― the pinefox, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Geoff, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― keith, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― The Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Josh, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Mark Morris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I hear he's also hit with the ladies...
― Dan Perry, Thursday, 5 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Pete, Thursday, 5 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― the pinefox (the pinefox), Wednesday, 25 September 2002 20:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
― boxcubed (boxcubed), Wednesday, 25 September 2002 22:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
Clinton is looking better and better every day, no? Best President we had since Truman if you ask me.
― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 06:15 (twenty-one years ago) link
― donna (donna), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 06:21 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 06:26 (twenty-one years ago) link
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 9 October 2002 13:25 (twenty-one years ago) link
or is this wishful thinking?
― jon (jon), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 13:46 (twenty-one years ago) link
Personally, for all his qualities, it comes down to this - he deliberately had people killed for electoral advantage. Ricky Ray Rector was crying out for clemency, but Bill didn't want to have a Willie Horton situation on his hands, so Ricky fried.
I'm sure you could argue that Clinton saw that he was better able to help people and put his values and those of the Democratic Party into practice as President, so Ricky was an expedient measure for a greater good. But that's how Clinton kept getting away with ever more outrageous stunts, as they all justified on the basis of something greater. Eventually, that boiled down to simple fear of the alternative.
The Labour Party use the same trick; no matter how bad we are, we're not the Tories. Sorry. Doesn't work anymore. I know you're better than the Tories and I take it as a given. It's the baseline, not the high point of ideological difference. I want to believe something positive, rather than using the same old fear of the right-wing bogeyman to, er, do much of the same things the right-wing bogeymen would have themselves done.
― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 13:57 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jon (jon), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 14:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
Even then, Clinton wasn't backwards at coming forwards when it came to indiscriminate use of US Military power on the developing world. Admittedly, I think he'd baulk at starting WW3, but again, he's only be less bad here, not 'better' than Dubya. Though if better means no WW3, then that's an important difference I'll admit.
― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 9 October 2002 14:50 (twenty-one years ago) link
A different question might be: what did Clinton achieve that was progressive? (*Apart from* just keeping Republicans out of the WH for 8 years: not a small achievement, and one reason, I think, why Tad and I like him so).
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 9 October 2002 20:11 (twenty-one years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:43 (nineteen years ago) link
Judged against Dubya, he's a half-step behind FDR.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― Pack Yr Romantic Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:52 (nineteen years ago) link
How on earth would you know that?
For wasting so many years of his presidency on scandal management, because he couldn't keep his penis in his pants, DUD.
For marring a strong 8 year span of Democratic presidency by not keeping his penis in his pants, DUD.
For fueling the 'culture wars', DUD.
What a waste of talent (his and anyone who worked for him).
― Debito (Debito), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:56 (nineteen years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 29 May 2004 08:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Saturday, 29 May 2004 09:37 (nineteen years ago) link
I think we did not have them in the UK.
― the bellefox, Saturday, 29 May 2004 12:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― Debito (Debito), Saturday, 29 May 2004 12:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― kyle (akmonday), Saturday, 29 May 2004 18:58 (nineteen years ago) link
― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Saturday, 29 May 2004 19:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 19:43 (sixteen years ago) link
― and what, Friday, 11 May 2007 19:52 (sixteen years ago) link
― gff, Friday, 11 May 2007 19:59 (sixteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 11 May 2007 20:01 (sixteen years ago) link
― Pleasant Plains, Friday, 11 May 2007 20:34 (sixteen years ago) link
― Uptoeleven, Sunday, 13 May 2007 17:14 (sixteen years ago) link
― JW, Sunday, 13 May 2007 17:24 (sixteen years ago) link
― gershy, Sunday, 13 May 2007 19:21 (sixteen years ago) link
Cockburn:
The Clintons have always excited passions disproportionate to their very modest talents as creative politicians. Looking back across the Nineties at the frenzied Republican onslaughts on the couple, one can only wag one's head in bemusement at the Right's hysteria. Why did they consume so much energy in savaging a pair who had learned conclusively from their earlier upsets in Arkansas that you don't get ahead by offending the powerful, starting with the timber and chicken barons who controlled that backward and impoverished state?
To be fair on Bill and Hillary, beyond some ritual freshets of campaign rhetoric in primary season they have never advertised themselves as anything other than reliable guardians of the basic Business Round Table agenda that defines the programmatic vision of 99.9 per cent of all American politicians....
