PDA

View Full Version : The Clintons Killed the Democratic Party!!!



Dixie - In Memoriam
08-06-2006, 12:32 PM
Many people assume I don't have much respect for Bill Clinton, and I would say this is a misconception, because I certainly do respect Clinton's political prowess and ability to use charisma to his political advantage, regardless of the situation. If Clinton were in Bush's shoes, I am convinced that 80% of the country would be completely behind what we were doing in Iraq, and think of it as a great and noble cause, vital in winning the war on terror. Clinton just had the ability to sell the public, like no president of my time. Even in the heat of unprecedented scandal, the sort of things that would have ended most political careers without further question, Clinton somehow managed to remain popular. That was no accident, that was a mastery of manipulation like none we've ever seen. Clinton knew when to bite that bottom lip... when to be seen carrying a Bible... how to deliver the Elvis-like one-liners for maximum news cycle sound byte consumption.

In historical perspective, the power vacuum created in the wake of Clinton's two terms, will ironically be what killed the Democratic party. Clinton literally sucked the life out of Al Gore, and made it virtually impossible for him to be elected as a successor. With the important strategic inclusion of Lieberman on the ticket, he was able to garner a greater popular vote than Bush, and almost pulled it out of the fire. Had Gore won, the Democrats would have probably not gone insanely liberal. But because the charisma of Gore/Lieberman was not desirable enough to a clear electoral majority of America, as Clinton had, the Democrats saw a real problem for their future.

At this point, they should have moved the party to a more conservative position and taken a play from the Clinton playbook, using 'triangulation' to their advantage. They squandered this opportunity for several key reasons. Most prominently, the massive amounts of money from socialists like George Soros, and I believe, an intriguing strategy set in play by the Clinton's themselves, for the express purpose of getting Hillary elected. If the Dems followed Clinton's lead, and sought advice on political direction, it may have been the strategy to push the party far left, and have Hillary poised to "save the day" and pull the party back to a popular centrist position... Some will recognize this as the "pendulum theory" ...Liberal/Conservative views swing back and forth as a pendulum, pushing the party more liberal, would create a momentum for a centrist candidate, which Hillary was trying to convey.

Something profoundly interesting has happened to this plan. It's not clearly visible, but Hillary has recently made the news being a little more liberal... a little more anti-war radical... hmmmm.... could it be, they have pushed the pendulum too far? Did the Clinton's and Soros over-estimate their efforts and ability to promote a more liberal Democratic party, and now they have created a monster out of their control? See... what happens when you push the pendulum too far to the left, is pretty soon, you run into the most profoundly radical right, and you've crossed the apex of no return... the pendulum becomes the Looping Starship, and doesn't swing back. With credible sources starting to suggest the Neocons orchestrated 9/11, it seems clear that we are past the apex at this point, and I don't think the Clinton's believe they can save it. After all, Hillary doesn't exactly have her husbands charisma.

Cypress
08-06-2006, 01:32 PM
Many people assume I don't have much respect for Bill Clinton, and I would say this is a misconception, because I certainly do respect Clinton's political prowess and ability to use charisma to his political advantage, regardless of the situation. If Clinton were in Bush's shoes, I am convinced that 80% of the country would be completely behind what we were doing in Iraq

Both democrats and republicans demanded clinton withdraw from somalia, when he bungled us into an islamic insurgency there.

zoombwaz
08-06-2006, 01:48 PM
Many people assume I don't have much respect for Bill Clinton, and I would say this is a misconception, because I certainly do respect Clinton's political prowess and ability to use charisma to his political advantage, regardless of the situation. If Clinton were in Bush's shoes, I am convinced that 80% of the country would be completely behind what we were doing in Iraq

Both democrats and republicans demanded clinton withdraw from somalia, when he bungled us into an islamic insurgency there.

