More "Freak Show"-- John Harris discussed the Clintons' sleeping arrangements on Glenn Beck
On the February 20 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck asked John Harris, editor-in-chief of The Politico, whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton have a "king-sized bed or Lucy and Desi beds." Harris replied, "You know, a lot of times they are not in that bed together very often." Harris added that he had been in the Clintons' bedroom in Chappaqua, New York, and said that "it is indeed a king-sized bed," which Beck found "shocking."
As noted in an article on ABCNews.com, in the 1950s television program I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were depicted "sleeping in separate beds, far enough apart to park a Hummer."
Beck's suggestions echoed an unsubstantiated smear spread by Ed Klein his book-length attack on Clinton, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew it, and How Far She'll Go to Become President (Sentinel, June 2005), which Media Matters for America has debunked. From Page 12 of the book:
Few of the downstairs staff in the West Wing knew what went on inside that bedroom, and as a result, there was always a great deal of water-cooler gossip regarding the Big Girl's sleeping arrangements with her husband.
Was it true they slept in separate beds?
As Media Matters noted, on May 23, 2006, The New York Times published a front-page article by Patrick Healy purporting to examine the Clintons' marriage. Healy subsequently acknowledged that the amount of time that the Clintons spend together, which Healy cataloged in the article, is "pretty similar" to that of other members of Congress.
In The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, October 2006), Harris and ABC News political director Mark Halperin contend that there has been a "disintegration of editorial filters in the Old Media, which in an earlier age prevented the most salacious tales and bitter accusations (though certainly not all) from entering the public arena." The book continues (Pages 4-5):
The New Media -- talk radio, cable television, Internet websites -- for the most part never had these editorial filters. Many of its leading voices [Internet gossip Matt] Drudge among them, are openly contemptuous of the idea. The Old Media, faced with filter-free competition, responded by loosening or discarding its own.
[...]
The collapse of filters and the collapse of civility together have changed the purpose of politics. The goal now is not simply to win, but to persuade voters (and donors and viewers and readers) that an opponent lacks the character and creditability even to deserve a place in the contest. That is Freak Show politics.
In the book, Harris and Halperin also assert (Page 23) that this new brand of politics "elevates the personal and the negative over an impartial appraisal of an allegation's relevance in determining a person's qualifications for the office." The "most defining aspect" of the "Freak Show," they say, is that "[i]n every arena of politics and media, there are rewards to be had" in exchange "for indulging the personal and the prurient" (Page 30).
From the February 20 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: John, you've been -- you've spent a lot of time with the Clintons.
HARRIS: Yes, I have.
BECK: King-sized bed or Lucy and Desi beds?
HARRIS: You know, a lot of times they are not in that bed together very often. They have very separate lives.
BECK: What a surprise. Who would have seen that coming?
HARRIS: He is constantly traveling around the world. She is down here much of the time.
You know, I must say I'm not dodging the question. I have been in the Clinton bedroom once on a personal tour that Bill Clinton gave me of his Chappaqua house. It is indeed a king-sized bed.
BECK: That's shocking to me.
Do you think she knew? Did she know before -- when she got on television and said it's a vast right-wing conspiracy, did she know?
HARRIS: You know, I think what she has is this ability, this discipline almost to will herself to believe. Obviously, that time in 1998, January 1998 when the Lewinsky scandal broke, anybody who was reading the papers could tell that obviously something had happened. This was not just a normal relationship between a president and an intern. I believe she, through force of will, committed herself to a different story.
BECK: So how is that -- doctor, how is that possibly healthy for you? I mean, I just can't get past the fact that people are saying -- is there nothing -- is there no line in relationships that you can -- that somebody would come into your office and you'd say, "Woman, what the hell are you thinking?"
I am waiting for Wimpy(Beck) to inform his dim-wits that Dick Van Dyke had seperate single beds in his show. Can't wait for Little Beck to blast Dick for not snuggling with Laura in the evening.( I certainly would have).
If this is the latest smear on Sen. Clinton. The nuts are really running out of garbage. Look you wimpy losers, there is a long time between now and the elections. You should hold onto these juicy tidbits. Or has Karl Rove run out of stuff for you to repeat.