No one has yet written particularly well about the Clintons, probably because the appropriate tone--Mencken's comic savagery--was devalued by Bill's assailants on the right. Obsessed by Bush, the liberals cannot see Clinton for the light-weight scoundrel he was and have reinvented his terms in the White House as a golden age, whose possible sequel under the aegis of President Hillary Clinton they eagerly await.
http://counterpunch.org/cockburn09292007.html
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 20:40 (sixteen years ago) link
had to check the date on that
― gff, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 20:45 (sixteen years ago) link
Alex Cockburn doesn't like the clintons, part 235
― kingfish, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 20:47 (sixteen years ago) link
Cockpunch
― milo z, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 20:48 (sixteen years ago) link
the Clintons WERE tailor-made for Mencken though.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 21:28 (sixteen years ago) link
timber and chicken barons
I know what career I want to get into. "I am a very prestigious chicken and timber baron. Carriage driver, take me to the Clintons' so they can polish my shoes."
― Abbott, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 22:20 (sixteen years ago) link
the last time i read mencken's obit of william jennings bryan i sort of wished mencken had lived in a different era so he could've written the exact same thing - only about someone else. bryan was really a great man compared to the shitheads we get these days.
― J.D., Wednesday, 3 October 2007 05:15 (sixteen years ago) link
Dud: "There's nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
Everything else pretty classic.
― roxymuzak, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 05:34 (sixteen years ago) link
oh, just classic. from an irish/european perspective, the question looks a little silly.
― darraghmac, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 14:00 (sixteen years ago) link
I mean, he's not just "not a pariah," he was a major power broker in the party at least until fairly recently -- hard to say whether it was the Obama victory or the Trump victory that finally diminished his status, but it continued well after he was president. People of my parents' generation still seem to carry the idea that he was wrongfully accused.
― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 28 September 2018 16:22 (five years ago) link
Hillary's loss severely damaged her and Bill's standing in the party. And trends in the party are moving very far away from their policies and legacies so I don't think there's going to be any comeback either. Probably some handwringing when they die about their squandered potential.
― Οὖτις, Friday, 28 September 2018 16:24 (five years ago) link
People of my parents' generation still seem to carry the idea that he was wrongfully accused.
I don't think this is the case w my parents but yeah ugh boomers
― Οὖτις, Friday, 28 September 2018 16:25 (five years ago) link
oh look
https://www.yahoo.com/news/juanita-broaddrick-glad-believe-her-024811948.html
― Οὖτις, Friday, 28 September 2018 16:36 (five years ago) link
So are you saying that means it didn't happen or that it doesn't matter because she's a bad person.
― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 28 September 2018 16:41 (five years ago) link
not saying either of those things? it just popped up in my newsfeed, so you're not the only one seeing the parallels/differences
― Οὖτις, Friday, 28 September 2018 16:43 (five years ago) link
Broaddrick's story strikes me as extremely credible fwiw
― Οὖτις, Friday, 28 September 2018 16:44 (five years ago) link
at the same time, her position about Dr. Ford is a mixture of predictable and gross
― Οὖτις, Friday, 28 September 2018 16:45 (five years ago) link
yeah I think it's gross too but I found her story very credible when I finally gave it a chance a few years ago. And his pattern of behavior is supported by other women.
― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 28 September 2018 16:47 (five years ago) link
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/white-house-government-shutdown.html
Lengthy shutdowns can be disastrous for the White House for other reasons.The last time a shutdown went on for this long, President Bill Clinton put himself on the long road to impeachment when he courted a young intern named Monica Lewinsky in an empty corner of the West Wing. Nonessential employees had been sent home, unpaid interns were brought in to work, and the rest is bitter history.The Obama administration barred interns from coming to work during a shutdown, and the Trump White House’s new class of interns has not yet started, according to a senior official.
The last time a shutdown went on for this long, President Bill Clinton put himself on the long road to impeachment when he courted a young intern named Monica Lewinsky in an empty corner of the West Wing. Nonessential employees had been sent home, unpaid interns were brought in to work, and the rest is bitter history.
