When Bill Clinton was President, I was a kid-young adult

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Which is to say, that i had little nuanced thought. I couldn't believe when liberals said they were disenfranchised by Clinton. He was SO charming and kinda cute and seemed fun. Also he was clearly brilliant. I didn't know what these liberals were thinking. The economy under him was doing well. I thought they just were bitter people.

As we are going through the Obama presidency, i now understand why these people were disenfranchised. In fact, I have lost many of my fond feelings for Bill CLinton, as I watch Obama in power. I know that a lot of you may feel that Hillary may have been better, I don't. I think she would have been very similar to Bill Clinton or Obama.

Anyway, this is my long winded way of saying, that watching this presidency as an adult has in effect, ruined Bill Clinton for me too. I now get why those old liberals were so mad at Bll Clinton.

[DURHAM D]

1. I was and am a liberal. I am an old liberal.

I don't ever recall feeling "disenfranchised by Clinton".

You are just repeating media tripe.

Perhaps the difference is that Clinton always brought us with him. He explained things. He let us know what he was thinking. He talked with us - not at us and certainly never down to us. We understood the obstacles in the path because he pointed them out and helped us understand the process. We stayed on the team because he treated us like adults. That is the difference.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. first of all, you have no way of judging people i know

i happen to know dozens of people who were disenfranchised bill clintons policies. especially his welfare policy

So no, i am repeating media tripe and dont accuse me of things that you personally have no fucking way of knowing

[DURHAM D]

3. Nice language.

And, I don't believe you.

Edit: A reminder - this is the LGBT forum.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. Yeah, i know that. I post here often.

also, really your best argument is "i dont believe you?"

[DURHAM D]

5. I don't intend to engage you further.

You have an agenda that I don't care to address. Repeating media lies just isn't very interesting to me.

I have friends also but won't use that straw people thingie. It's cheap.

Cheers

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. sure. whatever.

[MNBrewer]

8. His STUNNING betrayal on DOMA was the last straw for me

I will never forgive Clinton for signing it, and I will likewise never forgive Paul Wellstone (my Senator from MN) for voting for it.

DOMA is a big stain on the Democrats who participated in instituting it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. When you work with queer poc, his welfare reform is not well regarded eiher

I am not sure why this sounds implausible to people

[MNBrewer]

9. Remember DOMA?

[DURHAM D]

18. Sure - do you in real time?

The members of the various GLBT advocacy groups advised him to sign it. I can think of only one notable exception - just one adviser who was against it. How involved were you at the time in movement politics?

[MNBrewer]

20. How involved were you at the time in movement politics?

What difference does that make?

Which GLBT advocacy groups advised him to sign? And, if they did, they were no "advocacy" group!

And, yes, I was fully adult at the time. Again, what difference does that make?

[MNBrewer]

38. Have you recalled which GLBT advocacy groups advised him to sign DOMA yet?

[closeupready]

19. Your recollection differs from mine, esp. with regard to DADT.

n/t

[DURHAM D]

21. Really?

You liked the old rules better? Really?

Clinton spent a ton of political capital on trying to get gays to serve openly. Instead, members of his own party, Senators Nunn and Boren (and others) with great help from Powell forced it on him. At the time it was passed, and if it had been followed, it was assumed to be an improvement. Instead, with Powell head of the military they abused it.

[closeupready]

22. Many GLBT people felt that he folded WAY too soon.

Reasonable people can disagree on this, but as to DOMA, I don't like reading the historical revisionism here about that piece of shit law that he did not have to sign.

[DURHAM D]

24. From the other wiki.

As regards the "folding":

"In the 1970s, the gay and lesbian rights movement emerged in the U.S. and chose the anti-gay military policy as one of its main targets. Partially as a response to this movement, the Department of Defense issued a 1982 policy (DOD Directive 1332.14) stating that homosexuality was clearly incompatible with military service. The policy garnered public scrutiny through the 1980s and 1990s, and it became a political issue in the 1992 U.S. presidential election with Bill Clinton and others citing the brutal murder of gay U.S. Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr. After Bill Clinton won the presidency, Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton introduced Congressional legislation to overturn the ban, but it encountered intense scrutiny by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the U.S. public. "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" emerged as a compromise policy."

I am glad you are free to believe whatever version of the facts that makes you feel good.

