New Haven Independent

Posted by: Cheri | October 6, 2008 1:38 PM

Bill Clinton's reluctance to convincingly praise Obama stems from what I think is his absolute inability to "pass the torch."
He had a troubled presidency, no doubt, but was adored by the dems overall. He being the last adored dem in power, and having a huge ego, it has not been shocking to me that he has had such trouble taking the emphasis off himself, even when he was campaigning for his wife. He's been a real turn off to me for several months of this campaign. My hope is that people will not care what he thinks too much.

"I don't say anything I don't believe."

yeah, right.

Posted by: lookout4slickwilly | October 6, 2008 3:24 PM

"I don't say anything I don't believe."

"I did not have sex with that woman"

Perhaps the thing that sticks in my craw the most from the Clinton era (I supported him in '92 but soon saw the error of my ways) is his last day when his outgoing quote was "I had fun". I do not want the person running the country to be focused on having fun. It is far too serious a task for that.

While Billy was diddling interns...etc, the economy slipped, government spending got out of hand, Freddie and Fannie were born, the military rusted, Al Quida grew in strength and confidence, and Wall St became a behemoth that resulting in a tech crash in 2000 and eventually a financial crash in 2008. Think about a government that couldn't even address Branch Dividians in Waco and be very glad that we didn't attempt any major overseas work during that time.

I hope that we have learned our lesson but I fear that we have not.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 6, 2008 3:43 PM

Are you kidding, Lookout? Which part of the economy slipped during the 90s? Which part of the military 'rusted?' Read Richard Clarke's book about the hunt for al-Qaeda; he make it clear (and he's hardly a champion of liberalism) that Clinton did more to disrupt al-Qaeda than Bush has done before 9/11 or since. Yes, the presidency is serious business; far too serious to have been left for the past eight years to a ex-drunk, likely former cocaine user, pretend cowboy who's more interested in 'clearing brush' and riding his mountain bike during month-long vacations than he is in protecting the country. Clinton was hands-down the most effectively diplomatic president we've had in 30 years, helping to broker peace in Northern Ireland and doing as much as anyone to bring Israel and Palestine together.

I don't forgive his sexual indiscretions, but you know what--I'm not his wife or his child. It's not my job to condemn them, either. I'll take lying to the American over lying to the American people about weapons of mass destructions, connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, lying about National Guard service, lying about political opponents, and just general lying ad nauseum any day of the week. I've learned my lesson since 2001.

Posted by: Cheri | October 6, 2008 4:27 PM

Mr. Kurtz: for the record, I am mostly in agreement with you about Clinton's accomplishments as president. I just think he's lousy at campaigning for Obama, mostly due to his abnormal self aggrandizement. I think he and Hillary expected to win, and he's had a real hard time dealing with the actual outcome, which is depressing to watch from a man I had found so constructive as a leader.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 6, 2008 5:27 PM

uh-oh. I've pointed out a couple of typos to the NHI, so it's only fair to own up to my own. The second-to-last sentence in my comment should read, ". . . lying to the American people about sex over lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction . . . ".

Posted by: lookout4slickwilly | October 6, 2008 5:41 PM

W K

No I am not kidding. And it is telling that your rant is so focused on personal attack and very short on substance. To address a few of the misfires;

Comparing the economy statistically between 1/93 and 1/01, most the the indicators were even or worse in raw numbers and, more importantly, in trends. Most numbers were moving forward/positive in 92 and most were moving the wrong way in 2000/2001. Some of the worst didn't occur until after he left office bit Clinton lost control during his watch.

Clarke had a falling out - he was tossed for incompetency - and ended up running for Prez as a Dem so he's hardly objective. Talk to insiders - to a person they will tell you that the Clinton admin seemed to be targeting the distruction of our military.

So Bush sucks because he used to have bad habits and he likes to excercise outdoors? I'd rather have someone who staightened themselves out and went to work then someone who still had their uncontrolled vices in the White House.

A great diplomat? Hmmm....Let's see - how about North Korea. We'll give you big $$s in exchange for the promise to not develop nukes. (we learn later that the $$s didn't go to the people and the nukes still got developed). And then there's Somolia and Black Hawk Down....and Iraq (let Saddam kill millions) and Palastine (remember all the suicide bombers). I think the closest to strong diplomicy that we saw was the snatching of Elian Gonzalez from his family.

And of course, the difference between a lie (see earlier Clinton quotes) and making decisions based upon the best information at hand (later found to be weak) is another main difference in the administrations. But that probably doesn't make a good mainstream media talking point.

Facts should always trump noise.

Posted by: lonelyconservative | October 6, 2008 5:46 PM

Hooray - Its great to finally see someone around here calling out all the Clinton crap. It would be great if he continues his weak support of Obama. Take the Clinton machine votes away and maybe this country stands a chance in this election.

