How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Economy

So everyone knows that some have chosen to make diaries bashing Bill Clinton's economy, either crediting "lies" that never happened, or crediting only the dot-com bubble, which is absolutely specious. The economy under Bill Clinton did well because he took the steps needed to end the deficit which was to raise taxes on the rich big time: this in turn fixed up the bond markets which in turned fueled the economic boom we knew back then. Ever Republican in both houses voted against it. Unfortunately for them, the economy took off, and the budget deficit died. Bill Clinton did that by telling the truth to the American people how tax cuts for the rich were why the deficit was so high and the economy bad.

Bill Clinton also fixed the economy by signing the Family Medical Leave Act, which made it possible for women to take leave while they took care of their child, he also raised the earned income tax credit. This in turn lifted people out of poverty, which fell in every demographic group in terms of race and gender. The dot-com boom only helped the rich. It didn't change the lives of most of the working Americans who went out of poverty under President Clinton.

More countries chose to invest in us due to the deficit Clinton ended. 22 million new jobs because they knew we wouldn't go under like we would have under Bush Sr. had he got another term. Was he a free trader? YES he was, but eveyr living former President supported NAFTA too, and Bush I negotiated it. Welfare reform got those people on welfare into jobs, ending welfare as we knew it, making welfare what it was always meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life. It was indeed Bill Clinton's truths which fueled the economy of the '90's. I hope the radical Kos-like Clinton haters get that.

Tags: Bill Clinton, honor, last two term Dem since FDR (all tags)



tip jar

tip jar this diary right here

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 02:10PM | 0 recs
Diamond Jay why don't you use your real handle?

Lose the last line and I'll rec.

I think if you join both diaries on the subject you'll be closer to the truth.

I'm a big Bill Clinton fan and didn't understand the point of the earlier diary but this one isn't the greatest piece of work either.

The primary is over and haters from both sides should move on.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 02:15PM | 0 recs
Lovin' your sig

... I wanted to have a nice rant, on something that I hate, which is misleading statistics. Because the OP (Nancy) decided to ignore me, I made it into a diary. Further commentary on this diary also exists in a separate diary (am I on a roll or what?). Not that there's much to quibble about with this diary, other than lack of cited sources, and ten-year-old-disproved-research-being cited as fact.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:01AM | 0 recs
Haters who damage the Dem's reputation

Should apologize to the rest of us, then we'll move on.

Using right wing lies against fellow Dems is crossing the line and should not be tolerated among Democrats.

by Betsy McCall 2008-07-03 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: tip jar

Pardon me, but what does the tip jar mean?

by Hollede 2008-07-02 02:15PM | 0 recs
His problem

He let personal problems of his own making deride his Presidency.  What started  out at the beginning, a Democratic President with a democratic Congress was overall wasted by Clinton, he could have done so much more. Health care got politicized instead of worked out, and we still suffer those consequences today. I think he was a good overall President, but he wasted so much potential.

by Brandon 2008-07-02 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: His problem

His health care plan was shot down by the insurance industry and the Republicans.  The problem wasn't with either Clinton.

And, his "personal issues" were not of his own making.  Sure, he fooled around in the WH, but it was an illegitimate Republican witchhunt that made it public.

Frankly, I think you have it exactly wrong--he had very little potential given the conservative movement, and he did remarkably well despite it.

by slynch 2008-07-02 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: His problem

Just saw this - Thank you a voice of reason!!!

by jrsygrl 2008-08-12 03:36PM | 0 recs

Just think about what Bill could have done if we had had his back.

by Hollede 2008-07-02 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Econ

Without subsidized childcare..welfare to jobs was and remains a myth...

by nogo postal 2008-07-02 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Econ

not true at all.  I agree that we need subsidized childcare, but it is simply false to claim that welfare change under Clinton did not move some from welfare to work--it did.  