[MNBrewer]

25. This portion of the wiki article is unreferenced

"In the 1970s, the gay and lesbian rights movement emerged in the U.S. and chose the anti-gay military policy as one of its main targets."

[DURHAM D]

26. Well, I remember it well.

Does that count? I could list a whole of people who would also remember it well. However, almost all of those early activist males died of AIDS. JFTR - no one in the movement was talking about marriage during the 70s and 80s - it was not on the agenda.

on nevermind - believe what you need to believe

[MNBrewer]

27. No, that doesn't count

Links to contemporary sources?

[MNBrewer]

23. The way I remember it is

Clinton came to US and brought up the military ban. We were more focused on thing like ENDA (which STILL hasn't been passed, btw).

[Creideiki]

37. Logical fallacy

Just because you don't feel a certain way doesn't mean that others who identify with a certain characteristic in common feel the same way.

[Rageneau]

7. Clinton was the best president of my lifetime ... and I'm old.

Clinton believed that half-a-loaf was better than none and he got things done. He, too, was left with a Bush mess, but he cleaned his up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. I think bill will be the best one in my life too but that doesn't say all that much.

[disillusioned73]

12. I am right there with you..

although I was a young adult, just not that interested in following politics at the time... boy, I have learned much since 2003+

[closeupready]

13. That means I am a bit older than you. The first president I recall was Nixon.

So I am of a generation of people who remember when there were real liberals in the Democratic Party.

There still are, of course, or else I wouldn't consider myself a Democrat.

Bill Clinton's faults have been discussed here and elsewhere to the point of excess, so I won't go over it again. But suffice it to say, Obama's 'triangulation' is far worse than Clinton's ever was, since at least Bill had a spine. He NEVER hesitated to use his bully pulpit to denounce Republican stonewalling tactics, and he did not hesitate in calling himself a Democrat, he seemed to take pride in it. Further, don't forget that Bill Clinton was the one who took the initiative to raise taxes on the wealthy, despite Republican protestations.

Obama, on the other hand - and this is strictly my personal opinion - seems more like just a stuffed shirt to me; today, he's for motherhood - tomorrow, after consulting with his advisers, he'll be for fatherhood; today he's for extending unemployment benefits - tomorrow, he compromised with Republicans by agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts WITHOUT getting unemployment benefits extended.

Editing to add, yes, welfare reform and NAFTA were two huge disappointments from him. Along with DADT and DOMA.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. I think you are right. However watching Obama has made me less forgiving of clinton

Though I will say, that he seemed less easily bullied

[closeupready]

15. I'm not sure I understand quite what you are saying - do you mean,

you believe Bill negotiated on behalf of Democratic constituencies in bad faith? That is, that he claimed that he was going to defend our interests - when he never had any real intention of doing that?

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. In fact, I think I would be surprised to discover otherwise. That's part of why many Democrats didn't like him. He failed to really fight for liberal causes when he really had fight in him - he's always had fight in him. It was he who coined the phrase, "Politics is a contact sport."

So yeah, he absolutely could have fought on NAFTA and welfare deform, and he didn't need to sign DOMA. But it really seemed like he just didn't care.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. Not bad faith or I'll intent, just not enough good intent.

I know this is a fine line, but i also don't think Obama negotiates will bad intent. I just think they don't fight hard enough, partly because, what do they personally have to lose?

[closeupready]

17. Exactly. He's got his millions, he's set for life, no matter whether he's re-elected.

Typically, Obama suggests some kind of law protecting the interests of a Democratic constitutency; Republicans, it is predicted, will say no; so in Obama's initial announcement, he says, "I think Congress should pass Bill ABC. Keep in mind, however, that I am open to settling for less, though."

Who does that? When negotiating for a job, do you say, "I should advise you that my salary range is from $50,000 - $60,000. But I'll settle for less, if you want."

This is so elementary to negotiating strategy, that it just further demonstrates how unprepared some of these guys were to actually take the helms of LEADERSHIP.

[TheWraith]

28. Negotiating strategy assumes the other side is willing to negotiate.

If you know that they're going to say no to $60k, no to $50k, no to $25k, and no if you offer to show up and do the job for free, then you have no motivation not to try and do the only thing left, which is look as reasonable and bipartisan as you can, and maximize the amount of public blame the obstructionists get.