My guess is the Clintons are secretly hoping for an Obama loss so that they can make a White House run in 2012. If that plays out, I hope that someone nails down the furniture.

Posted by: CC | October 6, 2008 6:36 PM

The women of the nation have a right to a certain level of conduct. If a married man screws around with a grown-up, who understands what's going on, nobody's business. Sexually harrassing somebody is NOT the same thing. Let's remember, Monica was all of 22 years old. We had a right to expect better. Women, and girls, are part of the nation too.

Posted by: Westville Mom | October 6, 2008 6:37 PM

From the Washington Post of 1-3-07:
"Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine."....Hope you all aren't getting your "facts" out there from Oliver Stone movies, or anything.

Posted by: CC | October 6, 2008 6:37 PM

The women of the nation have a right to a certain level of conduct. If a married man screws around with a grown-up, who understands what's going on, nobody's business. Sexually harassing somebody is NOT the same thing. Paula Jones didn't ask for it, and let's remember, Monica was all of 22 years old. We had a right to expect better. Women, and girls, are part of the nation too.

Posted by: fact check | October 6, 2008 7:27 PM

Clarke;

http://wais.stanford.edu/Individuals/individual_generalclark.htm

Furniture

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=121856&page=1

Lie?

Google "Clinton Iraq 1998"

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 6, 2008 7:59 PM

Lookout,

I certainly didn't mean anything I said as a personal attack on you; please accept my regrets for anything that sounded as if I did. I might have been a little flip in asking if you were kidding. I probably would not have said that in person, and I apologize for it. I also said some not-so-nice things about the president, but hey; I kid the president but that's just because I think his administration has been a spectacular failure.

You're right, of course; facts should trump noise. Here are some inconvenient facts about Clarke. He resigned from his role as counter-terrorism czar in 2003--there's no credible account of his being fired for incompetence, other than the wildly inconsistent smear campaign leveled against him by Bush administration officials. Cheney, for example, said that Clarke didn't know what he was talking about because he wasn't "in the loop" while Secretary Rice said (if I remember rightly, within a day or so) that Clarke was at the center of counter-terrorism efforts. I'll let Cheney off the hook; he was appearing on the Rush Limbaugh's show, and his record for inaccuracy has been well-documented.

You might have me on Clarke's presidential bid; what year was it in? Do you perhaps have him confused with "Richard H. Clark" who ran under the banner of the "New American Independent Party" or General Wesley Clark, who did indeed run as a Democrat? Understandable errors, both, especially in the post-facts environment we're living in now.

Post-factism (I may have just coined that term! Use it royalty-free!) didn't originate with President Bush the Younger, but he may be its master. Can you imagine the hue and cry that would have arisen had Clinton led us into a preemptive war against another sovereign nation, when every expert in the country and on the ground said that there was no evidence of Saddam Hussein's ability to project military force beyond his borders. See what Scott Ritter, 12-year Marine veteran (our 'rusted' military) and weapons inspector had to say in 2002: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

Yes, Clinton lied. His behavior embarrassed the Presidency. I don't like it, but how this for a deal? You give him a pass on lying about Lewinsky, and I'll forget President Bush's astoundingly inappropriate sense of humor: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.wmd.jokes/index.html

Actually, according to FOXNews, it's no big deal: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115484,00.html

As fair and balanced as Fox usually is, I think they're wrong on this one. That joke was disgraceful. But that's not a 'fact'; that's just my opinion.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | October 7, 2008 7:32 AM

Whatever happened to ex presidents just shutting up and letting the country move on without them? I don't remember Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush 41 thinking that we couldn't get along without seeing or hearing from them every two weeks.

Posted by: JM | October 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Clinton presided over the greatest period of economic growth and prosperity in US history.

It also included balanced budgets.

I'd take the economy of 1998 and a presidential sex scandal over the current disastrous mess in a heartbeat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1110165.stm

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | October 8, 2008 10:15 PM

JM

The reason Clinton had it so good for several years is that the Reagan administration ended the cold war and eased pressure on military spending for a bit. Clinton then gutted the military and spent the peace dividends. (BTW, we were in a recession when Bush took office.) He ignored the Islamic threat and left it for W to deal with. That cost us a bit of money to correct. Clinton also created the Community Reinvestment Act which gave people with no credit, or poor credit, big mortgages which they could never pay back. Hello Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac! Guess why we are in the mess we face today.

Yeah, great job! Thank you Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Jeff Clark | October 8, 2008 10:53 PM

Check your facts FedUp, the Community Reinvestment Act existed long before the Clinton Admninistration.

Posted by: jade | October 9, 2008 12:04 AM

amen to that, JM.

Posted by: Walt | October 9, 2008 6:40 AM

Fedup

For the most part I agree with you. but Carter fading quietly into the background and realizing he is no longer President is just your dream.

He is , to the contrary, probably the worst example of someone trying to interfere internationally long after he was bounced out of office.