Clinton didn't get us into Somalia. Bush's daddy did in December 1992, as a lame duck, and as part of a UN force. Can't hang that one on Bill

evince
08-06-2006, 04:23 PM
How they forget

NOVA
08-06-2006, 05:08 PM
Many people assume I don't have much respect for Bill Clinton, and I would say this is a misconception, because I certainly do respect Clinton's political prowess and ability to use charisma to his political advantage, regardless of the situation. If Clinton were in Bush's shoes, I am convinced that 80% of the country would be completely behind what we were doing in Iraq

Both democrats and republicans demanded clinton withdraw from somalia, when he bungled us into an islamic insurgency there.

And withdraw is what he did....thats what seperates leaders from followers...

Cypress
08-06-2006, 05:33 PM
And withdraw is what he did....thats what seperates leaders from followers...

If you want to stay in somalia and fight in their civil war, you still have that opportunity - its still going on. Pick a side to fight on: the islamic theocrats, or the warlord militias. I'm sure the somali embassy could give you a green card.

Don't ask americans to die in a civil war that you think is worth fighting in.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-06-2006, 07:58 PM
Prissy, I don't know why you think Clinton and Somolia pertains to this thread, maybe you are just retarded?

Damocles
08-06-2006, 08:11 PM
Dix, if Clinton killed the D Party, it was Bush that brought it back to life.

Cypress
08-06-2006, 08:43 PM
Prissy, I don't know why you think Clinton and Somolia pertains to this thread, maybe you are just retarded?

Its called evidence, dixie. Evidence that debunks your canard that Dems only support military action when Dems are president.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 05:06 AM
Its called evidence, dixie. Evidence that debunks your canard that Dems only support military action when Dems are president.

Where is that statement in this thread? When did I ever make this statement? We currently have a Republican president, and a helluva lot of Democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so that pretty much demonstrates how Democrats do indeed support war when something besides a Democrat is president. I can't believe that I would make such a flawed canard, you must have read something from someone else. Nevertheless, Clinton, Somolia, and Democrats who support war, are not being discussed in this thread, and have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 05:40 AM
And withdraw is what he did....thats what seperates leaders from followers...

LMAo... No, thats what seperates leaders from cowards. Chickenshit's withdraw! Leaders don't withdraw, they win or go down swinging, they don't run away, it's the opposite of leading.

your canard that Dems only support military action when Dems are president.

I've combed this thread, and I can't find where I ever canarded any such thing. The closest I can find is this...

If Clinton were in Bush's shoes, I am convinced that 80% of the country would be completely behind what we were doing in Iraq, and think of it as a great and noble cause, vital in winning the war on terror.

Now, if that were all that was said, I could understand how your ignorant mind would think I was making the canard I am accused of. You'll notice, all the words which surround this comment, and a thing we normal people call "context". I'm not saying Dems would have supported Iraq because a Democrat was president, rather because Bill Clinton, the lip-biting wonder, could have sold you on supporting it. As militant anti-war as you are, Bill Clinton could have convinced at least 80% of this country (20% kooks excluded) that Iraq was a great and noble war we have to win. My comments are regarding Bill Clinton's ability to sell the public like no other, they have nothing to do with Democrats only supporting Democrats at war. The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, completely debunks that canard.

maineman
08-07-2006, 05:46 AM
there is a difference between retreat and withdrawal. When you walk down the path and notice that your front foot is sinking into quicksand and your back foot is still on solid ground, it is not "retreat" to remove your front foot and find another way. It is suicidal idiocy to notice the quicksand sucking on your front foot and continue on to place your back foot ahead further into it. Leaders recognize quicksand...morons like Bush continue to walk us into it.

Jarod
11-07-2006, 02:08 PM
Turn on your television, the Democratic party is not dead!

ib1yysguy
11-07-2006, 02:33 PM
Funny how you're getting you ass kicked by a "dead" party.

maineman
11-07-2006, 02:37 PM
it's it amazing how the political landscape changed in the three months since Dixe was waxing eloquent on this topic?

It is amazing what happens when America wakes up from a dream and realizes that life has turned into a nightmare while they were nodding off.

Jarod
11-07-2006, 02:41 PM
I love it!

uscitizen
11-07-2006, 04:25 PM
And it is just beginning folks. Next chapter next election and the one after that.