For those that do not like Bill and Hillary Clinton- IMAGINE

[graham4anything]

Imagine if we lived in a world where George Herbert Walker Bush 41 (the face of evil) won in 1992 and not Bill Clinton

and Imagine if he kept his 80% favorable rating

and in 1996 Jeb Bush became President and was reelected in 2000

and it goes without saying in 2004 and 2008 George W. Bush won the election


The US Supreme Court would now be 7 to 2 and not 5 to 4

and imagine if George W. Bush's VP became president himself in 2012 and 2016

The US Supreme Court would become 9 to 0 republicantealibertarian

And to think over some minor wedge issues one would want that.

Hillary45 2016 2020. Because I don't stand with the BushPaulNaderfamilyinc

[Mass]

1. Strawman argument

Yes, we are better off because Bill Clinton was elected rather than GHWB.

However, this has no relation to whether Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for 2016. You do not propose any argument in her favor, just some vague adulation of the Clinton brand.

[hfojvt]

30. not necessarily

If Clinton had been defeated in 1992, that would have prevented some of the DLC-ization of the party. It might also have prevented the bloodbath of 1994. Now there is no such thing as Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. There is no Contract On America. After two terms of Bush Sr. their heir apparent is Dan Quayle. So maybe Quayle gets defeated by Gore in 1996 and Gore has two terms. Or somebody else. Maybe Bill Bradley gets elected in 1996.

Clinton's victory certainly advanced the DLC. They showed that the DLC way could win, Clinton spent 8 years as head of the party, and spent 8 years making the Democratic Party message that much more conservative. He kept trying to "out-Republican" the Republicans.

Would NAFTA have passed without Clinton pushing it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. That's not what "strawman argument" means.

It's certainly an argument not particularly relevant to Hillary's potential candidacy, as you point out. However, it's not a strawman. It doesn't fulfill the definition, which involves attributing an argument (usually a poor one) to a person who never made it, then refuting that argument to prove them "wrong." Graham didn't do that; he presented the argument as his own.

Sorry...bit of a pedant.

[The Link]

2. I remember when Bill was painted as a racist in the '08 primaries.

How did you feel about that?

[karynnj]

3. GHWB's favorability was in the 40s by the end of 1991

Immediately before leaving office, he pardoned several people involved with Iran/Contra. Had he won election, that would have been harder to do and it potentially could have led to impeachment. Even if he were not thrown out of office, the things that he looked the other way on concerning Iran/Contra would have become far better know. With him out of office and the Democrats wanting to move on to achieve things to improve lives, it was pushed to the background.

Of all the things that was allowed, the one I have the hardest time with is that the CIA looked the other way and allowed the Contras to bring cocaine into the country. I don't think it completely a coincidence that crack cocaine usage that destroyed the social fabric in so many cities - destroying families - exploded while these operations continued.

There is no reason to assume that had he won, which would have happened only if a major scandal had hit the Clinton campaign that was immediate and understandable. There is nothing to suggest that GHWB's popularity would have improved - longterm - considerably above the 33% it was on election.

It is FAR more likely that a Democrat would have won in 1996 - not Jeb Bush, who I doubt would even be the nominee. I have no idea who the Democrat would be, whether the SCJ could or would have waited until after 1997 to retire, because that did not happen and you never know the effect of the branch not taken. You vote each elect on your hopes. In 1992, Clinton was a far better choice that GHWB, given what GHWB had done as VP and President. I could play the same what if game as you did and make the conjecture of whether things would be better now had Cuomo run and won, or Brown, Tsongus, or Harkin - all to Clinton's left - had won.

It is even less likely that GWB would have been elected after that. This string is no more likely than your hypothesized Hillary Clinton/Michelle Obama/JFK's grandson/Chelsea Clinton (hope I got that right)

[graham4anything]

5. Mea Culpa- I apologize to you and the other John Kerry group people...read-

and btw, if I offended you and the others in the Kerry group in the heat of the moment in the run-up to the interim primary in Mass, and the election June 25, and the media made (and I fell for it) Rice vs. Kerry (now we have both), I 100% apologize.
I have attempted not to be a hot head in my time here, and took it out on John Kerry, who believe it or not, I worked my rear end off for in 2004 and who's website I was on then, and the spinoff after(CGCS) and who's career I have deeply admired all through,

and who's opinion now as SOS I deeply value.

