NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Clinton's book is coming out" celebratory kegger. Lets all get together here and clebrate the release of his book. "Will it contain the details of his rapping of women?" "Will it contain the details of the people he murdered to silence them?" Discuss.

Looks like we have yet another believer in paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories here. For a thorough debunking of the ridiculous claim that Clinton murdered his enemies, check out this link:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

CLINTON ROCKS.

well the damn neocons drank all the beer at my party, so i guess i'll come over here.

clinton sucks. About he and monica I'm just pissed he couldn't go out of the whitehouse or something its disgraceful but mostly I hate him because I hate most of his politics.

Looks like we have yet another believer in paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories here. For a thorough debunking of the ridiculous claim that Clinton murdered his enemies, check out this link:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

That's strange since sterotypicaly it's liberals who are prone to believe in conspiracies...

clinton sucks. About he and monica I'm just pissed he couldn't go out of the whitehouse or something its disgraceful but mostly I hate him because I hate most of his politics.

Care to expand on exactly which politics of his you hate?

You know, his politics where the economy soared, what a douche.

Looks like we have yet another believer in paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories here. For a thorough debunking of the ridiculous claim that Clinton murdered his enemies, check out this link:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

That's strange since sterotypicaly it's liberals who are prone to believe in conspiracies...

Since when? The Right has a long history of conspiracy-mongering, and right-wingers like Friends of Bill are still recycling Clinton-era conspiracies that have no basis in fact.

I'm very happy about this. Clinton is giving less room for Kerry in the Democratic Party, and Kerry won't regain that until the Democratic National Convention. No Republican would do a similar thing to Bush.
You know, maybe Rush Limbaugh is right. Maybe the Clintons are trying to have Kerry defeated, so that Sen. Clinton has a better chance of running in 2008. Time can only tell, I guess.

I'm very happy about this. Clinton is giving less room for Kerry in the Democratic Party, and Kerry won't regain that until the Democratic National Convention. No Republican would do a similar thing to Bush.
You know, maybe Rush Limbaugh is right. Maybe the Clintons are trying to have Kerry defeated, so that Sen. Clinton has a better chance of running in 2008. Time can only tell, I guess.

Clinton did indeed suck, but I doubt he was mentally capable of having somebody murdered.

CLINTON ROCKS.

Yeah he does. Dude you are pretty damn cool!

That's strange since sterotypicaly it's liberals who are prone to believe in conspiracies...

Actually, stereotypically, those who are extreme on either side are the ones who believe in conspiracies. Moderates generally do not believe in them as much as a far right-winger or left-winger.

CLINTON ROCKS.

Yeah he does. Dude you are pretty damn cool!

w00t

I'm very happy about this. Clinton is giving less room for Kerry in the Democratic Party, and Kerry won't regain that until the Democratic National Convention. No Republican would do a similar thing to Bush.
You know, maybe Rush Limbaugh is right. Maybe the Clintons are trying to have Kerry defeated, so that Sen. Clinton has a better chance of running in 2008. Time can only tell, I guess.

Um, Purly, remember what I was just saying about conspiracy theories? Well, I think you're buying into a silly one now. Do you actually believe that Hillary Clinton is so power-hungry that she would sabotage John Kerry, just to improve her chances of running a long-shot presidential bid? Do you actually believe that the Clintons have the power to do this if they wanted to? Do you really believe that publicity from a book, released relatively early in the campaign, will destroy John Kerry's chances for victory? How? You shouldn't be trusting Rush Limbaugh on this one. I can't think of a single Democratic commentator or website that wants to see Hillary become president. Many of them are openly hostile to the idea.

I'm very happy about this. Clinton is giving less room for Kerry in the Democratic Party, and Kerry won't regain that until the Democratic National Convention. No Republican would do a similar thing to Bush.
You know, maybe Rush Limbaugh is right. Maybe the Clintons are trying to have Kerry defeated, so that Sen. Clinton has a better chance of running in 2008. Time can only tell, I guess.

