was media that created this new hatred for Hillary. It was media that pumped up Obama, pretending he was the new Messiah, and that he brought "freshness and change!" It was your precious "networks," that are the source of the worst lies and distortions that we must face in this society. If the networks had left the political process alone, and reported on it fairly, Hillary would still be commandingly in the lead. But media conspired to destroy her campaign. This is only one way that she demonstrates that she's beloved by the American people, not to mention that she was recently chosen as the most popular woman in the world. Ask yourself what would have happened, had Hillary faced her first primary in, say, New York or California; would we still be talking about her "faltering" campaign, or would she now be the undisputed winner of the nomination. Media are showing themselves to be the criminals they are. If you want to know why Cinton is in the fight of her life, you can consider media pigs like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and Wolf
Blitzer, and the networks that sponsor them, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Deliberately sabotaging a candidate at a critical moment in her career, because of long held media hostility against her, but particularly against her husband.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was beginning to think I was the only one who remembered the nineties!
I kept thinking, how can "they" keep seeing this woman through rose colored glasses?
It would be nice if the women who are in prominent positions, Condolezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary had the best interests of the country at heart.

Even better, if we weren't so shallow, that we dismiss candidates who do have our best interests, but who are not physically attractive. Ron Paul, Kucinech, and Bill Richardson, to name a few never really had a chance, based on appearance alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although Clinton made life better for the middle class, he could have gone a lot further and didn't. Although he brought jobs and turned a huge deficit into a surplus (for the Great Emperor Bush II to spend), he supported NAFTA, continued the "Ferengi economics" of Reagan and Bush Sr., and made bad appointments (who can forget Janet Reno as AG and Waco!).

I think the reason is because both Clinton and Bush Sr and Jr went to Yale and belonged to the ultra-secret "Skull & Bones" which apparently teaches corporate world domination and profit at any cost (Ferengi economics)!

I agree we need a COMPLETE CHANGE in Washington, we need to tell the Clintons to make speeches and write books and that's all, and we need to shove the entire Bush family and every neocon Republican into a space shuttle and send it to Alpha Centari ONE WAY!

Obama may not be JFK, but he has my vote if it means getting away from the Bushes and the Clintons.

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Man it's funny how the writer here is trying to paint this picture to point blame for short comings and things that had not to do with Clinton. Thyast's how people got distracted in CAlifornia blaming the govenor for ENRON. Then costing tax payers millions on a recall that was not Dukemagens (excuse spelling) fault.

The republicans have claimed, "letting Clinton win his election was a mistake". Under the radar no amount of blame on conditions that the Fascists/ Bush/NeoconJobs have brought forth on America can be put on Clinton.

If you want to point figures you must take sharp aim at the foreign policy issues that are dictated and controled by the CIA, FBI, and the Military Industrial complex.

Attention Readers: WATCH THE DISTRACTIVE TACTICS like this lasie fair articles. KEEP FOCUSED ON THE CRIMINALS IN OFFICE and Impeachment and the truth of 911.

Oral sex does not equate with installing an illegal government and the raping, pillaging, and plundering, of an other country ie Iraq. Nor the indiscimanate murder of 100's of thousand of innocent children and citizens for an illegal invasion created by deception and and distratcive tactics used on the American people. Nor deceiving Americans and shanghaiing Americas Young warriors for a false flag operation to distroy the nations economy as it is. The national treasure was in the bank during Clinton. Now CHildren, not even born yet are, indentured servants and will blame us for their ill begotten lives. All while the top 5% of CorpoRats remain disconnected from the masses realities.

Like, where's Kenneth Starr now? Dare none call this regime Bush/Neocon/ AIPAC a conspiratorial action!

Readers: Stay focused on BUSH, Cheney, the whole lot. These are the criminals to focus on. Even the election is pushing peoples attention away from impeachment proceedings. Look, New Hampshire and Iowa keeps the debate clear of truth sayers like Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have always maintained that the Clintons paved the way for the neocons to finish their dirty work in the cold, cruel years of George II. Bill Clinton is a shameless coward who moved the Democratic party so far to the right that the center started to look like Attila the Hun was a bleedig heart liberal. I lost any respect I had for them when they caved in to the right wing fascists over Lani Guineer and Joycelene Elders, the ousted Surgeon General.

