That's our Bill

...for sparing us the return of those people and their dramas to the White House.

And to think that in times past, conservatives used the sobriquet those people when speaking of the Roosevelts.

We are not the nation we once were...

Good one, mm.

Which makes it all the more astonishing to realize that there could ever be a president (much less the very next office holder) who could make us yearn for the last one.

I certainly would not have believed that I could ever despise a president more than I did Mr. Clinton. Duh-bya proved me wrong yet again.

One fo the more remarkable features of the current election campaign has been the tacit acknowledgment by so many Democrats that conservatives were right all along on one thing: The Clintons are scuzzballs. He's their Nixon.

Had Democrats genuinely admired President Clinton (as opposed to just sharing his enemies), Barack Obama would never have been able to round up all that Hollywood cash, netroots idolatry and come out of nowhere to defeat her.

Of course, if Barack puts Hillary on the ticket, then the "Billary" soap opera will get a new lease on life.

I think Obama is smarter than that. What does Hillary bring to the ticket?

For the past four months, her campaign has devolved into an anti-Obama protest movement. Those working class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. who are voting for her by 50 point margins didn't suddenly fall in love with her inspiring message. If the last two candidates standing had been Obama and John Edwards, Edwards would have won most of those votes, too.

>>True that. Although Obama's as crazy ambition-driven as Bill so we can only hope that the recklessness gene didn't tag along with the power-grabbing one.>>

Name one person who sought the presidency who was not ambition-driven. Key word: SOUGHT. With Geo. Washington as our quasi-Cincinnatus, every candidate for the presidency brings with himself or herself loads of ambition. Same for doctors and other high-powered people, too, I would wager.

One fo the more remarkable features of the current election campaign has been the tacit acknowledgment by so many Democrats that conservatives were right all along on one thing: The Clintons are scuzzballs. He's their Nixon.

No, Clinton was more our Reagan. Someone who, logically, shouldn't be as popular as still is, simply because, policy-wise, he wasn't in line with the party. Of course, the right still believes in Reagan's damn stupid economic policies and deregulation, and has decided that is actually what the party stands for, whereas the left has pretty much conceded that Clinton's NAFTA was a bad idea.

Except, of course, when Congress investigated a single wrong-doing of Reagan's administration (Iran-Contra), 11 people went to jail, whereas under Clinton, no one did in the dozen or so investigations.

And there was at least one other thing Reagan should have been investigated for and wasn't..the Iran hostage crisis release. And there were at least half a dozen legitimate scandals under Reagan that Reagan didn't get dragged into by Congress (As he was not, in fact, involved.) whereas Clinton got dragged into every damn stupid pretend scandal by his Congress. Many of which he was not only not involved in, but were not actually scandals.

But, anyway, both Clinton and Reagan enjoyed popularity was out of bounds with their actual policies on each side. Oddly enough, I think this was basically caused by the same thing: In each case, the party had a weak or just plain criminal president (Carter, Nixon) and then had been out of power, with that last president sorta stuck in everyone's mind for years. So they worshiped the next guy who got in. (Sorta makes you wonder about the next Republican president, in 2012 or 2016 or whenever.)

However, the Clintons are, indeed, scuzzballs. They are way too quick to take industry money and then work tirelessly for said industry. This happened with health care in 92 (And that was Hillary.), this happened with NAFTA, it's a pattern. It didn't help that they had a Republican Congress, which allowed them to suggest all sorts of stuff they never really intended to follow through on, and the Republicans would happily shoot it down for them. Meanwhile, they could just quietly sign the Republican's bills into law.

When I grew up thinking the two parties were identically, what I actually meant was that the Republicans and the Clintons were identical. (And I think I just called Republicans scuzzballs, so I should probably stop there.)

That said, the Republicans didn't accuse Clinton of being a scuzzball. They accused him of theft, bribery, rape, murder, treason, etc. I point to the comment by 'mm' above.

I ought to be a Hillary fan--I'm 60, white, and female. But I just can't stand the thought of more Clinton drama. No more blue dresses please...

But Bill's mantra still applies:

"It's the economy stupid!"