Um, Purly, remember what I was just saying about conspiracy theories? Well, I think you're buying into a silly one now. Do you actually believe that Hillary Clinton is so power-hungry that she would sabotage John Kerry, just to improve her chances of running a long-shot presidential bid? Do you actually believe that the Clintons have the power to do this if they wanted to? Do you really believe that publicity from a book, released relatively early in the campaign, will destroy John Kerry's chances for victory? How? You shouldn't be trusting Rush Limbaugh on this one. I can't think of a single Democratic commentator or website that wants to see Hillary become president. Many of them are openly hostile to the idea.
I'm not openly buying it, but Sen. Clinton is power hungry. She tried many big initiatives during her husband's presidency, and they didn't work. Now she's senator of my home state, New York. None of her initiatives here worked, either. You need to know about our state politics in order to understand what I'm saying, but I'm about to list them, anyhow. She opposes Empire Zones, and has actively worked to subvert them. She constantly decries the state of Upstate New York manufacturers, and yet not one has testified to Congress, nor has she sponsored any legislation that'd make a serious impact on manufacturing (like what most other Democrats always sponsor). And she opposed building casinos at Niagra Falls, so that we could compete with the casino on the Canadian side of the river.
I don't know if Limbaugh is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was. And if Sen. Clinton does run for the Presidency, she'll loose New York. She certainly won't get another term, here.

I'm very happy about this. Clinton is giving less room for Kerry in the Democratic Party, and Kerry won't regain that until the Democratic National Convention. No Republican would do a similar thing to Bush.
You know, maybe Rush Limbaugh is right. Maybe the Clintons are trying to have Kerry defeated, so that Sen. Clinton has a better chance of running in 2008. Time can only tell, I guess.

Um, Purly, remember what I was just saying about conspiracy theories? Well, I think you're buying into a silly one now. Do you actually believe that Hillary Clinton is so power-hungry that she would sabotage John Kerry, just to improve her chances of running a long-shot presidential bid? Do you actually believe that the Clintons have the power to do this if they wanted to? Do you really believe that publicity from a book, released relatively early in the campaign, will destroy John Kerry's chances for victory? How? You shouldn't be trusting Rush Limbaugh on this one. I can't think of a single Democratic commentator or website that wants to see Hillary become president. Many of them are openly hostile to the idea.
I'm not openly buying it, but Sen. Clinton is power hungry. She tried many big initiatives during her husband's presidency, and they didn't work. Now she's senator of my home state, New York. None of her initiatives here worked, either. You need to know about our state politics in order to understand what I'm saying, but I'm about to list them, anyhow. She opposes Empire Zones, and has actively worked to subvert them. She constantly decries the state of Upstate New York manufacturers, and yet not one has testified to Congress, nor has she sponsored any legislation that'd make a serious impact on manufacturing (like what most other Democrats always sponsor). And she opposed building casinos at Niagra Falls, so that we could compete with the casino on the Canadian side of the river.
I don't know if Limbaugh is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was. And if Sen. Clinton does run for the Presidency, she'll loose New York. She certainly won't get another term, here.

I don't know a lot about New York state politics, so I can't argue about what kind of Senator she is from a local perspective. However, if you think that Hillary Clinton has a good shot in 2008, I think you're out of touch with the attitudes of Democratic activists. She does well in hypothetical presidential polls because of name-recognition, just as Joe Lieberman did initially. But like Lieberman, she'll have a hard time translating this into support from the Democratic base. They tend to oppose her because they don't feel like reliving right-wing fury over the real and not-so-real "scandals" of the Clinton years. In contrast, right-wingers like Limbaugh are dying to relive these scandals, so they talk obsessively about the possibility that Hillary will run in 2008--or steal the nomination in 2004. I will be very, very surprised if any of this happens, whether Kerry wins or not. My only advice is not to trust the statements of Limbaugh, etc., on this issue, because they don't have a clue what Democrats think.

I'm very happy about this. Clinton is giving less room for Kerry in the Democratic Party, and Kerry won't regain that until the Democratic National Convention. No Republican would do a similar thing to Bush.
You know, maybe Rush Limbaugh is right. Maybe the Clintons are trying to have Kerry defeated, so that Sen. Clinton has a better chance of running in 2008. Time can only tell, I guess.

