Reply #14: I'm not sure what to think

[WildEyedLiberal]

Obviously, Clinton as a president was 1,000,000 times preferable to any Republican in recent history. I always liked Clinton, I think he's an intelligent and capable man. But I've been have mixed feelings about him of late. Whoever said that he seemed too slick I think hit it on the head. There's something about Clinton that's too smooth, too suave, too "charming" for me. He's an example of a great politician - someone who knows how to play the games and work the various players for his advantage.

Kerry, in all honesty, is not a good politician in the sense that a good politician is good at schmoozing, bullshitting, and kissing ass. I think part of why I love him so much is that he seems so overwhelmingly real and genuine to me. Sometimes he stumbles over his words, or can't decide how best to express himself; sometimes he's naive and underestimates the corruption of his opponents; sometimes he's too introspective and too self-critical; sometimes he gets pissed and won't play the games that the machine wants him to play, so he falls out of favor with the media and even his own party. All of these things make him a not so great politician, but they make him an exemplery public servant, and a great man. I think that's part of why I love him so much - he's not such a good politician, but he's a terrific public servant. He's the kind of guy that SHOULD be running politics, but sadly, because of his integrity and honesty and unwillingness to play the tawdry games, he has a ways to go before he can overcome the system that is rigged against people like him.

So while Clinton is the far better politician, I believe John Kerry is a vastly better man. I also laughed upon hearing Clinton's comment about Bush and Kerry both wanting the best for this country; I am quite sure he's one of the few who actually believes that. I'm not sure I thought the comment was meant insultingly at Kerry as such, but I do think it was unnecessary pandering to Dubya, which Clinton, as a popular ex-president, certainly doesn't need to do. Clinton has seemed to be giving Bush a break for many things on which a break is not deserved, and that bothers me a lot. Democrats need to unite as a strong opposition party against Bush and the neocons, and Kerry needs the help of the centrist DLC types such as Clinton to present a united front. Clinton carries a lot of weight with moderates in this country, and thus the middle of the road people, if they see Clinton apologizing for and standing up for Bush, might be more inclined to see resistance against Bush as a far-left radical movement, instead of the mainstream resentment that we all know it is. That above all pisses me off about Clinton's apologetics. I have chosen to look to John Kerry as a political leader, but there's no denying Clinton has inestimable clout. Clout which he should use to our advantage.

Something about it rather reeks to me. I'm not sure if he's trying to marginalize Kerry to clear the way for Hillary in '08, or if he's just becoming more of a centrist DLC Repuke-lite sellout in his old age, or what, but it does bother me. If he wants to retain any credibility with liberal Democrats in this country, he'd better speak out about the crimes of the Bush Administration, and speak out fast. Because while I will stand alone with John Kerry and my fellow Kerrycrats at the gates of hell to fight the evil of the Bush Junta, it would be nice if we had some reinforcements. I guess we'll see what the rest of the party is made of come these next few months. I will stand alone with John Kerry if I have to, but I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.