Wimpy,(Mr. Beck), I think your nitwits will themselves to believe in what you tell them. What is the big deal? Are you afraid of this woman or is it all women? Let us know.
Even if they do sleep in separate beds, WHO FREAKIN' CARES!
Apparently it's very important to right wingers.
Only people who do not want to talk about the issues want to discuss this type of junk.
Not me.
More proof that Beck is an idiot.
Glenn Beck and John Harris...
Pure American filth.
Rock-ribbed, right-wing, American filth.
More proof that the right wing is obsessed with sex.
Abso-f%$*#^g-lutely!
They're obsessed with sex because they only engage in it to reproduce more vile little bigoted right wingers. The rest of their time is spent worrying about how the rest of us live our lives below their lofty standards.
Besides, who would want to cuddle with the likes of Pickles Bush?
More accurately, they are obsessed with the sex everyone else is having.
I’d be willing to give Glen Beck and CNN the scoop about my wife and I and if we have a King, Queen, or Double bed, but then it's none of his damn business. Why does he think that anyone wants to know the Clinton's sleeping arrangements? CNN has sunk to the level of FOX and I cannot see where that is a good thing.
I know why...
It's killing them that Britney Spears is a true blue bush supporter, that's why. Nice doo...
http://www.glennbeck.com/about/about-glennbeck.shtml
"But at the age of 30, Beck lost his passion for radio – and everything else – as he was consumed by alcoholism and drug addiction. Coming to terms with his past and staying sober shifted his life direction. He found new love (his second wife, Tania), religion (he was baptized Mormon), and a new vision of his career – he would pursue talk radio."
Hmm... did someone tell the first Mrs. Beck:
"Woman, what the hell are you thinking?"
SELF IDENTIFIED as a "Freak Show": Beck, Harris, Drudge, Kline, Healy, and Halperin.
Freaks one and all, they KNOW it, and oddly, they seem PROUD of it. And it's about being "unfiltered" ... theologically, such a "filter" is usually called a "conscience." Nope. Not one among the bunch.
Well done Tex...
I hope the Democratic candidates are paying attention to this great website. Because the right-wing corporate smear-fest is just in it's very early stages.
If the democratic candidate isn't prepared for the lies to come, they'll be snowed under.
You can forget all about the "I'm going to stay positive" rhetoric. You've got to get in the gutter with this scum and battle it out.
Glen-Boy’s Got a Box of Rocks, Actually…Pebbles
Just where did Glenny get that tie? Just goes to show the exacting precision of the forthright diligence by which he drools his fawning punditocracy at others. It wasn’t out of a box of Fruity Pebbles?
[The tie…not Beck’s brains.]
NOT MY BUSINESS
Bill and Hillary's sex life fall in the category of NONE OF MY BUSINESS. In fact, absence evidence of obvious chronic abuse the dynamics of any married couple's relationship is none of my business. Why is it any of Beck's business? Maybe some in the media, like Beck, make money covering celebrity train-wreck marriages and melt-downs. But surely somewhere there must be a line...
There is a very strange obsession with the Clintons' sex life among rightys.I see it in the posters here who constantly throw in BC promiscuity jabs.
As far as the general public knows, Bill has been with Hillary, Lewinsky, possibly the accusers in harrassment cases. Even if you believe everything you hear, you might think Clinton has had sex with 5 or 6 women.
Who would this really anger? Men who have been intimate with far fewer than 5 or 6 women in their lives.See their frustrated posts here daily.
Then there's the weird "Hillary as angry lesbian" undertones in the conservative media.While I'm not a big Hillary fan, I have been around long enough to know who "accuses" self-assured powerful women of being lesbians.
Men who have been rejected by smart, self-assured women, and men who have been intimate with far fewer than 5 or 6 women in their lives
"There is a very strange obsession with the Clintons' sex life among rightys"
There may very well be more than just a small element of truth in your detailed analysis, HBL... and I'm sure you'll catch hell from some of our teststerone-enriched right wing brothers who frequent MMFA.