Um, Purly, remember what I was just saying about conspiracy theories? Well, I think you're buying into a silly one now. Do you actually believe that Hillary Clinton is so power-hungry that she would sabotage John Kerry, just to improve her chances of running a long-shot presidential bid? Do you actually believe that the Clintons have the power to do this if they wanted to? Do you really believe that publicity from a book, released relatively early in the campaign, will destroy John Kerry's chances for victory? How? You shouldn't be trusting Rush Limbaugh on this one. I can't think of a single Democratic commentator or website that wants to see Hillary become president. Many of them are openly hostile to the idea.
I'm not openly buying it, but Sen. Clinton is power hungry. She tried many big initiatives during her husband's presidency, and they didn't work. Now she's senator of my home state, New York. None of her initiatives here worked, either. You need to know about our state politics in order to understand what I'm saying, but I'm about to list them, anyhow. She opposes Empire Zones, and has actively worked to subvert them. She constantly decries the state of Upstate New York manufacturers, and yet not one has testified to Congress, nor has she sponsored any legislation that'd make a serious impact on manufacturing (like what most other Democrats always sponsor). And she opposed building casinos at Niagra Falls, so that we could compete with the casino on the Canadian side of the river.
I don't know if Limbaugh is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was. And if Sen. Clinton does run for the Presidency, she'll loose New York. She certainly won't get another term, here.

I don't know a lot about New York state politics, so I can't argue about what kind of Senator she is from a local perspective. However, if you think that Hillary Clinton has a good shot in 2008, I think you're out of touch with the attitudes of Democratic activists. She does well in hypothetical presidential polls because of name-recognition, just as Joe Lieberman did initially. But like Lieberman, she'll have a hard time translating this into support from the Democratic base. They tend to oppose her because they don't feel like reliving right-wing fury over the real and not-so-real "scandals" of the Clinton years. In contrast, right-wingers like Limbaugh are dying to relive these scandals, so they talk obsessively about the possibility that Hillary will run in 2008--or steal the nomination in 2004. I will be very, very surprised if any of this happens, whether Kerry wins or not. My only advice is not to trust the statements of Limbaugh, etc., on this issue, because they don't have a clue what Democrats think.
And Democrats have no clue what Republicans think.
But anyhow, her name recognition won't help her. Many, many people from New York State will be actively opposing her, and I think American Democrats will listen. Now if Sen. Schumer wins, he'll have a chance, as he's loved by New Yorkers (I even like him). Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, hasn't a prayer, being so widely hated and distrusted. Name recognition won't help, but as you've said, it may hurt her, considering that Republicans are eager to relive her scandals. And she does have quite a few of them.

And Democrats have no clue what Republicans think.


I do. I was one, once. :D

Oddly enough, I found religion about the same time I found the Democratic party. I don't know if there's a connection...

And Democrats have no clue what Republicans think.

Personally, I think that Limbaugh and his pals have a more distorted view of Democrats than Democratic commentators have of Republicans. But we can agree to disagree on this, I suppose.

But anyhow, her name recognition won't help her. Many, many people from New York State will be actively opposing her, and I think American Democrats will listen. Now if Sen. Schumer wins, he'll have a chance, as he's loved by New Yorkers (I even like him). Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, hasn't a prayer, being so widely hated and distrusted. Name recognition won't help, but as you've said, it may hurt her, considering that Republicans are eager to relive her scandals. And she does have quite a few of them.

I largely agree with this. What I don't understand is why so many Republicans think that she has such a good chance. The Clinton years were pretty good for Democrats, at least compared to the Bush years, but I don't think many of them are aching to relive them.

All these right-wing pundits are looking at the release of the Clinton memoir as though it's an attempt to sabotage the Kerry campaign. I think differently--this will actually be a boost. It's not as though Kerry or any other Democrat has been trying to distance themselves from Clinton legacy. Far from it. Everyone has been hearkening back to the glory days when Clinton was President, and Clinton's memoirs will dominate the news cycle for at least a week, maybe longer. If I were Kerry, I'd latch onto the big dog and ride him as long as I could.

DP

The fact of the matter is, to this day, people still like Clinton. Much like people still liked Regan. They imprinted on us, despite scandal and errors in judgement and policy. If Kerry and Clinton play this right, it could be a huge boost to Kerry's campaign. One of the reasons that Gore lost the 2000 election is because he tried to distance himself from Clinton and lost a powerful political rallying point in the process. If Kerry let's Clinton campaign for him or at least reminds people of an incredibly prosperous administration, Kerry can get a lot of leverage from this.