The Obama administration barred interns from coming to work during a shutdown, and the Trump White House’s new class of interns has not yet started, according to a senior official.
omg
― j., Friday, 11 January 2019 03:12 (five years ago) link
Here’s a provocative alternate reality that, with the benefit of time, is just starting to come into focus: All those joyful Democrats who tearfully celebrated the generation-shifting results of the 1992 election would likely be better off today if Bill Clinton had lost and George H. W. Bush had been reelected....BEFORE WE GET TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, let’s review what actually was. We’ll start with a pop quiz for Democrats: Name the three most important domestic achievements of the Clinton administration.Chances are you’ll say a booming economy — the byproduct of responsible financial stewardship that converted record budget deficits into healthy surpluses. If you lean centrist or buy into pollster sabermetrics, you might mention welfare reform, which finally neutered the devastating if cynical tactic Republicans had used to paint their Democratic opponents as defenders of lazy “welfare queens.” Or maybe you’ll cite the assault weapons ban of 1994, a high-water mark for gun control that no pol of that persuasion has managed to come close to since, despite the numbing frequency of mass shootings.Follow-up question: Which achievements from the Clinton years still hold up today?Do you need more time?I tried this exercise with several presidential historians and public policy pros, and the most common answer turned out to be “very little.”
...BEFORE WE GET TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, let’s review what actually was. We’ll start with a pop quiz for Democrats: Name the three most important domestic achievements of the Clinton administration.
Chances are you’ll say a booming economy — the byproduct of responsible financial stewardship that converted record budget deficits into healthy surpluses. If you lean centrist or buy into pollster sabermetrics, you might mention welfare reform, which finally neutered the devastating if cynical tactic Republicans had used to paint their Democratic opponents as defenders of lazy “welfare queens.” Or maybe you’ll cite the assault weapons ban of 1994, a high-water mark for gun control that no pol of that persuasion has managed to come close to since, despite the numbing frequency of mass shootings.
Follow-up question: Which achievements from the Clinton years still hold up today?
Do you need more time?
I tried this exercise with several presidential historians and public policy pros, and the most common answer turned out to be “very little.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2018/07/10/bill-clinton-had-never-been-president-democrats-would-better-off-today/qsYmCo7ZEYpQr8fOZSkRLM/story.html
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 8 July 2019 17:19 (four years ago) link
even better than no Clinton: no Clintonism.
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 July 2019 17:45 (four years ago) link
I don't know if a Poppy Bush reelection or Dole beating Clinton would have, respectively, stymied the Rush-infused growth of alternative conservative media and moderated the party's excesses. Some kind of Democratic overcorrection to Reaganism was preordained.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 July 2019 17:48 (four years ago) link
That was a good read, but even assuming a Dem-controlled Senate I don't doubt Poppy would've gotten some Thomas-esque cranks onto federal courts, if only to appease the right wing; eight years of Clinton appointing judges was a good thing.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 July 2019 17:59 (four years ago) link
All those joyful Democrats who tearfully celebrated the generation-shifting results of the 1992 election
The euphoria of displacing Reagan's successor definitely went to people's heads. I remember listening to a call-in the local community-owned volunteer-run lefty radio station (KBOO) on the night of the election and hearing all the callers speculating about what marvels would soon be delivered by our new "progressive" president. For the first and last time in my life I called in to a talk show -- to say on-air that while Clinton would certainly be an improvement over Reagan, the USA had never elected a truly progressive president, hadn't now, and if they expected him to push hard for a left-progressive agenda that Clinton would soon disappoint them.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:02 (four years ago) link
The party still exists in the shadow of Reagan and the Clintons. Any real rebuilding work is only just starting, if it is to succeed at all.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:08 (four years ago) link
A Bush win in 92 election is a weird thing to fantasize about. The incumbent President only got 37% of the vote.
― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:15 (four years ago) link
there's a lot of debate over how much perot affected the outcome of that election but i think it's fair to assume bush wouldn't have done as badly (at least) without him in the race.
was there a more progressive democrat who could plausibly have been elected in 1992? (or 1996, assuming a second term for bush.)
(aimless -- surely FDR qualifies as a progressive president?)
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:17 (four years ago) link
i remember Clinton's election pretty clearly and I remember the elation as well, to feel like we'd thrown off the mantle of Reaganism finally. Obv. in retrospect that seems suspect but at the time it felt like something. Much in the same way that it felt like something when Obama was elected, and now in retrospect we have to accept that there was still a rapid expansion of executive power, broad misuse of FISA and the patriot act, and drone bombings. Presidential elections seem to only ever get incremental progressive gains, I don't know why, when you can clearly go very far down the fucking toilet with ease as the Trump administration has demonstrated.
― akm, Monday, 8 July 2019 18:18 (four years ago) link
FDR qualifies as a progressive president?