So I apologize to you and the others.

That said, I just want to win in 2016 and while it is possible the above might not have occurred, people should not put the blame
on either Bill or Hillary for what didn't happen in 1992-2000, and for those that do not like Hillary, remember, her health care plan
did not happen, almost cost Bill all his capital, so much so that she didn't offer a second plan then.
Bill did his best.

Hillary can win and will be far left of Bill (but of course, not far enough out there to please the same people who aren't pleased with this President and some who seem to want Rand Paul.

(and note, I have deleted every single post I made in that run-up period to the SOS naming in the Kerry group,
and I am as much on the side of John Kerry as is a lot of the people there.
Damn, I went to the election booths that day twelve times driving different people, and each time I was 100% sure he would win that night.

I am happy though to see you are reading this, I had thought you had me on ignore, but there will not be one comment
from this point on against John Kerry. My sincere apologies for that.
(and anyone on CGCS before it went, puff, and disappeared from sight, know that.
And anyone there at the end, know very well that I was one of the last ones fighting for the democratic party, and most of the others
there had by that time, revealed themselves to be Ron Paul fans (Rand wasn't really big yet so it was still Ron who they were talking about), and I was led astray by a good number there that I made the fatal mistake of believing just because they hated Bush,
meant they also backed anything I did, which was nothing at all.

United we stand, divided we fall.
BTW- maybe Hillary will pick John for VP and Biden will go SOS. I would 100% support that.
I just want to win in 2016, and it is going to be if not the nastiest race, one of them.

We won't get what we want with Jeb or Rand or Rubio or Christie or Ryan or Cantor or Walker or Scott or any of them.

[karynnj]

34. My comments had nothing to do with Kerry, but I do appeciate your comments

By the way, I had looked at CGCS right after the election and briefly posted a small amount there before finding the JK group which was a far better fit for me. It took a while to get over a reluctance to post publicly, but I found that DU JK actually became both a group of friends and a group that often seriously considered issues and learned from others how to access primary source information on the Senate. Quickly the benefit of having that private "cocoon" AND the wider forums became obvious - and I quickly disappeared from the CGCS board.

I have said that if Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her. I have no idea who will even run in the primaries or what the key issues will be by the primaries in 2016. Right now - just as at this time in 2005 - Hillary is the overwhelming favorite. Now, it could have been that Obama was so unique that he was able to sneak past her. It could also be that it was always a case of Hillary vs "non-Hillary" - where in 2007, "non Hillary" was somewhat larger. More than the exceptionalism of Obama, I suspect that the fact that only three candidates were seen as viable - this was part media, but I have to admit that I basically ruled out all of the second tier even though I wanted to support Dodd or Biden. Once Edwards completely imploded even before the scandal, this made the choice Hillary vs Obama. That essentially meant that "non-Hillary" for the most part became Obama with only a small portion of "non Hillary" shifting back to Hillary when the choice was more concrete. ( Kennedy and Kerry helped a lot here as their endorsements countered fears that he was too inexperienced.)

For years, there was something called AB(X) - or Anybody but X in the primaries. In 1976, it was AB(Carter) and in 1992 it was AB (Clinton). In both cases, the people running against the "C" were politically closer to each other than to the further right "C". In both cases, early on the "C" was nowhere near 50%. In both cases, people never united behind one "not C" and "C" won. (Carvelle and Begala used the term in a stupid way that did nothing but harm our candidate in 2004 - that phrase makes no sense in the general election where you expect advocates of competitors to support the party's nominee. Using their logic, I was ABB in 1992 - something I never called myself then - instead, I looked for (and found) some parts of what they stood for to support. That is never hard as their are generic Democratic platforms and generic Republican ones - and the nominee rarely changes what they are all that much. ) In fact, I think this is the only case in Presidential politics where people against the frontrunner united behind one person. The Republicans failed to get just one ABR. As that seems a pretty unusual case, it happening twice seems unlikely.