But what bothers me more than "weakness of the flesh" is hypocricy. While Bill Clinton was being roasted by Congress as a result of his Monica Lewinsky indiscretion, the multiple-divorced Speaker, Newt Gingrich, was bonking a young assistant. And then when Gingrich had to leave, Rep. Bob Livingston from Louisiana, who was also pro-impeachment of Clinton, had to pass up the Speakers position (and ended his Congressional career, although he landed safely as a highly-paid lobbyist) because of admitted "multiple" affairs while in Congress. Then you have a closet-gay Republican Congressman with a anti-gay rights voting record chasing teeenage male pages. And then there's the right wing anti-gay pastor with regular access to the White House doing meth with a gay prostitute.
Bill Clinton may have campaigned as a good, church-going country boy from Hope, Ark. but you never heard the kind of rigid intolerance from him that you do from the right wing. Bill made a big mistake accepting oral sex from a young and apparently sexually aggressive Monica Lewinsky. And Bill was absolutely wrong in lying about having sex with her. (How many men would have admitted that anyway?) When Bill got caught, it was disappointing... but my feelings were that it was primarily something that he and his wife had to work out between themselves. Who could possibly know the dynamics of their marriage behind closed doors but them? That's why I say it's nobody's damn business but theirs...
At least I've never heard either Bill or Hillary Clinton pass negative judgment on anyone else's sexual lifestyle, either real or imagined. But sometimes there is an almost juvenile obsesssion by the right wing regarding what other people do in bed... and apparently the right wing doesn't have the monopoly on morality that it pretends it does sometimes.
Irony & Beach,
I think the general public has always been fascinated with the lives of the Rich & Famous, be they Hollywood stars, athletes, politicians, musicians etc. And those that fall within those categories have often conducted their personal & public lives in fashion that makes them tabloid fodder.
It probably appears even more obsessive today than decades ago thanks mostly to 24/7 news cycle & the internet.
I could'nt care less about Bill & Hill's sleeping arrangements...but I'd be lying if I said Bill's tryst with Monica hadn't caught my attention & interest. I mean how often does a President get caught with his pants down in the Oval Office? [well ok in a room off the Oval Office]
It used to be that only those that obsessed over these types of stories whether they involved politicians or movie stars or etc got their info from the Inquirer or Star type magazines...now all they need to do is tune into cable, pick up a daily newspaper or get on a computer and they can follow the news and/or speculation of every bit of salacious gossip they could hope for.
Beck's inquiry about what type of bed the Clinton's own is embarrassing or should be. Of course I don't doubt that some will find it fascinating. It will be the same sort of people waiting with bated breath to learn the name of the Daddy of Anna Nicole's baby.
Ferrous,
I thought the word was boinking, not bonking. But...it's pretty much unanimous that it's not how you spell it....
BONKING vs. boinking...
Lemoc, "Bonking" is an obscure sexual activity sometimes parcticed by very disturbed, perverse, powerful people with extremist views. In Mr. Gingrich's case it involved striking his sexual partner in the head repatedly ("bonking" her) with a rolled up copy of the Constitution while simultaneously engaging in sexual intercourse with her. In the case of disturbed, perverse, powerful religious extremists, for example, the practice may involve "bonking" with a rolled up copy of a religious iconic document, such as The Ten Commandments, again while simultaneously performing sexual intercourse... in the missionary position, of course. Hope this explanation helps... ;>)
P.S. Can anyone recommend good on-line courses in typing and proof-reading?
IRONY:
Couple of key points;
Bill Clinton's "affair" with Monica broke no laws.
Bill Clinton is certainly not the first man, nor the first President, to indulge in sex with someone other than his wife. Sad but true of human nature.
Bill Clinton certainly misled about having the affair, and it's FAIR to say he was trying to "cover up" the events. Usually, "cover up" means hiding the evidence to a crime, but in this case, there was no crime, thus the "cover up" was a big nothing.
Denying an affair is done for MANY reasons, although a primary one is to save one's own face. If an affair remains secret, unknown, then it does not bring public shame on the wife and children. It also does not expose the mistress, who may well wish to avoid the publicity. Public exposure of private behavior for the sole purpose of humiliation, even of the INNOCENT parties, is simply CRUEL and EVIL.
