I think that he hillbilly bill thinks he's still president? First he plays golf with the Canadian dude, now...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1535EDT6183.DTL

Can you Democrats come up with some sort of NEW leader so Billy boy can just go away like all good ex presidents do...

Last time I checked, President Clinton had been out of office for two years, and is not running for anything. Can someone tell me why the right-wing nuts are still on this guy?

I say let the guy go -He is the past , but Hillary will be the candidate in 2008. BET ON IT! frown

I think some people resent the fact that despite some notable failings and the best efforts of some in Congress, Clinton remained very popular throughout his terms in ofiice and is still well regarded by most of the public and clearly well liked by many in national and international political circles.

The Clinton "era" will largely be fondly remembered as a prosperous decade of good times for which he will, deservedly or otherwise, get the credit. That pretty picture increasingly stands in contrast to present conditions.

In many ways Clinton's status is reminiscent of that of Andrew Jackson. Clinton, like Jackson was seen by his detractors as quite unworthy of the office. Jackson impressed some as an ill-mannered, corrupt, yokel. Clinton much the same, with a dose of immorality thrown in for good measure. Nevertheless, both enjoyed wide popular appeal with the majority and yet were/are detested with increasing bitterness by those who never liked them to begin with.

Well, Clinton continues to put himself in the public eye and speak out on matters of public policy, so I do think he's fair game as far as some of his current comments. As for "letting it go," I actually agree with you, cubsfan. I'm sure the next time one of our resident leftwingers lets loose with negative comments about Bush 41 (who's been out of office for 10 years) and Reagan (who's been out of office for 14 years) I can look forward to seeing an equivalent admonishment. Unfortunately, dwelling on the past is a human trait, not a rightwing one.

Considering the fact that current world leaders like Blair and Fox are seeking out President Clinton for advice, I don't think we should be all that concerned that the President remains a prominent public figure. He has demonstrated a strong understanding of foreign policy, and his views and opinions are clearly still valued. It is not his fault that these leaders feel he can lend a more thoughtful viewpoint than the current US leadership.

I think perhaps its the Clinton-obsessed that need to "go away." Some people just cant handle the fact that Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings of any president. Yes, even higher than "Regan."

Perhaps Fox met with Clinton because he wanted to meet with an adult rather than a blathering idiot.


"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." GW Bush

The difference is that Clinton-bashers go after him for his personal foibles / scandals (which have no or little bearing on our nation's future), whereas Reagan bashers do so primarily on the basis of his policies or, in the case of Bush the Elder, lack of policies ... which we as a nation are still recovering from.

All we hear from the Clinton bashers are Whitewater, dress stains, cigars ... I hear more criticism of his actual policies -- welfare-reform, failed health care reform, "the era of Big Government is over", free trade (NAFTA, China, GATT) -- from our "resident leftwingers" ...

It is interesting how clearly the divide is between arguments of substance, and arguments of superficiality. No you shouldn't have sex with an intern. However, you should have some clue about how to address the country's deep economic troubles and the world's distrust of your overarching foreign policy. One is a bit more important than the other.

Plus a grasp of the english language would help.

Torgauer's article is on the money. But one reason that Clinton remains such a major figure is that the Democratic Party lacks intellectual leadership and ideological coherence right now. Clinton provided the former, less so the latter (and moral leadership was utterly lacking in his case).

The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, have not found a way to present a coherent platform for what they represent. They have not distinguished themselves clearly or forcefully from the GOP, even though there are any number of issues before them through which they could do so.

Instead, they continue to operate in reactive mode; their philosophy represents a negative capability as opposed to a positive one--instead of saying, we would do this and this, they wait for the GOP to frame the ideas rhetorically, and then they are trapped. For example, the Democrats never challenged the basic idea of "weapons of mass destruction." Any high school English teacher or physicist will tell you this is a vague and incoherent term--this could really constitute any number of "weapons" that hundreds of nations possess. Yet the Bush administration began using it, and instead of offering a critique AND positing another, fresh way of addressing the issue of nuclear and biochem weapon proliferation, not only in Iraq but elsewhere, the Democrats adopted Bush's term and were then stuck. This happens again and again--"Death tax," "Growing the economy," "giving the money back to the people," etc.

Clinton, however, articulated any number of ideas--many of them stolen right from the Republican playbook--throughout his term, often ENACTING THEM INTO POLICY, as Reagan and now Bush II are doing (unlike Carter and Bush I), and repeatedly seized the rhetorical frame to force the Republicans into reactive mode. If, as polls claim, outside of the war the majority of Americans are in line with moderate Democratic-moderate Republican policies, then it is truly a failure of the currrent Democratic leadership that they cannot win more elections and that Clinton and his Lady Macbeth-esque wife, HRC, are functioning as the party's standard-bearers.

[ May 01, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Kind of like Coolidge in the 20s or Ike in the 50s. wink

[ May 01, 2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

Yes prosperiety and cheating.... on your wife or your financial statements. You cant spell cheat without clinton.

HUH????

PhillyFan - You might want to avoid spelling analogies. wink

One cheated on his wife. The other lied to the world. Which is truly the bigger sin?

I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN...

ooops, guess i did.

PhillyFan - I know some right wing Clinton haters in Arkansas who I USE to think were the most Clinton-obsessed people in the world, you now wear that crown. Get over it man, let it go, move on! I know its tough to come up with something good to say about Chimp but quit living in the past.

[ May 03, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]