by slynch 2008-07-02 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's
How dare you trash Bill Clinton.  Oh wait!  Your diary PRAISED Bill Clinton's presidency.  
I get so confused about who's up and who's down on this site.
by ChitownDenny 2008-07-02 02:20PM | 0 recs
this is very new

saying something nice about Bill Clinton. Its almost considered evil on the blogosphere. If this is evil, I don't wanna be holy.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: this is very new
Why do you keep bringing up that people are unfairly attacking Bill Clinton?  We have moved on-Bill was a great president (certainly not the greatest-I for one did NO better under his presidency but that's just me) but he made some gaffes campaigning for Hillary and he was taken down for it.  There is nothing unfair about that at all.  He seems to have no problem attacking Obama (like a little kid I might add) and acting quite petulant over the fact that he and Hillary did not get their way.  Whatever...he can now continue flying around the world in Burkle's private jets, doing his good works and we're all better for it.  
I think most people have better things to think about than how rotten Bill Clinton has been - he's over.
by mariannie 2008-07-02 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: this is very new

Please document the gaffes you state Bill Clinton made campaigning for Hillary, and be sure to avoid MSM spin when doing so.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-03 11:13AM | 0 recs
I seem to recall him spending

over an hour lecturing about his legacy to a bunch of high school students, instead of mentioning Hillary at all.

That's just dumb.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 12:19PM | 0 recs
I generally say nice things about Bill

... in fact, I'ma gonna write a nice diary about him RIGHT NOW! So there.

nyaah nyaah.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:03AM | 0 recs
No, the boom let Bill C. pay down the deficit

"The dot-com boom only helped the rich."

Tell that to the THOUSANDS of workers at Intel, Microsoft, Dell....

Tell that to all of us whose houses SHOT UP in value as Seattle became a destination place, thanks to Amazon and all the companies sprung from MS.

Tell it to me, cause all the middle class taxes I paid were due to the Dot.Com boom.

Tell that to my best friends, who came up here so the wife could work at Boeing, and her husband answered a job ad for a little software start-up in Redmond...Interviewed by some crazy guy name Ballmer?  (Talk about blind luck. He almost decided to pass on that ad, and go to the established company!!!!)

I was just at their house on the lake yesterday, pretty nice for a couple of poor kids from central California.  I think the dot com boom surely helped them, and yes, they're rich now?

No, the boom MADE people rich, AND those tax revenues paid by us rich and not so rich (like me) HELPED Bill Clinton balance the budget.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 02:28PM | 0 recs
those were not the only jobs in America

you know. There are many more industries and jobs than computers. You just can't stomach crediting Clinton for anything because he wasn't this radical firebrand like you hoped Obama would be. Also, california isn't the only state. Jobs were gained from Idaho to Vermont.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: those were not the only jobs in America

"You just can't stomach crediting Clinton for anything because he wasn't this radical firebrand like you hoped Obama would be."

WTF are you talking about?

You know nothing about me?

I voted for Bill Clinton twice, my Ex brought up all the money I gave to Move On during the Monica wars in the divorce.

How much did YOU contribute to the Bill Clinton Presidential campaign?

I maxed out both times, so take it your bitter anger about Hillary's lose and go cry yourself a river!

"Also, california isn't the only state."

Jesus, do you know ANYTHING about the Dot-com boom ?


Microsoft and Amazon are in Seattle, Dell is in Texas

I visited Intel and Texas Instruments and Analog and Micron facilities in Texas, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Oregon, Arizona....

Ever hear of Research Triangle down in Carolina, or Tech Corridor up in Mass?

The Tech boom was a nation-wide phenomenon.

Take it out of the economy in the era, and Bill Clinton's tax revenues flat-line.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 02:49PM | 0 recs
take his tax hikes out

and the revenues don't even materialize. If Bush I's taxes had been kept, the CEO's would have gotten even richer than they did and the government would not have taken in enough to get a surplus or even get close.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 02:57PM | 0 recs
WashStateBlue loves question marks?

Only questions should end in question marks? No sentence in this comment is a question?