[closeupready]

29. I know what you're saying, and sometimes that's true, but

in this case, it's not, in my opinion.

If you know for a fact that Republicans are obstructing just to obstruct, and failing to care enough to get the business of America done, you don't then give things away - you use your bully pulpit to say, "I'm being reasonable, and they are shutting government down, folks! That is NOT what you elected me to do, and we aren't going to stand for it! Call, fax, write to your elected officials, and tell them to stop this nonsense!" That is EXACTLY what Bill Clinton did. And it worked.

AND when Clinton put his mind to it, he GOT what he wanted - AND, the icing on the cake was that Republicans always ended up saying, "Okay, we were wrong on this," even if you knew that tomorrow, they would AGAIN be on the wrong side of the issue. Clinton almost ALWAYS won.

And just for the record, I am NOT one of his fans at all. I appreciate what he did for the economy and the budget and in Bosnia. Credit where credit is due. But in fairness, I feel I have to point out these ugly facts about his terms (upthread).

[TheWraith]

31. Clinton was up against a lot less opposition than Obama is.

I know that sounds wild to say, given what Clinton went through, but the level of "do absolutely nothing" opposition by the Republicans is literally unprecedented--it is more total opposition than any president has ever faced.

Moreover, Clinton won in part because Gingrich might have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid. He knew that he was playing with fire, and could get burned. Catch is that today the Republicans have the Tea Party driving them, and any Republican who tries to actually govern is dragged out behind the chemical sheds and shot. Even if the Reps recognize that their current course is basically to completely paralyze the entire system of government, and were smart enough to want to avoid that, then they have madmen standing behind them with swords, threatening to behead them at the slightest departure from the script.

[MNBrewer]

30. Then it was merely blackmail, not a negotiation.

[TheWraith]

32. Pretty much.

Unfortunately, with 400,000 people and their ability to feed their families on the line, there's a reason that blackmail works. The only advantage we have to work with is in the GOP's small and shrinking moderate bloc--that every so often we can peel off enough of their people to accomplish our goals.

[MNBrewer]

33. That's because we have to overcome our conservative Dems who vote to block out goals

[TheWraith]

34. I would take a conservative Dem over a Republican any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

People blast conservative Dems, but they tend to forget that those people are still Dems because they're usually with us. People hate Lieberman's guts over the war and healthcare, but he's with us on confirmations, on choice, on DADT, and fifty other things. Mark Pryor from AR isn't popular on DU, since he's pro-life and pro-free-trade. But he helped us pass healthcare reform, expand SCHIP, protect civil liberties, oppose Republican tax regression, and create better energy policy.

The "worst" Democrat is miles better than the best Republican. Even comparing guys like the Nelsons to, say, Chuck Hagel, you'll see why they're better for us. A Democrat we agree with three quarters of the time is preferable to a Republican we never agree with and end up wanting to stab in the face. If instead of 47 Republicans in the next Senate, we had 47 more conservative Dems, I wouldn't worry one iota about our agenda.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. no it doesn't. no one negotiates with a weak partner.

and someone who tells you that the is willing to compromise on everything, is a weak partner.

[TheWraith]

36. The Republicans aren't negotiating.

That doesn't change whether Obama is offering to make a deal, or threatening to have them all shot. They don't HAVE to compromise if their only goal is to do absolutely nothing.

The tax deal is a good example. If they'd wanted to block anything, they could have just sat down. But they wanted to renew the rates for their constituency of rich people, so in exchange for two years of that, they gave Obama $600 billion dollars worth of tax cuts, college tuition credits, employee payroll tax cuts, earned income credits, child tax credits, etcetera.

Compromise is the heart of politics, but it only applies when you want to get something done. The Republicans haven't wanted to do anything for years, but the one time they did, we got way more out of the deal than we lost.

[Green_Lantern]

39. I'm the opposite on Clinton..

As I got older and lived through 8 years of Bush I came to respect Clinton more. If those "old liberals" had their way the economy wouldn't have grown as it did and we certainly wouldn't have had the budget surpluses we did.

Even Medicaid ran surpluses due to Clinton era reforms.

You can't compare Clinton to Obama because Clinton actually called the GOPs bluff and passed a Democratic backed budget.

[HockeyMom]

40. Maybe Bernie Sanders would be the best

I have always like the man, but the more I hear about him, the more I like him.