If the affair had REMAINED secret, what would have been the harm to the nation? None at all. None whatsoever.
Uncovering the "lie about sex" cost the nation an enormous amount, both in the expense of the investigation, the distraction from truly important matters, the time of Congress, and the overall stature of the offices involved. It portrayed America to the world as petty, silly, unserious, and unworthy of respect (the CONGRESS, not the president ... the world's attitude about a leader who has affairs is mature and reasonable, unlike the GOP in America. The world wondered what the hell Congress was thinking!).
It took Ken Starr years and tens of millions of dollars to come up with the "proof" that Bill Clinton had recieved oral sex. Of course, the GOP wasted no time publishing the greatly detailed pornographic "research" Starr compiled. Clinton wished the affair secret, while the GOP wished to blanket the nation in pornography. Which was more damaging to the nation?
The GOP knew this, as they attempted to destroy a Democrat president solely on the basis of what they considered a "lie about sex". Alas, there was not even a lie to prove; Bill Clinton had chosen his words carefully, and none could be shown to be actual "perjury", as much as the GOP were wild to remove Clinton from office on that basis (alone). They had nothing else.
The entire affair shows several things very clearly. Mostly, it shows that the GOP care NOTHING about this nation, how well it is run, how much of its important business is done. Instead, the GOP were interested only in partisan smearmongering, and the pursuit of character assassination, invasion of privacy, publishing lewd text, and bringing the national dialogue into the most irrelevant and prurient wallow in mud. Oh, and crippling our elected government for months, with NO chance of actually removing the president.
QUESTION: WHY do Republicans hate America?
Excellent points, Tex (as usual)... and a damn good final question.
Tex,
Not to be argumentative, but in many states, Adultery is against the law.
Also sexual harrassment laws are broken when employment is terminated by the supervisor and retaliation. It is a civil offense under federal law.
Glad I could be of help.
ps. Why on earth would you want to defend this guy is beyond me.
Remind us, AA: what crimes was Clinton ever convicted of?
None, you say?
That's correct. Better luck next time. Maybe President Hillary will fail to pay a parking ticket and you and your buddies can spend $70 million impeaching her (and failing - again).
AntiAmerican--I hate to quote fools, but "There you go again."
You stated--"...in many states, Adultery is against the law."
I ask you--In which State is the White House?
You stated--"...sexual harrassment laws are broken when employment is terminated by the supervisor and retaliation. It is a civil offense under federal law."
I ask--Were charges filed? No? Was there even an allegation of harrassment? No? Sound like you might be getting Bill mixed up with Monica.
You state--"Why on earth would you want to defend this guy is beyond me."
I answer--BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT! There is no better reason. Even if you hate the guy, I don't think you are stupid enough to argue against one of the basic concepts of our existence--Innocent until proven guilty. Or, go ahead and prove me wrong.
I rest my case.
You have adequately obliterated AA's weak arguments, Rick, but I'm also going to add that adultery laws, while they may remain on the books, are unenforceable. (That damn right to privacy that the pro-intrusive government "conservatives" hate so much.)
Also sexual harrassment laws are broken when employment is terminated by the supervisor and retaliation. It is a civil offense under federal law.
First, how does this apply to the Lewinsky situation? Lewinsky didn't sue, didn't cry sexual harrassment, or anything of the sort. She called Clinton a creep, I guess, but that's about the extent of it.
And what "law" are we talking about? If I'm not mistaken, sexual harrassment issues are actionable -- that is, if you're wronged, you can sue. But nobody goes to jail over sexual harrassment, right? I think your "It is a civil offense under federal law" comment needs some sort of backup. I think it might be kinda meaningless. (But I'm not a loyyuh.)
And as for defending Bill Clinton -- it's not about that. It's about defending anyone's right to sleep with whomever they feel like. It's nobody's bidness except those involved. Why YOU would want to challenge that is beyond ME.
BECK: Do you think she knew? Did she know before -- when she got on television and said it's a vast right-wing conspiracy, did she know?