Maybe this punctuation tick derives from a speech pattern popular among younger people, Generation X Generaion Y and Millenials? A pattern in which non-question statements rise in pitch at the end, as if they were questions?

I mean nothing personal WashStateBlue and do not intend to pick on you? But the question marks are driving me crazy?

by catfish2 2008-07-02 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: WashStateBlue loves question marks?

I got five bucks says I'm within 5 years of your age, if not older.

I also am typing about over 150 words per minute, so I don't care the much about punctuation?

Of course, I'm fricking crazy as a loon, but have you looked at how many words and hours YOU have spent on just one poltical blog in the last 6 months.

Pot, kettle, black.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 03:49PM | 0 recs
I'm crazy too. And probably close to your age?

I'm not friends with anybody unless they're a little bit crazy?

by catfish2 2008-07-02 04:36PM | 0 recs
Mayne your keyboard

placed the '?' close to the '.'

by catfish2 2008-07-02 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: WashStateBlue loves question marks?

I type 151 fool!!!  


:)  Just having fun

by Xris 2008-07-02 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: WashStateBlue loves question marks?

Are you going to self-implode when Barky becomes president?  Are you going ask for a recount on Nov. 5th when Bam Bam wins the most electoral votes over your candidate?  On to a serious question: Are you ever going to provide interesting content on this site or are you going to just continue taking steaming dumps in every thread and acting like a raging asshole in order to disrupt sincere discourse?

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: WashStateBlue loves question marks?

So, besides the fact I am probably as old or older then you, seems like you have an axe to grind with the  millenials.

It's not like we boomers did such a bang-up job of it?

They're a different crew, I will admit, got 4 of them working for me.

Still, we had better start trusting them, because they will be driving the ship soon enough.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: WashStateBlue loves question marks?

ha! I have to agree?  I like a lot of what Washblue says (some I don't), but the question marks drive me nuts.

by slynch 2008-07-02 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: No, the boom let Bill C. pay down the deficit

This is just silly.  Sure there were thousands of people who either did well or made out like bandits during the dot com bubble, and more power to them.  No one denies that.  But the fact is, it was of no help at all to the millions of average American citizens.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-02 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: No, the boom let Bill C. pay down the deficit

You've got to be kidding?

The tech boom made MILLIONS of US jobs, all the peripheral stuff that went with computers, cell phones, high-speed networks.

Fact is, it was the ONLY US business sector that was not already in a slow decline from the middle of Bill Clinton's Presidency on.

From the Economist:

"One pillar of the late 1990s expansion was the strength of business investment in equipment and software. This category of expenditures captures firms' purchases of computers and other high-tech equipment as well as purchases of more traditional forms of machinery such as industrial and construction equipment, aircraft, and trucks.
However, the largest growth was in the new technology sector and it's impact on traditional business.
 The rapid growth of these expenditures provided an unusually strong stimulus to GDP growth in the second half of the last decade. Indeed, technology capital spending is widely regarded as a key contributor to the productivity gains that enabled the economy to grow strongly with little inflation during this period."

Look at any other industry, automotive, old line manufacturing like textiles, ALL were already in decline and would accelerate due to shifting markets overseas.

If you are talking about HOW many people made a fortune in Cisco stock, yeah, I will agree, it's limited to a few.

But, the statement was the Dot.Com boom did NOTHING for the average American, which is just nuts.

I think you all are confusing the crazy stock market ride, and the stock prices, with all the jobs and industries that were created vis a vis mass computerisation of the workplace, highspeed networks and cell phones?

Here's the mental exercise.

Take it all away? Take away Intel and Dell and Cisco and Microsoft and Apple...


What is left in the US business sector in the 90s?

GM?  GE?  Archer Daniels Midlands?

The tech sector was the main growth area for the 90s, in jobs and salaries.