Toni Morrison can shout about Bill Clinton being the first black president all she wants. But his treatment of African Americans in his admiistration was far from stellar. After all, the Clintons are stealth Republico Fascists in liberal clothing.

May the Clintons never raise their ugly GOP heads again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, progressives should give up because they're not a majority?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... the Holy Trinity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, there was a lot I didn't like about the Clintons, and that's why I didn't vote for Al Gore. (Didn't vote for Bush either)

Now, every single one of the Repubs scare the hell out of me. It would be a complete disaster to allow any of them to win.

I don't think Obama has enough fight in him. With all his talk abut cooperation, what is going to happen when the Repubs attack him; will he fold when they pull out the dirty tricks? Kerry was such a huge disapointment when he didn't fight back at the swiftboaters until it was way, way too late.

At least with Hillary, I can see her fighting back, and loving every second of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How easy it is to do a run down of everthing the Clintons have ever done. They've been around for a long time. We are familiar with their successes and flaws. What do we know about Barack Obama that has anything to do with his ability to be the president. Right now, I can't think of a single thing. Smart and charming, yes. But the rest is a mystery to me. Anna

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that conservatives have done for women or minorities? I don't mean republicans but conservatives. I feel like its the bases that make these parties go left or right on social issues so I don't think conservatives have done anything to help minorities.

If it were not for progressives would democrats have ever passed FMLA, social security, or the like?

Bush nominated harriet myers till the conservative base said no way and pushed for roberts.

What have conservatives done for women or minorities?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"We forget what it was like with Bill Clinton?" How about balancing the federal budget, paying down the deficit and national debt, overhauling Medicare/Medicaid, helping the overrun people of Bosnia under the leadership of Gen. Wesley Clark without a single death of an American soldier, aiding education, funding hundreds of police officers on the street, and the list could go on.

Why don't you idiots get off Bill Clinton when we've have the absolutely worst president in the history of the U.S. and pay attention to the issues facing us? Bill is not running for president, and Hillary will be a better president than anyone running although Bozo could do a better job than the current, appointed, unelected one whose minions didn't even allow FL votes to be counted. So get off it. It's a new day, nearly eight yrs. later. If you want change, vote Democrat, whoever it is. I have no doubt the ReThugs will find another way to steal the election again, whether it be with voting machines or denying people the right to vote as they did in FL in 2000, and in Ohio in 2004!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You make some good points. I cut Bill a lot of slack, and continued to hope for something progressive to come from his administration. But then he showed his true colors. Instead of "I didn't have sex with that women.", his reply should have been, " None of your Goddamn business!" With a Hillary Presidency we can expect to see the same sort of spineless equivocating when dealing with big issues. She'll always settle for the "middle ground". Result? No universal health care, no repeal of the Patriot Act, and the Iraq war will go on and on.
Then again, the Clinton years look like paradise compared to the catastrophe wrought by Bush and Co. With all his faults, at least Bill wasn't a sociopath. At least Bill wasn't a constant embarrassment to the entire country. At least Bill had some command of the English language. At least ol' Bill possessed a triple-digit I.Q.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the author already feeling nostalgic for Bush, or has he been asleep for the last 7 + years?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I support Barack Obama for President. John Edwards is a second choce. However, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her. She is head and shoulders above any Republican.

Why are we compelled to bring down a person that supports and has always supported Universal Health Care, who has Union support, who is, as someone else said, self made, who will work to overturn the tax cuts for the wealthy. She is a highly intelligent person. Why bring her down? Is she perfect? Of course not-none of us are. Do I wish she had voted differently on the Iraq War? Yes.

I believe that she has come to realize that the War and its continuation is bad for the country and bad for the World. Hillary Clinton is, without doubt, a much better choice than any Republican? If she wins the nomination, do not allow another 4 years of Bush type government by failing to vote or "wasting" a vote. We must work together to get the "bums" out of office. Hillary is not the first choice, but she is not a poor one either.


I do not believe that she is corrupt. Certainly, not the corruption we have seen over the past 7 years. Yes, Bill Clinton compromised. I would like to see a fight for a principle-- but in this World we do not always get our way nor do things move as swiftly as they should. I do not believe they are neocon light. I believe that the Clintons are basically decent people.-- Far different from the crew that has been in charge.