As if the "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory was exploded when Clinton's involvement with Lewinsky was revealed! In the minds of the neo-sleazoids, the BJ vindicates every slime-covered tactic that had been employed against both Clintons since even before the first inauguration, when in fact it did nothing but further emphasize the vile and sordid nature of everything that was done, up to and including the Starr report. Refer to David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine if you have any doubt that the "conspiracy" actually exists, as clearly evidenced by the current article.
Yes, its everyone else's fault that Bill Clinton was having a White House intern in to have sex with her and he got found out. Thats just so perfectly OK that it should have gone unremarked.
"Vast right wing conspiracy" was a lie. She was propping up his lie because if they'd told the truth, Democrats in Congress would have been on the spot in January and February of 1998. So the Clintons both lied and it dragged out for a whole year.
Alan Hevesi, the reelected Comptroller of New York, pled guilty to a felony and resigned because he admitted using his state driver to drive his sick wife around. No Democrat in New York State would defend him. But the Clintons put the entire Democratic Party in the position of defending his using an intern for sex and his sending a state trooper to get a state worker so he could proposition her in a hotel room. It was the strangest thing.
And besides the obvious attempt at Clinton bashing (neither of whom I'm a fan of), what's the point of your post in relation to the actual topic at hand? What does this have to do with the fact that their sleeping arrangements have nothing to do with their political careers?
Isn't it about time that someone starts investigating sleezebag,butt-sniffers , such as Beck and Harris' bedroom activities? My gaydar tells me that Beck and Harris are gay,if not 100% gay, they're switchitters,still on the first team! What does one's sleeping arangements have to do with running for office? Do you think Pickles likes sleeping with W and Rove?
Just look at that smirk on Becks face,then look at the greasy-smile on Harris' face,Where had those two just been?, and what were they doing?
Andra, I'd rather have my President getting a BJ than having the President giving one ,(in Bushs case).
Clinton got found out for what he was doing and the rest was history. He and his wife lied as long as they could. He brought it all on himself; the whole thing was his own fault.
Complaining about it being brought up in political commentary would be like, say, PeeWee Herman running for office and complaining when it gets brought up that he was arrested for lewd acts.
Paul Reubens' situation is a bit different in that it was an unlawful act. The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was/is not. Why do you have such a problem with the Clintons? I'm not a fan of them, but I don't feel any need to act like any of this is relevant to their political lives.
So, OK to bring up Paula Jones since Clinton paid her $850,000 to settle her civil suit? PeeWee Herman paid his debt to society and Bill Clinton was impeached. These are public matters, matters of record. Media Matters is trying to suppress commentary that alludes to these particular Clinton matters and we all know that political commentary isn't ever scrupulously compassionate towards any politicians. The Clintons left a lot more ammunition lying around than most.
Civil suits are civil matters, not criminal.
Also, B Clinton was NOT impeached for sleeping with Lewinsky or Jones and even if he was it would STILL not have ANY relation to H Clinton's political career. Bill was impeached for perjury.
I can understand why people mistake you for a Republican, although you deny it. You use the same mis-direction tactics and are rather unreasonable when it comes to what should be considered a political matter as opposed to a private matter.
Yes, he was impeached - and NOT convicted. After $70 million and years of digging up every bit of dirt they could.
I think people sometimes forget that an impeachment does not equal a conviction.
Do you think Rudy Giuliani's serial adultry should be brought up at every turn during the presidential race?
I think the people should be allowed to have their own opinions about it! We accord a lot of pomp and ceremony and deference to presidents. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.
Giuliani's adultery will get plenty of attention except don't kid yourself, they're not comparable. We all know:
(1) He married the woman.
(2) Theres no semen stained clothing or other lurid details.
(3) It has no connection to Giuliani lying in a civil case.
(4) There are no tapes of the mistress pouring her heart out to anyone.
(5) He didn't stand up at a press conference and wag his finger at the nation and lie that he "never had sex with that woman."
(1) He married the woman.
Um... and that absolves one of the "sin" of adultery?
(2) Theres no semen stained clothing or other lurid details.
Oh, if he left semen somewhere, THEN we could talk about Rudy's daliances?
(3) It has no connection to Giuliani lying in a civil case.
A case that was thrown out. A case that was politically motivated from the start.