[magellan]

4. What if your mother had married someone else?

What if the sun was a red dwarf?

What if no one had invented the car or discovered penicillin?

I guess some people just like dreaming up ways to scare others. I prefer this:

[graham4anything]

6. John Lennon was MAINSTREAM. he was NOT an extremist. And he said it all in Revolution.

well, NO, you can count me out, were HIS exact words, and I believe John was the creative force behind that song as though most of the songs were co-credited, most were either one or the other.

So was Roger Waters, and so was the Clash after their 1st album, (about being poor, then they made millions).
So was Elton John, who heavily supported Hllary Clinton before supporting Barack Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Lennon recorded two versions of Revolution 'count me out' and 'count me in' just like one records

a 'G' rated radio version of a song that says 'fuck' on record.

Gimme Some Truth:
I'm sick and tired of hearing things From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth
I've had enough of reading things By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians'
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope Money for rope
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me With just a pocketful of soap

Money for dope Money for rope
I'm sick to death of seeing things From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth now
I've had enough of watching scenes Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

John Winston Lennon

[graham4anything]

12. Nixon was brought into power by Eisenhower, and the protests unknowingly elected him in 1968,1972

it is awful to compare President Obama with Richard Nixon

LBJ would have beaten Nixon, like he did with JFK in 1960.

and bobby would NOT have been the nominee in 1968, HHH still would have been and those around then who knew the system,
knew that would have happened.

ANd you know what, MCCarthy (Eugene) fans hated the fact that Bobby took his place, and they weren't going away either
(much like some major Dean fans kept whining after Dean was gone).

retrospect-protests and fracture have caused the other side to win in
1952,1956,1968,1972,1980,1984,1988,2000 and 2004 (and seated=winning)

SCOTUS proves what a bad thing that is.

Tell me something- did Elton John stop doing events that have given 100s of millions of dollars to AIDS research just because
Hillary did not win?
And did he not do some charity events just because a major corporation was involved

Same as Roger Waters-
it was damn ironic on the 12-12-2012 concert when he sang MONEY while the event itself was sponsored by the same corporations
that
"progressives" rage against.

[magellan]

20. You ducked the point as usual.

Every moment in history might be a turning point. Discussing what-ifs is interesting, but nothing definitive about the future can be extrapolated from it.

[graham4anything]

23. It's an analogy for what will be in 2016. Think of the ghosts Scrooge

everything is in a linear line to what will be

If anyone thinks 41 in 1992 would have been better than Clinton, well, please reveal yourselves

[magellan]

33. I don't see any analogy

What I do see is an attempt to link events together as if one thing necessarily proceeds from another. It's very easy to look back and say what if this or that had happened instead. But it's nonsense. As is asking if anyone here thinks Bush Sr would have been better than Clinton.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Remember the things said by Obama boosters about Hillary? She was a racist monster.

Bigots who were holding anti gay rallies called Hillary a racist and a monster. They said their own speakers who declared war on gay people were NOT bigots they were wonderful loving Christians, but the Clintons were exactly like a lynch mob.
I will always think of Obama boosters as the people who defended horrific hate preachers while saying Hillary was a murderous racist.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/H2O%20Man/317

You yourself recently posted great praise of Samantha Power, freshly appointed by Obama as reward for her attack on Hillary 'she's a monster' she said to the press overseas. So one day you claim Hillary is a monster, the next that she's great? OFA now loves the racist lynch lady?
You guys make me sick with your lack of consistency and ethics. Barf.

[graham4anything]

10. more division. We are at the gateway to heaven and hell in 2016...SCOTUS is all that matters

I am sure President Obama in advance, told both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton what he was going to do

and it told the republicans that they could go *^%$ themselves because they would not name the people to the cabinet and other people that over the 5 years he has wanted (including Elizabeth Warren, he gave his all to get her named, and they wouldn't,
then the democratic party SO DESPISED by the "progressives" themselves, 100% supported her and funded her.