From everything I have ever read about the Clintons, they are dedicated to public service. Certainly, President Clinton-early on, wanted to do right by his fellow man. No one is right about everything--- but if the attitude is right, as I believe it is with the Clintons, we are a step ahead of the game. We are miles ahead of the Republicans.

Sometimes, change is slow and cautious. But, is it not wonderful to see that the Democrats have as leading candidates a woman and a person of color-- and right behind them, a Latino and a Southern White. Take a good look at what you have on the other side. Don't cut off your nose, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Morris; I chose not to read your entire article because you started out immediately attacking Bill Clinton and I wonder if you were really "Rush "the fathead" Limbaugh. Now I will tell you that you pissed me off; you should have started out by saying what courage he had to put up with the constant barrage of personal attacks on himself and his family which were nobodies business. To stand tough through the numerous investigations into his finances; his family; his friends, and his personal life a lesser man would have told us all to fuck-off and quit. How they "Party of the Wide Stance" attempted to impeach him while they were guilty of numerous affairs and same sex liaisons themselves. Yes there was welfare reform; long over due for some slackers who wanted a free ride. Yes NAFTA sucks. Free trade is a fiasco that the republican majority also pushed for and is still going. Had Mr. Clinton not taken over when the Democratically controlled congress was ripe with scandal of lying; cheating; and stealing; I have no doubt we would be in full control of this country today. Members of congress as demonstrated by the republican scum now in office; just can't seem to figure out that honest is the best policy. Mr. Morris you want to call yourself a democrat; then attack a republican or declare the truth; you are just another low life republican member of the "Party of the Wide Stance". Have fun in the toilet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mediamouse.org, a progressive/left independent media site in Grand Rapids, Michigan did a series of articles on Clinton's legacy last summer before he spoke in Grand Rapids as a way of "demystifying" Clinton's legacy:

Clinton's Iraq Legacy Questioned as he comes to Grand Rapids

Bill Clinton, NAFTA, and Michigan

Bill Clinton and Welfare Reform

Bill Clinton and Media Policy

Clinton's Environmental Policy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although many good things came out of the Clinton years, many bad things did also as you have noted. NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act had to be two of the absolute worst. Thanks for reminding those who have been blinded by the hype of another Clinton in the White House to not forget the negatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Obama should be the nominee those that believed his empty promises and the empty words for a better future. He was not able to do anything for Illinois, what do you think he can do with his no experience for our Nation specially in the crucial times we are all in..
With Mrs. Clinton anything you can say about her she is experienced. No matter what how bias is the media and the journalists if you can call them this, she keeps going and we all know that this country was in a surplus during the clinton times. There was more prosperity during the Clinton times. This article is full of manipulation and exagerations and if you are an idiot go ahead be my guest..However if you want to think..Maybe Obama may do it, he might be able to do it, I think he can do it..MIGHT, THINK, MAYBE are words we can not afford in the trying and crucial times we are in and what we are about to face. We can not afford to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.Its just the plain truth! We need action not words, do you ever wonder why his advisors do not let him answer questions? There has even been talk about puting a device so that they can help him answere questions, but just decided he would not take questions, instead they opted to his imitation of Martin Luther King, a poor imitation at that. The only difference is Martin Luther King talked about his issues and Martin Luther King was the real
Leader... Obama is an empty vessell that articulates quit well, but what does he really say? empty words with empty promises. Remember with out experience we can not make change happen, with out experience we can not bring hopes to a reality. Lets come down to earth!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dick (True to his name) Morris is the scum of the earch. He is a disgruntal employee that has not only taken the knife and stuck it in the Clinton's back but has stood there and betted on which way the bodies would fall.The choking on his saliva every time he lies and manipulates the truth when he so desperatly tries to put down Mrs. Clinton. I have never seen such dirty, low handed approach on trying to put down a person. I don't care how much one dislikes someone. We can have an opinion but this dirty low handed scum approach is unacceptable. Dick true to his name is a very little man, not in stature but in heart, soul and is the sucm of the earch and
a cheap example of a wanabe journalist. He would absolutley drop dead If Mrs Clinton would be elected and guess what No Great loss for such a scum of the earch wanabe journalist!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton did a very good job considering that he inherited the largest deficit in the history of this country and and turned it into a solvent America. We were poised to have healthcare for all Americans, affordable education. We could have paid for Katrina, we could have fixed our roads. We wouldn't be in debt to China. We could be innovating and leading the world in a Green Renaissance.