(4) There are no tapes of the mistress pouring her heart out to anyone.
Wait for the book deal. And if a tape does turn up, then what?
(5) He didn't stand up at a press conference and wag his finger at the nation and lie that he "never had sex with that woman."
A question that shouldn't have been asked. If it's okay for Rudy, should have been okay for Bill.
Now, on the other hand, Rudy's party makes a big stink about morality. They, in fact, pursued these issues in Bill's case. Shouldn't the Republican Party be held to the same standard they want to hold everyone else to? First and foremost? Frankly, I'm all for the Republicans setting whatever standard they want for their members. Just leave the rest of us out of your hypocritical moralistic preachings. We're not interested.
Andra,you still haven't answered my question,so here it is again,"Would your rather have your President giving head, than receiving it?" Simple question,can you answer it?
According to the late, lamented That's My Bush!, the current president doesn't go for picnics on the grass. Much to Laura's dismay.
You think I'm a Republican. I'm not. The Clintons did more harm to the Democratic Party than Karl Rove could dream of doing. Hopefully, this Hillary Clinton-Obama-Geffen issue is the start of Democrats turning on Bill Clinton himself and being done with the Clinton cancer once and for all.
Sorry Andra, that post wasn't to you; it was in response to a troll whose post was deleted.
Glen Beck has no business being on TV discussing politics or anything else above a first graders range of interest. He is nothing more than an opinionated idiot who cannot offer any intellectual insight on todays political climate. He is a hired gossip, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who takes this moron seriously should not be allowed to vote!
Maddawgg
Andra,Let's put aside Clintons BJ and Bushs' gayness, and compare who has done more for the country and the world!
I'll let you go first,tell me 10 great accomplishments of Bushs first 6 years! Not being attacked again, doesn't count,so go ahead.
I'll bite on your question
Bush's Accomplishments:
1) Successfully clearing acres of brush off his ranch
2) Allowing his Saudi buddies to leave the country after 9/11
3) Wire-tapping the Clintons' bedroom conversations
4) Funnelling millions of $$$ for corporate war-profiteers
5) Catching that HUGE fish
6) Nominating his #1 fan for Supreme Court Justice (Miers)
7) Never having one dissenting voice at political rallies (thanks, secret service)
8) Delivering the fake turkey to the troops at Thanksgiving (mmm mmm good!)
9) Looking into Putin's eyes and knowing his soul
10) One word - VACATION!
What DID Clinton accomplish? You don't buy the nonsense that he balanced the budget or put the budget in surplus, I hope? That kind of accounting would put CEOs in prison. You don't think Pets.com and the rest of the dot com boom was a great economy, do you?
Foreign policy-wise, look at the 3 reasons why bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 and they are all attributable to Clinton's watch:
1. The Israeli-Palestinian situation. Clinton did an 8 year shell game there. The Israeli settler population doubled.
2. The bases in Saudi Arabia --- Why did Clinton keep them there? Its not credible that he had no intelligence telling him that was a big problem.
3. The sanctions on Iraq killing half a million children. Clinton had an obligation to find a way to end those sanctions. It was not worthy of the United States to keep those sanctions on that country and bomb them for 8 years. He was a coward.
Wow - playing the blame Clinton card - an tried and true tactic of the trolls.
How about a new list - things Clinton (or Gore, for that matter) would have done differently:
1) Maintain the professional, cabinet level position for FEMA.
2) Not rest until Bin Laden is captured or killed (remember, Bush doesn't think about him anymore)
3) Uphold the sanctity of the consitution, such as no torture, rendition, or illegal wire-tapping.
4) No purposely outing out of petty retaliation of a CIA agent who was working on nuclear non-proliferation
5) Not engage in a pro-corporate, anti-middle class economic agenda.
To answer your points
1) While Clinton didn't "solve" the Palestinian problem, who can? It's been going on since Israel was created and continues to this day.
2) Where is the intelligence that showed the Saudi bases were a problem? Will our new super-sized bases in Iraq pose a similar problem?
3) Sanctions on Iraq were processed through the United Nations. Saddam was contained, as opposed to opening the gates of hell with an invasion.
A coward? That's almost funny.