FDR was a non-ideological pragmatist faced with a nation in an existential crisis. He was wiling to try radical new ideas, only because the old ideas had failed catastrophically. As one of his top advisors (I forget who) complained, FDR's Brain Trust was desperately trying to save capitalism, but the capitalists hated them intensely.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:24 (four years ago) link
and FDR wanted to balance the budget AND do Keynesian spending stuff
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:33 (four years ago) link
and nuke people and lock up the japanese.
― akm, Monday, 8 July 2019 18:41 (four years ago) link
truly a renaissance man
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 July 2019 18:42 (four years ago) link
"and nuke people" was the guy who came after him, to be fair
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 8 July 2019 19:08 (four years ago) link
the development vs the use
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 July 2019 19:09 (four years ago) link
i tend to think Roosevelt would've used it as well
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 July 2019 19:10 (four years ago) link
the actual Progressive movement gave us eugenics and prohibition. nukes seem very progressive in that sense
― Vape Store (crüt), Monday, 8 July 2019 19:27 (four years ago) link
I think there's consensus, though, that Clinton would have won with or without Perot. If you throw Perot's 19,743,821 votes back into the mix, Clinton would have only needed a little over 35% of them to win the popular vote.
Which doesn't, admittedly, take into account: 1) the electoral college, 2) how Perot affected the debates (quite a lot, at least one of them), and 3) the fact that Perot hated Bush and zeroed in on him the whole way.
But I assume Clinton would have won a plurality of Perot's votes--who were mostly, as I remember it, people angry at Bush for breaking his tax pledge and various other things--making at least the first point moot.
― clemenza, Monday, 8 July 2019 19:28 (four years ago) link
Perot's spoiler effect was essentially nil - he ended up drawing support evenly from each candidate.
― One Eye Open, Monday, 8 July 2019 19:40 (four years ago) link
Everyone would have used nukes
― Frederik B, Monday, 8 July 2019 19:46 (four years ago) link
Not long after Clinton unpacked his things in Chappaqua, his successor was presiding over a sputtering economy, increased poverty, and yawning deficits.
I feel like there was an important historical event that's being elided there... can't quite put my finger on it....
― One Eye Open, Monday, 8 July 2019 19:47 (four years ago) link
For whatever it's worth, in 1996 when Perot's votes dropped from 19% to 8% - the Republican vote went from 37% to 40%, Clinton's vote went from 43% to 49%.
― Screamin' Jay Gould (The Yellow Kid), Monday, 8 July 2019 19:47 (four years ago) link
^^^ exactly
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 July 2019 20:07 (four years ago) link
maybe he'll end up in prison. that'd be p cool.
― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Monday, 8 July 2019 21:08 (four years ago) link
A friend and I were talking about the convention yesterday: going to take a wild guess that WJC is kept well hidden from view this year.
― clemenza, Thursday, 23 January 2020 02:43 (four years ago) link
and what of Lucretia?
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:33 (four years ago) link
there might be a video tribute to Epstein and Weinstein if Biden's the nominee, ya never know
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:38 (four years ago) link
The woman from the bombastic Blood, Sweat & Tears song? I don't know.
― clemenza, Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:38 (four years ago) link
Bombastic Rodham
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:47 (four years ago) link
Don't forget the time his spouse met personally with Putin at his private compound before taking $500,000 for a speech to Renaissance Capital in Moscow. Oh, wait, that was the Clintons. https://t.co/NMwY76eJF5— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 23, 2020
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 January 2020 12:51 (four years ago) link
https://i.imgur.com/YsfBoQf.png
― calstars, Saturday, 25 April 2020 03:24 (four years ago) link
I see how this is generated -https://www.kapwing.com/explore/bill-clinton-album-challenge-meme-template
- but where does it originate? Did he pose with actual LPs originally - when, and what were they?
― the pinefox, Saturday, 25 April 2020 10:38 (four years ago) link
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bill-clinton-swagAccording to this the original is a photoshop to begin with (from an onion piece from 1999!) so no, he never posed with any records
― Microbes oft teem (wins), Saturday, 25 April 2020 10:42 (four years ago) link
In the onion article they are all Joan Jett lps
The image definitely has that janky onion photoshop feel
― calstars, Saturday, 25 April 2020 10:51 (four years ago) link
Yes. In fact I originally thought it was fake - thanks for confirmation.
― the pinefox, Saturday, 25 April 2020 11:06 (four years ago) link