But along came Bush who squandered all America's prosperity by awarding contracts to his cronies to throw a war and chase after oil. We have fallen behind educationally, financially, and we have lost our good reputaton.

Meanwhile, every time there is legislation that is fought for by the Democrats, to regulate, make more safe, or make more commerce more fair by the big oil companies, or any of the big conglomerates, the GOP vote it down. Or Bush vetoes it.

The Bush administration shamefully denies global warming because their friends in electricity and their friends in oil will begin to see their big profit margins decrease with the rise of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energies that make the world and America better.

Nafta did not fail due to deregulation. Nafta fails today because big companies move their headquarters off shore, don't pay taxes, and hire people in the third world to make products cheap so they can have wide profit margins. In the process products that were born in the USA with American ingenuity have been lost overseas. Now people are trying to make a living with the leftovers from the corporate profits. Blaming Bill CLinton is ridiculous, and blaming Hillary Clinton is just a smear tactic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is about time that people began to realize that Billy Boy was a shill for the wealthy elites of the world. He singlehandedly did more in his 8 years to destroy the living standards of working class Americans than anyone since Herbert Hoover.

He rained down radioactive bombs on Iraq and on Serbia. He is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi infants and children from disease and hunger. He was a smiling monster just like George HW, George W and Ronnie the Brain Dead.

I have to admit that he fooled me and I voted for the sob the first time. By the second time everyone who was actually paying attention to what he was really doing voted for someone else. Mrs. Clinton is another wolf in sheep's clothing. She owes her soul to the big pharm, big insurance and the the manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction just like Billy did. They are a bunch of liars and cutthroats, brigands and pirates in disguise.

Mrs. Clinton would be a moderate to slightly hawkish Republican in the 60s and 70s. She is a fake and a fraud and most certainly not a Democrat in any 'traditional' sense of someone whose primary interests is in the working classes of this country.

Sometimes it looks like most of the so-called progressives and liberals who write these columns and responses were born yesterday and have absolutely no knowledge of what has been going on for the last 50 - 60 years. I do because I lived throught it and I was paying attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....... and paid attention. I agree that Hilary would be a "moderate Republican", as president. So would Obama. But only on social issues. On any issue of interest to the mega-corporations that are at present running this country, either of them would be as right-wing as Bush & Co. They have both accepted so much corporate money, how can we expect either of them to be even moderate, where corporate interests are concerned?
So the best we could expect is some moderation on social issues that don't really concern the mega-corporations, but no change in the policies dictated by the mega-corporations, the policies that are destroying what's left of our Democracy.

Does anyone really believe that either Hilary or Obama would take on the mega-corporations on the issue of union busting? The worst culprit is Wal-Mart, and who has accepted all that money from Wal-Mart, the largest corporation on the planet?
Do you really believe that either Hilary or Obama would move to stop the practice of allowing giant corporations to use small offshore offices to avoid paying most taxes? Or move toward reversing the policies of allowing unregulated, uninspected poisoned goods into this country, goods manufactured by twelve year olds working under slave labor conditions? No, because the mega-corporations profit from it and NAFTA allows it.

NAFTA is possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to this country and the world (thanks, Bill). And I'm not tarring Hilary with the same brush for no reason, she supports so called "free trade" too, as does Obama.

So called "free trade" (NAFTA and related treaties) contributes to everything from catastrophic climate change to first our pets then our kids being poisoned by unregulated Chinese imports, to GMO's in our food and continued corporate welfare for agri-business while they poison our soil and destroy the soil's ability to produce healthy crops(yes, there are links to NAFTA and "free trade" policies, do the research) to the destruction of entire indigenous cultures and their environment in the pursuit of "blood diamonds" in Africa or "dirty gold" in South America, to native peoples being used as lab rats by international pharmaceutical concerns in Africa (the film "The Constant Gardener" was not, fiction).

The only electable candidate who is not in the pockets of the corporate perpetrators of these obscenities, is John Edwards. The only one who has stated that he would, as president, take on "corporate greed". The only one who is unabashedly and demonstrably pro-union in an era of destruction of workers rights.