Thats what 14 years of Clinton and Bush will do to you. The bin Laden interview where he stated his grievances was from 1998 but you think nobody told Bill Clinton.
He was the chief law enforcement officer of the land and he lied to a court. Thats how much he cared about the Constitution and the rule of law. And even worse is all the times I've seen Clinton defenders say t hat lying in a civil case is no big deal, everybody does it. So its ok for the chief law enforcement officer of the US.
The US controlled the UN sanctions; thats pretty clear. The rest of the world wanted to get rid of the sanctions. You're not seriously arguing anything else because that would be bunk.
I am not a huge Clinton fan, never was. It is however disengenuous to pretend he didnt accomplish anything. The Israeli Palestinian situation is very problematic but he had did a good job of keeping the peace there also there was the bringing of peace to Northern Ireland, I never thought I would see that in my lifetime. He was never a huge progressive and he didnt turn the world around but he did a credible job as President. I think you have to give him that.
What other Democrat have I whacked besides the 2 horrible Clintons? Are they like gods to you that anyone who doesn't genuflect before the Clintons must love Bush? They were awful for the Democratic Party. The Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the Senate and about 260 seats in the House when Bill Clinton got into office in '93 and he wiped out those majorities in 2 years.
"The Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the Senate and about 260 seats in the House when Bill Clinton got into office in '93 and he wiped out those majorities in 2 years."
Andra, let's not give Bill all the credit for that. He had a little help from Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour and their nasty, "take no prisoners" strategy for establishing a permanent Republican majority. Their Contract With America and trainloads of Republican money helped too. We were fat and lazy and the Republicans acquired WMD while we were napping.
I have mixed feelings about Bill Clinton... but he still remains the greatest President of the 21st Century.
I think you are probably a dilettante about this stuff and it hasn't been very important to you that the Republicans took Congress.
Well.. thank you for the compliments, Andra. Actually, if you knew me, you would know that I am indeed still more than just a little p*ssed off about the way the Republicans took the 104th Congress in 1994... if that is what you are referring to. I do recall Newt Gingrich's training seminars in Georgia for young conservative Republican candidates in which they were instructed in the fine art of demonizing their Democratic opponents using focus group tested words and phrases prepared by, I believe, Frank Luntz. My personal belief is that if heaven and hell do exist there is probably a special place waiting for Newt Gingrich in the latter. ;>)
All that is just typical politics. You can't be serious.
I remember when Reagan bombed Libya and there was outrage expressed in the mainstream media over such an act of violence and killing innocent people. Its gone; the word I'd use to express Hillary Clinton's attitude towards the suffering of non-Americans in Iraq is "blase," theres no reason to think it registers with her at all. Its because of Bill Clinton bombing Iraq and whereever he felt like it for 8 years. Innocent, shminnocent. You wonder why Americans are so callous about the patriot Act, habeous corpus, etc. Maybe dead aspirin factory workers, dead Chinese diplomats in their embassy in Baghdad, dead farm families trying to escape Kosovo and being mistaken for Serbian military convoys have something to do with it.
And, Andra...
Do you disagree that Bill Clinton remains the greatest President of the 21st Century? You can't be serious...
I think Bill Clinton was a terrible president, for the Democratic Party and for the country.
One other thing I didn't mention thats important is him locking the Democratic Party into "universal coverage" on the health insurance issue. He did that with a SOTU speech where he wagged his finger saying he'd veto anything the Congress sent him that wasn't universal coverage. That was typical Clinton, short term gratification, promising something he can't deliver, just like when he made a promise at a big Hollywood gay fundraiser in '92 that he'd lift the prohibitions on gays in the military. Its been a burden on the Democratic Party because they aren't going to pass universal healthcare through a Democratic Congress and raise taxes like that.
Wouldn't you need at least 3 presidents to say "greatest?" What a choice between those 2 clunkers, Bush and Clinton. I'd choose some president from another country over either of those 2.
I agree completely. He was the greatest president that anyone alive has seen. Sorry Andra, but those Rush Limpball comments about no surplus and an imbalanced budget just won't fly here.
I thinks we should carve his likeness on Mt. Rushmore. I'll be happy to make a donation.