May POTUS #44 have the backing of certain appointees of both #43 and #42:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/backing-sec-chiefs-gives-obama/story.aspx?guid={787AA129-4194-4D38-8052-20F1DCB6295B}&dist=msr_1

That the military-industrial complex may be brought to its knees by their fellow captains of industry who prefer a Peaceable Kingdom vision of America to the comic-strip narrative of the past 16 Bush/Clinton years.
Remarkable, no?
Hopeful? Unlikely, unless Obama appoints Paul to son-of-Paul.
We can all dream!

I would point out that many peoples problem with Bill is that he committed perjury. The serial philandering is a big deal, but not nearly as bad as actually committing crime while holding the Presidency.

Chris

I hope you feel better now having gotten all that bile out of your system.

Physician, heal thyself.

Still find myself remembering what somebody quoted Bush II as saying at his inaugural: "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over." I would never let my daughter go out with Bill, but that isn't what we elect presidents for, and besides my daughter is long since married and furthermore Bill was never her type.

When Bill started his presidency, the gvt. was running a historically high deficit. When he left, it was running a surplus. We had the respect of the rest of the world. The dollar was strong, and so was our economy. I was less than ecstatic about "welfare reform," which would have been a total disaster if the economy hadn't been so strong. And I thought the health care reform proposal conceded far too much to the insurance industry, who then wouldn't stay bought. But all in all, he did a competent job, unlike his successor. And he only lied to us about stuff that was nobody's business anyway. Unlike his successor. (BTW the Jesuits apparently invented the doctrine of mental reservation, which permits the telling of an untruth in response to a question that ought not to have been asked in the first place.)

"You can't imagine, for example, Reagan violating his relationship with his wife the way Clinton routinely did with his."

Actually there were allegations of mental cruelty in Reagan's divorce from Jane Wyman. There were also questions of infidelity on the part of both Reagan and Wyman. So in that instance he is very much like Bill Clinton.

As for the issue of perjury, yes, he did commit that crime. But what was the cost of prosecution. While the Republicans were tying up the working of Congress with the impeachment process, Al Qaeda was planning and executing the steps that led to the 9/11 attack. Had the GOP been busy about the business of the legislature, namely properly providing oversight over the various agencies of government, we may have learned about the plans before over 3000 people died.

Instead, the GOP went after Clinton for lying about oral sex.

Reaganite, you have to be kidding me. All the points I addressed, and you select the two short sentences on oral sex as the truly horrible element. As for the rest, it's certainly partisan. Unfortunately, it's also the truth.

As for feeling better about getting the bile out of my system...well, not yet. As soon as we get the bile out of Washington that's been poisoning our country, destroying our environment, polluting our international relations, alienating our allies, and generally trashing the values this country was founded upon, I'll feel a whole lot better.

Truthfully, there are many conservative values I share. I love the Enlightenment values the country was founded on, and the thoughts of many of our founders...Franklin, Jefferson, etc. I belt out the national anthem with glee, love to sing in church, and have to admit that "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" got me riled up. I served six years in the United States Marine Corps, and have worked in government for many years beyond that.

But the recent turn of the Republican party has betrayed this country far more than the low-brow shenanigans that Clinton is accused of in that piece. "He's selfish. He's rude to the Secret Service. He's always late, for God's sake." Oh come on, that's my wife (except for the Secret Service part).

Maybe I wouldn't want him to marry my sister. Maybe I wouldn't want to play golf with him. And maybe he has a lot of crappy behavior to answer for before his Creator.

But to compare that to the countless thousands of destroyed lives that is the legacy of the Republican White House and Congress is to trivialize the disastrous decisions that have led us to the brink of national ruin.

I'm not a big Obama fan. I would have lived happier with Clinton, but had some real doubts there as well, because of the very real baggage she carries, some of it packed by Bill. And I don't trust McCain a bit, on Iraq or much else. So frankly, I'd be happy to take a long, hard look at a Republican candidate worthy of it. But none are forthcoming. Now it's just "Sure, we trashed everything, and believed every lie we were told, and were wrong about EVERYTHING, but your guy wasn't perfect either! So there!"

And so all this Clinton bashing just bores me to death. It's like watching the followers of Hitler, circa 1945, pointing out what a crappy guy Wilhelm II was, so why complain about poor Adolf so much. After all, we've both disavowed and denounced him!"

Give me a break.

JPL,

Well said!