It's effect on the US economy was huge.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 09:35PM | 0 recs
if you wanna stiff

Bill Clinton of the credit he deserves for ending the deficit, something that Bush Sr. would not have done if re-elected, then be the Republican party's guests. Cutting the deficit had everything to do with that boom. I can find many economists too who'd back me up. Also, the Economist used to be a conservative Republican paper. It was only in 2004 did they begin endorsing Democrats for President.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: if you wanna stiff

I never said Bill Clinton's policies didn't help reduce the deficit.

I totally supported his tax policies, which Bush reversed and have thrown us in this hell hole of an economy

But, he needed the tax revenues of a growing economy to do it.

You started it with the comment way above.

SHOW ME the other sectors in the US economy that boomed during the Clinton era.

You can't, because the Tech sector was it!

The Tech sector provided that increase in tax revenue, and it rippled through the economy.  

Where ELSE did the increased tax revenue come from?

And, you can go find LIBERAL economists that also credit the tech sector, you can't just write off the Economist as right wing so that comment is right wing propaganda.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 09:53PM | 0 recs
if he hadn't raised taxes,

the revenues the gov took in woulda been way smaller than under Bush I, regardless of the boom.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: if he hadn't raised taxes,

Not rrue, the paydown of the deficit was do in most part to the red hot economy, which Clinton ALSO helped create.

We are splitting hairs here.

I admit, raising taxes on the rich was a key move, and Obama has said he will do the same thing (actually phrased as roll back the bush cuts.)

But, that will NOT be enough to match the Clinton boom.  

Which you think I am trashing, but I am not!

Obama needs to raise taxes AND he needs to find a business sector to get hot, the equivalent of what Bill had in Technology.

I am thinking alternative energy will be it, and Obama has spoken at length about super-charging that sector.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 10:03PM | 0 recs
please, if Obama's term

sees a boom, i'll bet you're the first one to call him the messiah, and even found a new church to him. If Bill Clinton had nothing to do with it, why does Greenspan himself praise Bill extensively for it, and say how important it was for the economy.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: please, if Obama's term

You two were having a perfectly rational conversation and then you had to go and drop "messiah" bomb.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: please, if Obama's term

It was a pretty good debate up until that point. The messiah line is one of the more inflammatory ones around and h/she drops it like it's nothing and ruins what was until that point a decent conversation screwing the credibility of the argument being made. Sad.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: please, if Obama's term

Holy runon sentence Batman! I'm sleepy as hell. To bad I'm stuck in working in this hospital for 3 more hours. Hope the rest of the night is nice and slow.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 11:42PM | 0 recs

Typo after typo.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: please, if Obama's term

DiamondJay (I think this is his sockpuppet) has a jones out for me, I called him on his comment that "Somehow the Democratic party
 needs to find a way to minmize the effect of the black vote" when he made it.

At any rate, if you look at my overall comments, probably THE ONLY poster that give me hide ratings is Lakkrose. Even Catfish2 doesn't abitrarily hide rate me. Pretty sure it's because of old wounds with this diarist, but, something I did stepped on this foot.

If you look at the entire thread, he is imagining somehow I am ripping Bill Clinton.

What I am saying is, You can't claim Bill Clinton was an "Economic Messiah", (which, by the way, if ANYONE is bestoying religous Godhood
 on people, it's HE and his worship of the Clintons)unless you see that he was "at the right place at the right time"....

The tech boom pumped MILLIONS into the economy, and created lots of tax revenue.

Some here are confusing the stock market tax bubble with the effect of the tech boom on the economy as a whole?

HELLO? Internet? What are we all communicating on?

Sure, it was around since Darpanet, but the 90s supercharged it.

His claim that Clinton takes cuts and the reduced deficits "Created" the tech boom is ludicrous.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-03 05:04AM | 0 recs
because Greenspan isn't half the scholar that

Bernanke is? (bonus points if you know Bernanke's specialization! ;=)

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:11AM | 0 recs
find me a RECENT paper

child. My research is MORE CURRENT than yours!