Support Edwards, he is our only hope. Kucinich is a good person with good ideas, but do we really want to go down supporting someone unelectable, while the destruction of our Democracy by mega-corporations continues and a good, viable candidate falls by the wayside because the front runners are out-spending him ten times over, with corporate money? There is a viable choice, it doesn't have to be the lesser of several evils, yet again.
Wake up people, John Edwards is literally our last hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but for different reasons. JFK died too soon. Bill Clinton spent 6 years with a republican congress that the American people sent to Washington. That was 6 years of compromise with the devil. You know the story of Dr. Faustus or "The Devil and Daniel Webster". If you compromise with the devil the devil will always be in your compromise. We will never know if Bill Clinton would have been a democrat or not.

Republicans spend their time destroying others. They have no virtues to brag about so they think that if they destroy others they have somehow elevated themselves. The real weakness in the Clinton presidency was the constant alienation of an overwhelming majority of republicans in congress. He could never get anything done. They could override his veto. The democrats can't override Bush's veto right now. Bush has more power in his last two years than Bill did at anytime in his 6.

Consequently, you may not extend any part of what Bill's presidency was to create a predictor of what Hillary's presidency might be. A democratic congress did not gee and haw with Bill Clinton during his first 2 years. If Hillary were to get a democratic congress, we still do not know whether they would cooperate enough to get anything done. I have wondered often if the people didn't get mad at the democratic congress for not doing what they wanted for that first two years. So they just fired them. To mix a metaphor, it was just out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since most Americans have short memory or selective amnesia, it's good to know that brainpower in the US is not totally dense. Bill Clinton ranks among the worse presidents to call himself a Democrat that ever occupied the Oval Office. In fact, he referred to his Administration as a "Dwight Eisenhower" clone. Having lived through the Eisenhower administration, we should be so lucky. But, as far as that diverse working class constituency that call themselves democrats, Clinton did little to provide a safety net for them. He brought into the line hook and sinker that if the rich are fine, America is fine. Hillary bleeds the same philosophy. Notice how the media characterizes her campaign as "The Clinton's."

If you vote for Hillary, expect the same old, same old boys policies and legislation. More and more, the plantation paradigm pervades American life. Ms. Ann and Mr. Charlie, lawdy, lawdy, lawdy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bottom line we were much better off in the Clinton days than we are now.
So all you Clinton Bashers that twist and manipulate the truth are a bunch of followers that listen to the wannabe journalist and media. Do your homework!!! I am not saying the Clintons were perfect, far from it but so was every other candidate that we have had. Never like this administration..And we certainly do not one that will make it worse with his inexperience. He is hardly a jr. Senator that has not done very much in the Senate and now wants to hop skip and a jump into the white house even at the cose of racism manipulation. We are beyond all this and must not listen to those wanabe Journalist and bias media. Do your homeowrk:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can only concur with the people who want John Edwards. In 1992 my husband and I wanted Jerry Brown, and watched while he was pushed aside by Clinton. We voted for Clinton twice, and twice he let us down on the medical question, which he could have passed as a lame duck.

As parents of a mentally retarded daughter, we saw him scurry home to Arkansas during his first campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally retarded convict who requested that his dessert be saved for him to eat "after the execution." Bill sure showed the public how tough he was on crime. I cried.

I used to wonder about the nickname "Slick Willie," but after 16 years it's apparent that it fits him AND her like a glove. During the Florida Democratic Convention the rule was that no paid staff was to be present. Every candidate but Clinton abided by that rule. She had paid staff all over the place. I later learned she did the same in Pennsylvania. The Clintons never met a rule they wouldn't break. Their sense of entitlement is astonishing. They apparently feel they are political royalty. Well, I fear they are going to go back to Washington, D.C. once again, but this time they will do it without my vote. I will do a write in for John Edwards. I won't vote for another Clinton in MY lifetime. Twice was enough.

I don't know how people can say that this is a "right wing" or "conservative" post. I am far more left-wing than the Clintons; I suppose that people who disagree with we liberals would rather call us "conservative" to salve their hurt feelings than to admit the truth -- that the Clintons (both of them) ARE Republican Lite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's the ticket to go against those no good, dirty, rotten, filthy, stinkin' republicans!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]