Reaganite NYC, in all due respect, can you actually be THAT partisan? I respect President and Nancy Reagan but for heaven's sake... reading your response to some fairly well documented old stories is like listening to Stevie Wonder comment upon a co-worker's outfit and personal style.

If you actually believe that good and evil, black and white, right and wrong are all crystal clear and absolute....you are beyond partisan; you're closed. PS: I suppose you think it's JPL's invention that Ronald and Nancy's daughter posed nude for Playboy? I am almost certain that if Chelsea Clinton did that, you'd mention it. (PS: I still had a copy and sold it on eBay for $78!)

PS: Reaganite NYC writes: "Obama is intellectully gifted ... and has no military experience. We've had that kind in the Presidency before (Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton come to mind) and judging from those two you get an idea of what kind of foreign policy and attitude towards war we might expect with BO as President."

Ugh.... Sir or M'am: There is a ...ugh...more recent example....ugh: maybe ugh...our current White House occupant, President George W. Bush?

You don't see the irony that in making your point....about a president wit no military service and the foreign policy they might wage... (like wars w/o thoughtful analysis, etc....) you reached back ito the earliest and latest parts of the twentieth century for two Democrats.... when the most glaring example to support your thesis is a Republican currently in office. All kidding aside, how can you not see that as a blindly illogical ommission? It almost jumps off the page to any objective reader.

"Rawlins" writess: "PS: I suppose you think it's JPL's invention that Ronald and Nancy's daughter posed nude for Playboy? I am almost certain that if Chelsea Clinton did that, you'd mention it. (PS: I still had a copy and sold it on eBay for $78!)

Rawlins,

You don't know anything about me or anyone else on this blog. Who among us would attack a child of one of these political figures? We'll leave that kind of child abuse to the likes of someone like yourself who would stoop to rehash this old news about the Reagans' daughter. I hope you enjoyed your $78 gain from the eBay sale.

Brian Horan: "It seems like there are personality cults around folks like Bush and Billary. Folks identify with these politicians on some level and ignore the obvious."

Brian,

Just as harmful as the Bush and Billary cultists are the haters like yourself whose lives revolve around reviling people like Bush and Bill and Hillary.

Get a life!

Reaganite, my problem with McCain is not his experience...that I frankly have a lot of faith in. It's that he hasn't seemed to learn from that experience.

First of all, for all the "Straight Talk Express" mumbo-jumbo, I've watched him time and again over the last 8 years or so completely fold to pressure in an effort to gain votes or power.

Even after Bush savaged him in terrible ways during previous electoral seasons, there he was, pulling for Bush, giving him the hug, again and again.

First Robertson and Falwell were "agents of intolerance". Next, he's giving the commencement address at Liberty Baptist. He tries to play the "maverick" Republican card, and frequents the Daily Show, pushing for that independent and swing liberal voter. But he's done nothing but coddle the right since this election season began. Stay the course, make the tax cuts permanent, etc.

Beyond that, I've seen no grand thinking on some of our major issues. His economic policies have been late coming forward, and are none too impressive. I, along with many other Americans, believe that our invasion of Iraq was fundamentally immoral. No amount of "well, we broke it, now we have to clean it up" is going to change that. And his saber-rattling to Iran simply plays into the hands of the mullahs, who use it to tighten their control over their population. Just as in this country, where liberals and conservatives pull together in the face of dire threat (for a time), so too in Iran.

I sort of liked Huckabee, to be honest, although I'm suspicious of more mingling of faith and politics. As much as I respect people of faith, the last 8 years have really convinced me of the truth that mingling faith and politics is like mingling ice cream and horse crap. It has no real effect on the crap, but ruins the ice cream.

Articles like the one Rod mentioned perturb me because, although they might be right on the mark as far as Clinton's personal failings go, they keep connecting these to his political performance. And from every measurable standard, I just think he did a better job than many others.

Look, Bush could be born-again and again and again, or drink like a fish, or eat like a hog as far as I'm concerned, if he were just competent at the job of President. If he wasn't prone to saying things like "Awesome speech, your Holiness". If thousands of our own men and women, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, weren't lying dead because of the numerous issues that we become more and more aware of with every defection from the Cone of Silence surrounding the White Hourse.