Elizabeth Warren is part of "Team" Obama as is every other senator even if they are not giving or getting the instant gratification
so wanted by some

THE USA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

It took Dr. King decades and people before him decades, and it took decades after and is an on-going event.

Bush41,43,Jeb,won't get you there. Rand Paul won't get you anything you want.

And it takes a DEMOCRATIC president to overcome the republican Nader Court that is in place.

Which is more important? Protest or getting things done, even if it is not quick enough for you?

BTW, a President Hillary will still have a SENATOR WARREN you know. And Warren can be in the senate as long as she wishes,
like Teddy was til he died.

[The Link]

11. So, do you think the Clintons are racists?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That nonresponsive routine is rude and dismissive.

Mean spirit is definitive of the Obama Centrist. Why I do not care for them. Mean as a McClurkin rally in spring.

[bemildred]

9. Political boogie men are still boogie men, i.e. imaginary. nt

[graham4anything]

13. But Jeb Bush and Rand Paul, as we well know are REAL, and they are coming (together not apart). WAR

in a war battles are lost, before final victory

Some may not like small battles being lost, but if winning a small battle, leads to the loss of the war, nothing was won in the first place.

One has to nuance it.

Nuance-true democratic supporters do nuance.

[bemildred]

15. It is not a realistic scenario that you paint, as others have pointed out.

I will vote for Hillary if she is the candidate, but it is much too early to be making commitments.

[graham4anything]

16. the early bird catches the worm, and Jeb Bush and Rand Paul is a worm.

Elizabeth Warren will be part of Team Hillary (as the kiddies would say).

I would vote for her, like I did for Mike Dukakis, who could not beat Team Bush as we all know, in 1988.

Talking about abstract things don't win elections on a national level. Banking and Wall Street are just soundbytes that people's eyes glaze over. Same with those mentioning Glass Steaggell. 99% of the public has no idea what it means, maybe 1% do.

And the polls that matter show the President's polling is the same as it was last month and the month before.
Nothing has changed anything the last few weeks (though some wish it seems that it did.)

One has to go with the mainstream, because the extremists don't win elections.
I don't recall President Eugene McCarthy or Pat Paulsen.

[bemildred]

19. Oy.

I do not expect Ms. Warren to run in 2016, if ever, but ...

To say Warren could not win is to say the future must be like the past, which is simply false. Obama himself refutes that. I think that if Warren got the nomination, she quite likely would win, because she is a smart very-well-spoken woman and the Pubbies continue to be idiots about women. Hillary would win for the same reason. That may be why she (Hillary) finally chooses to run, she will know this is the time for her if there is going to be one.

You are the guy that came out with a humongous speculation about alternative pasts, don't start babbling at me about the perils of abstraction.

Polls are still marketing bullshit, mostly.

You won't get anywhere with me babbling about "extremists". One does not have to go with the "mainstream" on peril of being an "extremist" either, that is simply false too.

[Bonobo]

17. Another 7 point field goal for the Salad Man!! nt

[The Link]

18. Actually 7.5 points. It was 2.5x a normal field goal.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. 80-20 is the new 9-9-9. nt

[graham4anything]

24. another ad hominem. The day of the week must end in Y?

[ucrdem]

27. score.

[ucrdem]

25. Rec.

Not sure who it's going to be, but Hillary would get my vote and I'd gladly support another Clinton presidency. The fact is that someone is going to win in Nov. 2016 and if it's not a Dem we all lose, so it's not a bad idea to keep 2014 and 2016 clearly in mind because elections don't win themselves!






p.s. typos...

[hobbit709]

26. Imagine a world without insane blithering.

[UTUSN]

29. Re-post from a thread for picking WARREN or Hillary. & calling Dems "BushPaulNader" is jerky.

I've given totally all anybody can give since '92 to the CLINTONs & it's time for a change.