(and points towards the infrastructure investment that WashState is talking about)

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:09AM | 0 recs
How to post a diary

Regardless of your message, if you put it one jumbled paragraph it's not going to get through.  

If you want to be taken seriously, and "tipped" (impressive, from someone who seemingly hates Kos), then you're done writing, take a breath, hit return a few times.  Maybe even cut and paste into Word, do a spell and grammar check, then come back.  

If your message is good, it'll be good another 10 minutes in.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-07-02 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's

rec'd by

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

by nogo postal 2008-07-02 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's

I'm curious.  What is the point you're trying to make by cutting and pasting those who rec'd this diary when anyone curious enough could just click on the link at the top right corner of this diary?  I'm sure you have a point to make.  Just not sure what it is.  Can you explain?

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-02 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's

psst, chitownDenny, should I be insulted?

by Hollede 2008-07-02 04:31PM | 0 recs
quite possibly. but you don't seem

the type to TR on a whim, and your diaries look interesting.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's

He does it with every diary that is in any way positive about the Clintons.  Somehow, it seems that if he can disparage the bloggers who 'rec' a dairy, he can 'wreck' the diary.

It's trollish behavior, at best.

by emsprater 2008-07-02 06:46PM | 0 recs
yes but what isn't?It's become very fashionable.nt

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-03 11:15AM | 0 recs
I'm usually a fidelity

hawk but the one exemption I provide is to Bill Clinton.  This guy is the greatest president of my generation and accomplished so much for this country.  I hope Obama goes down to Arkansas next week and gives a speech paying homage to the Clintons in a downtown rally in front of Clinton's library.

by Blazers Edge 2008-07-02 02:47PM | 0 recs
that would be nice...

any reason next week?

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Econ

Nice post.  

And if the dems had closed ranks and stood together around him instead of cutting an running when the repugs tried to nail him for something everyone of them was doing on the side it would have been a completely  story.

A toast to Bill clinton for not bowing to the repug pressure and just resigning as everyone was urging him to do. Cheers!

by Bornagaindem 2008-07-02 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Econ

Indeed.  Sam Nunn especially sticks out in mind. He opposed Clinton every chance he got.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-02 07:30PM | 0 recs
I guess thats why

Kos touted him as a Veep candidate. Really struck me, because they're the ones who hate Clinton for not cracking gays in the military, even tho NUNN was the reason

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess thats why

Exactly.  Amazing how that selective memory works, isn't it?  Nunn was always a conservative Democrat, and I'll never understand the affection that some progressives have for him.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-02 07:47PM | 0 recs
I am a kossack

and I'd rather see Clark on the ticket. I'd like to see a genius on the ticket for once!

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:14AM | 0 recs

please edit and include some paragraph breaks..

like these (p) ... replace these ( ) with these < > but put a P where the space is.

by kevin22262 2008-07-02 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Econ

I give Clinton a ton of a credit for many things he did economically, but he is not the sole reason the economy was good in the 90's.  Economic up turns and down turns are much more complicated than one specific program or a specific tax rate.  But the number one thing he did was balance the budget, and I salute him for that.

The Clinton hero worship is just as creepy as the Obama worship I find myself getting involved in sometimes:)

by Xris 2008-07-02 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Econ

everyone likes to say that (the economy is complex), but I've actually been looking at economic data from Reconstruction to the present, and there's a pretty clear pattern--the economy is better the more control Democrats have over congress and the presidency.  

by slynch 2008-07-02 07:06PM | 0 recs

Why all the redundant diaries about Bill Clinton's economic record -- to help Obama by pointing out how much better Democrats are than Republicans?

by Beren 2008-07-02 06:38PM | 0 recs

not so much that as to prevent Obama supporters, largely who are Clinton haters from smearing it. Also, what you pointed out helps a lot.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 06:43PM | 0 recs

is there rampant clinton smearing going on in the country lately?  Where I work all of the Democrats are back to normal and making fun of McCain.  The Obama and Clinton supporters still eat together and still drink beers together after work on fridays.  The only difference is that the Republicans seem lost and angry, but I have faith they will start giving me crap soon.  When that happens I know the GE is truly here.  