I'd love the man or woman in the Oval Office to be a person of deep character, possessing a powerful personal faith, whose personal integrity was unquestionable. I don't think the current American political process permits such an outcome. Therefore, I'll settle for a bastard (or a bitch, Hillary!) who is competent. Who can create peace, safety, and prosperity for our nation, and the rest of the world, if possible. Who will work to repair our rapidly failing ecosystem, restore some dignity and honor to public service, and who will motivate young people to love our nation, and our planet, and devote themselves in service to it.

I just don't see that person out there. And, looking back, I find more to like in the post-presidential work of Clinton and Carter, than I do in Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Of course, I'll give Reagan a pass, given his illness. But whatever promise the Republican Revolution under Newt might have offered has clearly been squandered, and I fear whether my own party will do much better, given the chance. I agree with your assessment of Obama...very smart, charismatic, but simply unseasoned and inexperienced. I'd worry about him at the reins of the country if things were going well. As it is, Bush will be handing him the steering wheel of the Titanic about 5 minutes after we hit the iceberg, and then jumping overboard.

But when I look at mm's post above, describing Clinton as "draft-dodging, dope-smoking, coke-sniffing, money-laundering, finger wagging liar, despicable, self-centered, self-serving, hornswaggling, double-dealing, power hungry, money grubbing thief, influence peddler, ...pardons for criminals, under the table ChiCom cash, having an administration with the most convictions and guilty pleas, a Cabinet full of officials under criminal investigations and, oh yeah, getting a blow job from a barely legal intern in the Oval Office!”...I just think, "Have you been WATCHING the Bush Years?"

Avoiding service in Vietnam, missing National Guard records, Cheney's five deferments, "I was otherwise engaged", alcoholic, coke-using, Halliburton no-bid contracts, dishonest, Scooter Libby, Hurrican Katrina, yada yada yada?

The pot is on the line, calling for the kettle. Turns our it's black.

If you read on to about page 6 of Todd Purdum's piece, he confirms what I have suspected -- that much of the change in Bill Clinton's personality is due to the decline in his health and stamina due to his bypass surgery.

For a man of Clinton's appetite for life (and, er, for other things) to have to face the loss of health and stamina has to be galling. As a longtime Bill Clinton supporter, this makes me sad for him, because I think the man is a phenomenon. I also think he brought many of his problems on himself, and certainly earned many of the jokes and resentment people feel towards him. However, this doesn't change my personal admiration for the man.

For me, he was the first President of my adult life that I actually felt was "my President." Maybe that's because we are both Boomers. Purdum also pointed out, given that the men in his family tend to die young, Clinton has to be thinking about his mortality. And so, he's angry and much more brittle than he used to be.

I realize most of the people on this board are not Clinton fans -- but we still exist.

Thank you, Rawlins. I've always felt that Bill Clinton was absolutely genuine in that he really does like people (not just women, although he certainly does like women) and that goes a long way for me to understanding and forgiving some of his less attractive qualities.

I do feel about Clinton the way some people feel about Reagan. I have real affection and regard for the man, and I think our nation will be poorer when he is gone from public life.

I've never had the privilege of meeting him, but my late father was golfing in Catoctin near Camp David and actually met Clinton on the golf course. Clinton asked him how he liked his clubs (my dad had very expensive taste in golf clubs) and was very friendly and personable.

It was nice to get such a warm response to my post, and it is much appreciated.

I like to poke fun at conspiracy theorists, but in fact they provide us with some useful thought experiments and should not be written off too cavalierly. Just try imagining that no consequence is unintended, and see what you come up with. Every now and then, some of it may turn out to be true. Yes, I think it goes too far to propagate the legend that the last three digits of Dick Cheney's social security number are 666, but OTOH I am still not convinced that the plane crash that killed Senator Wellstone and his wife was wholly accidental.

Thank you, Marian. Finally I know how to spell "wholly." I'm always getting that one wrong.

Seriously, small plane crashes are unfortunately all too common. Wellstone was considering a run for the Presidency, but I don't think he had any chance of winning. And I don't believe Republicans in Minnesota are capable of murder. This is Minnesota we are talking about. My mother's home state.

Perhaps they use better pilots, I don't know. But my conservative friends were fans of Wellstone. In fact they viewed him as a very good-hearted man. It is ironic that Wellstone was contemplating repeating the famous "poverty tour" that RFK took and that Wellstone died soon thereafter. But, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories either.