The fact of the matter is, to this day, people still like Clinton. Much like people still liked Regan. They imprinted on us, despite scandal and errors in judgement and policy. If Kerry and Clinton play this right, it could be a huge boost to Kerry's campaign. One of the reasons that Gore lost the 2000 election is because he tried to distance himself from Clinton and lost a powerful political rallying point in the process. If Kerry let's Clinton campaign for him or at least reminds people of an incredibly prosperous administration, Kerry can get a lot of leverage from this.

The fact of the matter is, to this day, people still like Clinton. Much like people still liked Regan. They imprinted on us, despite scandal and errors in judgement and policy. If Kerry and Clinton play this right, it could be a huge boost to Kerry's campaign. One of the reasons that Gore lost the 2000 election is because he tried to distance himself from Clinton and lost a powerful political rallying point in the process. If Kerry let's Clinton campaign for him or at least reminds people of an incredibly prosperous administration, Kerry can get a lot of leverage from this.

DP

Looks like we have yet another believer in paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories here. For a thorough debunking of the ridiculous claim that Clinton murdered his enemies, check out this link:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

That's strange since sterotypicaly it's liberals who are prone to believe in conspiracies...

Since when? The Right has a long history of conspiracy-mongering, and right-wingers like Friends of Bill are still recycling Clinton-era conspiracies that have no basis in fact.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, King George has WMD conspiracy, FBI/CIA conspiracy, 911 conspiracy, and prisoner abuse conspiracy, I think I missed some.

Reagan had the Iran/Contra scandal, and the let's give Saddam WMD, money, and CIA help. And of course, good old Poppa Bush was Vice President during Reagan's years.

And of course good old Nixon had Watergate.

Republicans obviously think everything is a conspiracy, because they have been involved in so many of them????

I largely agree with this. What I don't understand is why so many Republicans think that she has such a good chance. The Clinton years were pretty good for Democrats, at least compared to the Bush years, but I don't think many of them are aching to relive them.Two points to make. Right-wing pundits--I hesitate to call them republicans because that's an insult to the good people in the republican party--are convinced that Hillary is the epitome of evil, that she plans to steal the Presidency and then become dictator for life, so everything that she says or does is seen in that light.

The fact is that if she decides to run for the presidency--in '08 if Kerry loses or in '12 if he wins--she'll be the automatic frontrunner and will have a bit more staying power than Lieberman. I'm not saying that she'll be any more successful than Joe in the long run, but she's a far more dynamic politician than he is, so she'll stick around longer.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, the feel I get is that most of them would love to have Clinton's success without his personal foibles and without the rhetorical bullshit that the right-wing punditry threw at him. I don't know if that's possible--I think the two go hand in hand to some point because at their cores, the Democratic and Republican objectives have become so split that all that's left is rancor.

I don't think it has to be that way--I just think that it is right now, and we may be in for a bouncing between one-party rule for a couple of cycles until we get back to split government. It's as though the public is saying "The Republicans have had their chance and they've screwed the pooch--we'll give the Democrats their chance." And when we don't do a perfect job, we'll get back to the world of compromise and consensus building.

I'll spend the money and buy it. I enjoyed Living History very much so, whether or not it was the truth or not, and I expect to enjoy Bill's book as well.

And Democrats have no clue what Republicans think.

Personally, I think that Limbaugh and his pals have a more distorted view of Democrats than Democratic commentators have of Republicans. But we can agree to disagree on this, I suppose.

But anyhow, her name recognition won't help her. Many, many people from New York State will be actively opposing her, and I think American Democrats will listen. Now if Sen. Schumer wins, he'll have a chance, as he's loved by New Yorkers (I even like him). Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, hasn't a prayer, being so widely hated and distrusted. Name recognition won't help, but as you've said, it may hurt her, considering that Republicans are eager to relive her scandals. And she does have quite a few of them.

I largely agree with this. What I don't understand is why so many Republicans think that she has such a good chance. The Clinton years were pretty good for Democrats, at least compared to the Bush years, but I don't think many of them are aching to relive them.
I don't think she has a good chance. Her husband was certainly not the greatest, but he goes into my books as one of our "ok" presidents. Sen. Clinton, however, can barely administer her husband, let alone the nation.

let's all drop trou in bills honor!!