But I assuming you are talking about butt heads on the internet.  My advice is to just ignore them, lots of people think they are intellectual ninjas when you put a keyboard in front of them.

Have a great 4th!

by Xris 2008-07-02 06:50PM | 0 recs
In other words...

this is a troll diary intended to incite rancor.

by Beren 2008-07-02 07:57PM | 0 recs

I'd say that folks around these parts have to remind other folks here of the real record of Bill, in order to combat the constant lies and digs thrown at his record.

by emsprater 2008-07-02 06:49PM | 0 recs
It's all in your head.

And the primaries are over. Start living in the present instead of brooding on a past that never even was.

by Beren 2008-07-02 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It's all in your head.

Actually, it's NOT all 'in my head'.   Did you not see the other diary telling of Clinton's 'lies' that set up the recession for Bush 2?  The other recent diaries about Bill's failings?

That wasn't 'in my head'.

Yes, the primary IS over, so why can't folks let the Clinton years be as they were?  Why the constant need to denigrate our only two term POTUS in half a century?  Is it in order to 'fix' the political climate so that Obama can be hailed as the greate4st ever?

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'.

We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater 2008-07-03 05:50AM | 0 recs

and I'm close to taking personal offense at what you wrote above, so bear with me.

Deep Breaths.


No, it isn't to make obama the fucking messiah. If he did half as well as FDR, I'd shit a fucking rainbow. It probably won't fucking happen. Clinton had an easy job, Obama will have about the hardest fucking job since FDR, and HIS POWDER IS WET! (due to bernanke, nothing about clinton there!)

I bring up the LIES that were perpetrated by MULTIPLE PRESIDENTS, in order that we can be more chary about our use of gov't statistics. They are OFTEN wrong.

I also bring it up, so that we CAN do something about the LIES.  No duck we can or should wish to do about Clinton.

But, hell, I can't respond to someone now?

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:18AM | 0 recs

Calm down.

I didn't use the term "messiah", and I never will, even when others here do.  That's ludicrous.  I accurately used 'saint' in reference to the GOP  reverence of Reagan (not deserved).

But I do believe there is a move afoot to make Obama greater than Bill, and just as they had to destroy Hillary for Obama to become the nominee, they have to destroy  Bill's  record in order for Obama's to be greater.  That's the way I see it.  Now you may not be a part of that vague 'they' that I used, but your work in constant denigration of Bill's record is helping 'them'.  It's not 'you', it's not 'me', it's not 'anybody' in particular, it's just something I feel from the 'movement' that raised Obama so high, it is there, in the undercurrent, and some folks are willing to admit it and others are not.

Go ahead, trash him (Clinton) all you want, it'll surely get you on the 'wreck' list, there are lots of folks here who still detest the Clintons so much that you could say "Bill helped Osama Ben Laden build his fortune" and folks would clapp incessantly.

I'm done.

by emsprater 2008-07-03 06:31AM | 0 recs
thank you

in your other posts, you have come across as significantly more sane than some of your compatriots, and I'm sorry that stuff bled over into my remarks.

I brought up something in direct contrast to something on the rec list. It's the other side, and thus wasn't supposed to be a BC lovefest.

Now I'm going to write that diary on Bill Clinton and Afghanistan.

(I will note that both diaries that I responded to, made it onto the rec list, and neither of mine did. That sounds like sour grapes, doesn't it?)

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: thank you

No problem.

I am actually very surprised that yours didn't make the list.

Folks around the blogosphere don't care for the Clintons much these days, in fact, another poster just called Clinton supporters on MyDD "most toxic, most hateful, most rightwing, most racist, and generally shittiest human beings I've ever seen on a liberal blog." and they got mojo for that.