Somebody I had never heard of in '92 (Bill), I heard/saw the spark. Then immediately began the drip drip drip of disappointments, but I stayed solid for them both, on through the culmination of the FAKE impeachment. The HUGH!1 disappointment was not the sex, it was that he chose to put his personal appetite ABOVE focusing on working on our Dem agenda. And we had to spend/exhaust a tremendous amount of our energy just to defend him instead of on our Dem agenda.

But then, despite Hillary's also stream of little scandals, which I still believe are largely partisan targets, I was solid for her in the '08 primary. I was taken off guard by OBAMA's coming out of nowhere and stayed strong for her, but when he wrapped it up it was clear that she had run a lousy campaign with inside-the-box tactics and mismanaging millions of bucks thrown away on insider p.r. "experts."

Then for four years I kept hearing what a stupendous Secty of State she was, but all I saw was her flying around the globe with no concrete results, just traveling and having tea.

I'm glad the O.P. (the WARREN thread, not this one) is open minded to note that everybody, including WARREN, has cons besides pros, and WARREN does have an EDGE, but it will take an edge to battle Jeb Crow Shrub.

Joe BIDEN, no. Please, I'm in his age group and can we please not have us in these positions, I said please. He's very nice, will be shredded by Jeb Crow Shrub.

[MattBaggins]

31. I find your ideas intriguing

and I would like to subscribe to your news letter.

[graham4anything]

32. I don't have a news letter, just posts here.(advanced search brings older posts up)

[NCTraveler]

35. People have very good reasons to not like Bill or Hill.

While I like them both, they have done things that have disappointed me greatly. While Bill will go down as overseeing a huge boom economy, his administrations actions were a huge part of our current economic situation.

The list of problems, mainly caused by Bill, become fair game for anyone to not like him. Your hypothetical is meaningless. Truly and admittedly not based in reality. So while I have great respect for both of them, if someone starts railing about their dislike of Bill and NAFTA, I will join them in their displeasure.

Please leave bizaro world behind.

If someone doesn't like Bill or Hill, they need not go to imaginary land as you request. They just need to look at his economic policies, and her hawkish tendencies. That is all fair game for voicing displeasure and not liking them if one chooses.

[Proud Public Servant]

37. No. More. Clintons.

Yes, it was useful to keep the GOP out of the White House in '92. But let's be clear: we did it by electing a Dem who governed as a Republican. Really, what's Bill's legacy? A decent economy, to be sure (though it all came crashing down as he left office), but what else? NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, welfare "reform," the Glass-Steagall repeal, health care "reform" that was an even bigger corporate boondoggle than Obama's -- is there a single policy there that Mitt Romeny wouldn't support?

And now we're supposed to strew the streets with roses ahead of Hillary's triumphant march to teh White House? For what -- more of the same? Yes, by all means, let's keep handing our nomination over to corporate shills and hawks, because they protect us from the big bad GOP -- by basically being a slightly antiquated version of the big bad GOP. No thanks.

[LWolf]

38. 41 was not the face of evil.

He was simply the extension of the worst disaster to befall our nation at least in my lifetime: Ronald Reagan.

RR, though, was such a beloved myth to so many that it took another 4 years after his departure to finally kick free.

I didn't like Bill Clinton from the very first; I first heard of him when he and H went on 60 minutes, where she rationalized his cheating ways and her standing by her man as "not standing by her man." I don't like cheaters. I find that cheaters can't be trusted not to cheat, surprisingly enough.

My dislike and distrust was born out; he cheated AGAIN on H, and he betrayed the left with NAFTA, for one.

His cheating opened the door for the debacle of 2000 and for 8 horrific years under GWB. Not that 2000 was his fault. Election fraud and an indefensible Supreme Court selection brought us GWB. Still, the stains left by his administration helped.

Imagine? Okay. But let's REALLY imagine. Let's imagine what could be if the U.S. elected a non-corporate, clean, well left-of-center president and Congress that would actually fight for the people. As long as I'm imagining, I'll imagine the best outcome.

[Proud Public Servant]

39. Hear, hear! Well said! [n/t]