It's hard to be acknowledged as someone who supports Obama's run for the POTUS, yet still supports and admires the Clintons.  The PUMA group has made it even worse.  I tried telling one of the more prominent of them to stop, here in open commentary, and it got nowhere.  I wish folks here could separate the two.

I look forward to your diary about Bill's groundwork in Afghanistan.  If only Shrub and Condoleza had listened.

by emsprater 2008-07-03 06:46AM | 0 recs
that's the thing -- they did listen

Clark's plan was already on the books, and that's how they managed to do the surgical strike take down the Taliban phase. Clark probably didn't put the part about "diplomatic pressure" down, or they ignored it.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 06:59AM | 0 recs

give me a link to that. you think i've been caustic so far? rofl. ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: wowsa

It's in the diary now on the rec list about the National Guardian article referencing Destroying Hillary.

I'm still in shock.

by emsprater 2008-07-03 07:12AM | 0 recs
It's not PC around these parts

to yell at Clinton. I'm the girl who determinedly reminds people that Carter's presidency was good, in economic terms (i.e. he broke stagflation's back).

Try telling that to a lot of folks -- I sure as heck don't get a lot of atta-boys for that one!

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not PC around these parts

Carter was good in some ways, sabotaged by the GOP in  most.

That's my biggest fear, that Obama will be a second coming not of Clinton, but of Carter.

You have stated well and accurately that Obama has a very hard start, things are significantly worse for the next POTUS than they were when Bill took office.

by emsprater 2008-07-03 07:10AM | 0 recs
sabotaged not just by the GOP

but by Tip O'Neil. ;-) Party Unity? What is that again?

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: sabotaged not just by the GOP

Yep, you are right, but we just can't get the PUMA folks and the naysayers to see that.

by emsprater 2008-07-03 07:20AM | 0 recs
I have no problem with Bill Clinton's record.

In fact, it shows that a Democratic president is always better than a GOP one. The only problem I've ever had was when Hillary tried to claim it as her own just because she had his last name.

But that's all over with and it's time to move on and get over what a few anonymous supporters said about this, that, or the other. In that regard, it is all in people's heads.

by Beren 2008-07-03 08:17AM | 0 recs
Kos like Clinton haters?

Boy you do need an education don't you?

by Grissom1001 2008-07-02 07:31PM | 0 recs

I would be one of the first to say that some of Bill Clintons actions helped this country BUT I would NEVER attempt to paint his Presidency using all rose colored crayons...which is the mentality level you use when writing......

For some of the facts regarding his Presidency check out:

This issue of The Alantic from 1997: edelman/edelman.htm


consider some of the things he implemented that didn't work in the best interest of our country such as NAFTA; welfare reform; willingness to fight against his party; Lewinsky; Rubinomics; regulatory dismantlement of the financial markets just to name a few.
He has also been a huge expense since he left office in that his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.
The price tag for Clinton's federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H. W. Bush's and $4 million for Jimmy Carter's during the same period.
Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents -- from his pension to his staff's salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span. He likes to tell people that his office is in Harlem....but don't make the mistakes that some lacking insight into Bill Clinton usually make...his office in "Harlem" sits across the street from Central Park in one of the richest areas in NY.
The skirt chasing he has done for over 20 years is enough to boggle the mind. While some may say that many do this...many are smart enough to pick intelligent women as opposed to white trash and are smart enough to keep that aspect of their lives private while Bill utilized so many people to pick these women up and told so many people that it was hardly ever the women doing the telling but more often than not it was his bragging that sunk his battle ships.
His temper tantrums? where he has been compared to a 5 year old? Are legend.
All of the above is proven. Not some right wing nut nor a Clinton hater. Just the truth...and sadly the truth hurt Hillary's campaign as much as some of the poor decisions made during her race.
In April of this year forty one percent of registered voters told the latest Pew Research Center survey that they disliked the idea of Mr. Clinton back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue....

I probably would have let you go on with your inability to deal with reality but the Kos remark? was just too childish to pass on.

by Grissom1001 2008-07-02 07:55PM | 0 recs
seriously, take your Clinton smearing

to Das Freirepublikanische where your Clinton hating about how "The skirt chasing he has done for over 20 years is enough to boggle the mind" belongs. They'd also appreciate how you and the Kossacks blame Clinton for economic problems that didn't begin until his succesors second term. Also, perhaps his retirement allowance went up with the cost of living and adjusted for inflation. Also, he served two terms: Bush and Carter ONE term. Why don't you focus on the money the Bush admin spends on Iraq and tax cuts for the rich than our 42nd President of the United States? Also, with that pew poll, thats also 59 percent of people who didn't tell the Pew Center they disliked Bill back in the White House. Go back to the Republican party.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-02 08:37PM | 0 recs
Very well said. The only thing I'd add is that

Clinton told the people of this country exactly what he was going to do during the '92 campaign, i.e., that he would increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Or to use his exact words, "we are going to ask them to pay their fair share..." The "experts" at that time--sharpies like Bob Shrum--proclaimed that this was political suicide, given what had happened to Walter Mondale eight years earlier. Suffice it to say, it takes a talented politician to sell a program, and then to execute exactly what he/she promises.

This was one of many firsts in that campaign...e.g., no nominee had actually campaigned for the votes of gay people. Previous nominees gave us a wink and a nod; Clinton embraced us with the words, "we don't have a single person to waste". In any event, it's not exactly a "profile in courage" (sorry, Caroline) for Barack to have brought up tax increases when he was campaigning during the primary season; the Clintons already did that back in '92. Of course, he told John Harwood of CNBC two weeks ago that, "depending on circumstances, those tax increases may have to be deferred".

Depending on circumstances on the ground, troop withdrawals from Iraq may have to be delayed.

Depending on the economy, we may just leave NAFTA as it is..."my rhetoric got overheated".

Depending on the area of the country--rural vs. urban--handguns in every home may be just fine.

And FISA...and Faith-based...and all the rest of his bs.

Isn't the politics of hope just wonderful?'s Gallup: Obama 46%, McCain 44%

by BJJ Fighter 2008-07-02 09:15PM | 0 recs
Who ever disputed that?

Look, ready from day one Hillary ran a lousy campaign (in Iowa her efforts stunk up the place, she refused to take questions, was flat footed, never changed course when it was clearly not working) and only improved after she was too far down mathematically to do anything about it.

As an Edwards guy, twice, you have to give credit where its do and move on.

by IowaMike 2008-07-03 05:57AM | 0 recs
apparently pointing out

that Clinton deliberately distorted inflation (which diarist denies in the face of cited sources, some of which include noted economists), is enough to trigger such a rant.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 10:42AM | 0 recs
Troll Rating Abuse as seen on this thread

has been reported to the management.

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: How Bill Clinton's Truths

Random thoughts:

Why do people write "the fact that...." preceding what clearly is an opinion without any sort of references or backup material? Declaring your opinion fact doesn't make it any less of an opinion. And what relevance does Bill Clinton have anymore? Seems to me that presidents get too much credit when things go right with the economy and too much blame when they go wrong. I will never respect the man. He fucked an intern with a cigar in the White House when he was married, then lied about it. No matter what else he did, he's a poor excuse for a human being and a man. I guess I just can't separate the quality of the man from the quality of his political skills.

by bigdaddy 2008-07-03 11:14AM | 0 recs
He was cleaner than anyone

who held th3e office of President, bar none.

And he allowed freedom of information and accountability.

contrast this with bush, and you might understand why Lakrosse wants to troll-rate you (abusively, i might add)

by RisingTide 2008-07-03 11:45AM | 0 recs
Like Hillary &quot;murdering&quot; Vince Foster

Accusations that Bill Clinton's presidency was bad for the economy is the same fodder for right wing zealots.  

Any Democrat who repeats these talking points should be ashamed.

by Betsy McCall 2008-07-03 12:26PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads