Is the right right on the Clintons? »
Posted By zaph22 8 months, 1 week ago in NewsBut the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 122
-
0%
zaph228 months, 1 week ago
"Jonathan Chait, a contributing editor to Opinion and a senior editor at the New Republic, is the author of "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics.""
This guy was liberal enough to work at the New Republic, and he's writing an article blasting the Clintons like this? If many more on the left agree with him Hillary is going to have a huge problem even making it through the primaries, much less getting the nomination. I think the paln Bill and HIllary came up with is back-firing, big time. I mean if it has even one lib asking if maybe the right had been right about the Clintons all along...
Reply-
-
0%
AnteUp8 months, 1 week ago
BoBo in Texas ~
"Isn't it great..........?" Well, the fact that the "Left" -
as you say - has discovered and embraced realism IS a good
thing. However,many of us never endorsed him 100%, nor
did we trash him 100%. We made rational decisions based on
those issues he supported that we felt were important.
I hated NAFTA - because it was bad for the USA AND for
Mexicans - but on other issues I felt he was on the right
track.
Now, all that said - when does the Right step up and
disclose their acceptance of realism?
Reply -
0%
NelsonR8 months, 1 week ago
BoBo, true but what candidates are marvelous on the Republican side, None. Even Republicans are having a difficult time sorting out the mess and they will probably end up with that old man, with archaic thoughts, without any change in his makeup, McCain the man who will allow all illegals the right of citizenship plus keeping the Iraq war alive. I don't know about you but America is broke and is mimicking the Roman Empire, very speedily I might add.
The Roman emperors in that downfall were Republican.
Reply -
0%
tchef8 months, 1 week ago
I have never liked Hillary and Bill. After what he did with Monica and she stayed with him and is all lovey dovey now really how many of us wouldn't have left him after suffering that kind of embarrassment in front of the whole world. They are phony, always have been, always will be. If she gets the nomination I'll seriously have to consider my voting options and I really don't want 4 more years with a Republican.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
cherev8 months, 1 week ago
Which Hillary will not allow them to do. This "woman" controls the party.
Obama is taking a huge risk by running opposite her. Forget about the racists who don't think the country is ready for an African-American to be president, what would happen if, G-D forbid, he were assassinated? The backlash would be devistating and sure to catapult Hillary into the White House. If, G-D forbid, anything happens to him to take him out of the race against his will, look for Hillary's fingerprints.
Reply-
0%
AnteUp8 months, 1 week ago
cherev ~
Hah! Of ALL the candidates of both parties Obama looks
as though he may be the ONLY one who might dare to take
a second look at the influence of the Israel lobbies.
Shall we say - ALL of the other candidates have made it
pretty clear that they will not be interested in reviewing
that situation. I WISH, I had something concrete to base my
hope that Obama would consider that issue - but I don't.
I just hope. Should he ever consider it? You can then look
for AIPAC's fingerprints. In which case, we'd better be
very alert as to the Vice Presidential choices of both
parties.
Reply -
0%
jordan118 months, 1 week ago
If, G-D forbid, anything happens to him to take him out of the race against his will, look for Hillary's fingerprints.>>>>
Nope, I'd be looking for the 'fingerprints' of CONS, who could kill two birds with one stone if anything untoward happened to Obama. They have no one of substance to keep their power, & they're desperate.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest8 months, 1 week ago
The Democrats don't believe the right was right. What they believe is that Hillary is unelectable, and they want more then anything to take back the W H
"more then anything to take back the W H"?
More than, say, what's good for the Country in the long run?
This explains a LOT.
Reply
-
-
0%
ETproductions8 months, 1 week ago
Our trade deficit is unsustainable. We've run up nearly 10 trillion dollars in debt. Every year more good jobs go offshore. One out of 5 Americans have no health care and another large percentage have insurance that will be canceled the moment they need it. The wealth gap between the top 1% and the other 99% has been widening now since Reagan introduced "trickle down" economics. Global warming and dwindling energy threaten our way of life. Out nation's infrastructure is crumbling.
America today faces enormous challenges -- and that speaks to a crisis in leadership. In his State of the Union speech, Bush didn't call on Americans to do anything. All the fixes would come from the same Washington that created this mess. He relied on the same old politics of division.
We need a leader who can reach across party, age & ethnic lines and inspire us to fix this mess. Hillary's campaign has demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that she is NOT that leader.
Reply-
HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
AntiNeoCon8 months, 1 week ago
When the NeoCons can't justify Bush and his failed policies, they resort to name calling...same ole crap. They don't have a single candidate as good as Hillary and they know it. I would prefer someone else but after Bush I doubt if I will vote for ANY republicans in 08. After all the NeoCons deserve to be punished for putting Bush in the Whitehouse...so lets give em Hillary since they detest her so much.
Reply-
0%
ramblingwreck8 months, 1 week ago
You might try reading the article and paying attention to the antics of the Clinton's during the primaries. The article is written by a self-professed liberal and the rampant name calling/dirt is coming from the Clinton camp.
BTW, you do realize that the article under discussion is about the Clinton's and not conservatives don't you?
Reply
-
-
0%
injest8 months, 1 week ago
One out of 5 Americans have no health care and another large percentage have insurance that will be canceled the moment they need it.
1 out of 5?
300,000,000 People 1 out of 5 would be 60 million. Do you have a source for that number? Does that number also include 12 to 20 million illegals?
How many of the 1 in 5 are children on their parents plans?
How many of that 1 in 5 COULD pay for their own insurance but choose not to? (usually the 18 to 30 crowd)
"that will be canceled the moment they need it"
Is that a clause in their plan? If not explain please.
"Global warming and dwindling energy threaten our way of life"
If you believe in man made global warming then this IS the fix.
Dwindling energy equals less CO2 and that means less global warming.
And Yes that will threaten our way of life.
Isn't that what you want?
Reply-
0%
ETproductions8 months, 1 week ago
Let me answer your last taunt first. No, I do NOT want to threaten our way of life. I want to sustain it.
47 million Americans are uninsured. That's near enough to 1 in 5 for me. http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-printable.c...
About 16 million more are underinsured, meaning they have insurance that won't adequately cover them against a catastrophic illness. It is difficult to judge just how many die because some HOM or Insurance Company decides it's cheaper to let them go than pay for their care. We all know it happens.
Under Bush, the uninsured have surged by 6 million. This drives up premiums for companies like mine, who do provide insurance for their employees. You may not know this, but the cost of emergency room care for the uninsured is largely borne by the insured. As their numbers grow, premiums soar. We are on a train headed for a bridge that is washed out. And your only answer is full speed ahead.
Reply -
0%
ETproductions8 months, 1 week ago
Now, about global warming. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapt...
Given the best science available, we are approaching a point where continuing to spew 7 billion metric tons of man-made CO2 into the atmosphere each year will raise the earth's temperature enough that the frozen tundras begin to melt. They hold in their icy core billions of tons of methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more devastating than CO2. They also hold nitrous oxide, which is 310 times as deadly in its greenhouse effect.
If we reach the point where the tundra starts to melt (the top layers already are) then we are past the point of no return. We will have altered the planet in a way we have no understanding of, because it has never happened before.
We need jobs in America. We have people who could insulate buildings and swap to efficient lighting. No rocket science here. And we have great researchers to look past that. It's time for a space-shot effort.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
aniokly8 months, 1 week ago
Democrats have no leaders that can reach across party lines. Barak Hussein Obama may appeal to Democrats, but he does not appeal to Americans that are looking for adult leadership. He is a liberal, he has no experience, and you are about to see him dragged through the mud at Anton Rezko's trial next month. Then he is not that idealistic young man. He is just another corrupt Chicago politician.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions8 months, 1 week ago
He actually pulled a sizable share of votes from both independents and registered Republicans in all the open primary states he has run in. Of course, he's not going to appeal to someone who thinks liberal is a derogatory label. Look it up. Its meaning is actually quite positive.
Likewise, he's not going to appeal to someone who thinks the best barometer of a candidate's ability to lead the nation in the right direction is his middle name.
Reply-
0%
Klarissa8 months, 1 week ago
How it appears to me, is that there are a lot of people who don't like any of the candidates.
They would rather vote for unknown lawyer Obama, with no record of support for most of the legislation in the last few years, than for someone whom they know.
He seems to be the only candidate who has not been examined by the media for what would drive his decisions, what does he want to accomplish in Iraq, illegal aliens, the economy, and Iran (except attack them).
Pretty sad for us that an unknown with a lot of "feel good" statements is the most appealing candidate.
Reply
-
-
0%
bubba28 months, 1 week ago
Oh, like none of the Republicans are corrupt ... "cough, cough ..."
ANYONE had MORE experience than George W Bush. He was a governor for 4 years and a FAILED corporate exec before that, and a 2-year AWOL from duty 'soldier'.
No Republican can try to criticize the experience - or lack thereof - of anyone after putting a twit like W in the white house.
Reply-
0%
Searchbeam8 months, 1 week ago
I don't know when ani is going to grow up!
She probably doesn't know how to do research and look for information. Such intellectual laziness is very common among NeoCon and NeoFascist sympathizers. If only she knew how to do Google search, she may be surprised to find out that Barak Obama won most of the white votes in Iowa caucuses!
Her argument seems like something out of Limpbag's screaming points!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
EsaEngr8 months, 1 week ago
I do not think that Hillary is electable, and if she does win...god help us all!
Obabma does not have the experience that I feel is necessary, but he is a great speaker.
None of the (leading)Republicans are the perfect fit either. So, sadly, it appears that it is going to be another voting cycle of choosing the least of 2 evils.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions8 months, 1 week ago
When a crisis in long term leadership is the problem, the ability to speak IS a requisite to turn the nation back onto the right course. We are on the wrong track, and have been for a long time now. We need someone who can tell us that and call us to action to correct our course.
I haven't seen his match of this man as a speaker who can inspire since Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.
Reply-
0%
NoSpinDave8 months, 1 week ago
OBama is a wolf in Sheeps clothing..trust me. Have you seen the militants in the background of his campaign?
You people are beeing caught by a slick talking, sham. Good luck with that.
Let me ask you...
Does it not BOTHER you that he REFUSES to get specific on ANY subject? Its scarry.
What do they say about if its too good to be true?
Reply -
0%
Mdiar8 months, 1 week ago
I've always assumed his not answering questions and his voting record are politically calculated. Calculated for his being President as opposed to his run for the White House. If it was calculated for his run, he'd take a stand at times so that record can't be questioned. His lack of question answering, in a direct manner, and his record to me, shows he is going to great lengths to make it so when he is President (if ever) that he can act in a nonpartisan way. He won't have enemies and he won't have allies in Congress is his plan, I think. If thats why he's doing it then I applaud him for it. We need a bipartisan President badly right now.
Reply
-
0%
AnteUp8 months, 1 week ago
EsaEngr ~
Few of the candidates are going to enter the Oval Office
100% ready-willing and able to perform the duties of the
Presidency. However, what distinguishes a truly great
president - are the advisors they bring into the
administration and Cabinet members they appoint - even
the selection of White House staff is critical to how well
even the best President can function.
So, something else to consider is - what type of team
will our candidate bring with them to resolve our problems?
They have GOT to be ready to offer US the BEST - not
political paybacks to keep the Party happy!
Reply -
0%
rumple4skin8 months, 1 week ago
"Obabma does not have the experience that I feel is necessary, but he is a great speaker."
I'm not taking a shot at your comment but ... what experience are you looking for?? Beltway experience? The nation is gagging on this type of 'experience'. Time to regurgitate and get a breath of outside experience. He has as much as Kennedy (JFK) excepting military and as much as your president had before leaving Texas. This man is on track to be President of a United States.
Reply -
-
0%
AnteUp8 months, 1 week ago
simonsez ~
Reeeeealy? I have not heard that one but I do think
that would be a bit unseemly. Former Presidents are
supposed to become involved in amassing great personal
wealth - or, better, dedicate themselves to humanitarian
causes. That would be suitable and IMO, there's always a shortage of humanitarians.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
4cprocess8 months, 1 week ago
I tend to agree with you Esa. He is a great speaker but so was Lincoln. We all know where that got him. I believe his greatest fault was to align himself with the Kennedy's. Look what happened to Kerry. He is letting the left suck him in at a time when he really needs to stay more to the center. This shows his lack of political prowess and inexperience.
I'm leaning towards Romney. At least I know he has the financial and fiscal intelligence to steer the country out of the red abyss we have been languishing in.
God Bless America
Reply-
0%
Wolfie20078 months, 1 week ago
The problem with Obama isn't that he is letting the left suck him in, it's that he embodies everything the left holds dear. He has promised that the first thing he will do if elected President is destroy an American industry, health care. You make think your health care is bad now and costs too much, wait until you get "free universal health care". I don't think I can afford free health care. Obama is nothing but a socialist which is a kinder way of saying communist.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar8 months, 1 week ago
I'd think if any nation on the planet is actually wealthy enough for a proper socialized medicine system, its us. In about two decades though, when we are out of debt and have a tidy surplus to play around with, we could give it a go. Not before then. Keep a private health care sector around as well and make the socialized form voluntary, and if you are on the socialized form you pay a higher tax then those who are on the private form. I'm not sure how that would work out, and your correct that communism is a form of socialism.
Reply
-
0%
Nothing_Tangible8 months, 1 week ago
So far, two Kennedys support Obama while, three Kennedys support Hiliary. Personally, I would find ANY approval of a drunk with a very spotted past to be negative. Why Obama would even WANT the approval of Ted Kennedy is beyond me!
Reply
-
-
0%
Bkumm8 months, 1 week ago
We're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a pointless debate. As long as the Republicans and Democrats remain virtually evenly split in Congress the Presidency doesn't really mean all that much.
Senator Clinton (who I do not support) would be unable to accomplish any of her goals as President without Congress. Same for Gov. Romney.
We forget about this a lot of times, but it needs more attention, especially now that the Parties are pretty evenly split in Congress.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions8 months, 1 week ago
That's a good point. But reading the tea leaves in early primaries, as much as the rigid right may hate it, the disaster the Bush Administration has been has the voters riled up in a way I have never seen in my long lifetime. Turnout is WAY up. Young people are voting in record numbers. And in both Iowa and South Carolina, states thought to be solidly red, the Democratic primary drew far greater numbers than did the Republican.
There are 33 Senate seats in play in 2008 and the Republicans currently hold 21 of them. The potential is building for a sea change in the political landscape. The last thing we need in 08 is a Senate and House dominated by Democrats and a Republican in the White House.
If Hillary runs against McCain, current polls suggest that is just what we'll get.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm8 months, 1 week ago
I'm also seeing that to some extent, but the turnout of the Democrats will largely depend on the nominee. So, if we (Democrats) choose the wrong nominee we could hurt ourselves in our attempt to build a bulletproof majority in Congress.
Senator Clinton is too divisive. She may very well win the nomination and the election, but I'm not sure she'll be able to govern effectively. There is a LOT of hate out there for the Clintons.
Reply -
0%
Mdiar8 months, 1 week ago
I really hate to point this out but Congress has a very low approval rating as well. As the majority of seats in play in 2008 are GOP your statement is valid, but I think if your expecting to see a large amount of Republicans replaced by Democrats and have none of the Democrats be touched you'll be disappointed I think. I see a change coming in America today and it does not reflect pro-Democrat, anti-GOP. It reflects that the people are sick of both parties. Bush vetoes stuff and the people understand this. They aren't idiots. They still are fed up with Congress as it is. I think we'll see a third party come into being in the near future or the GOP/Democrats adapt to reflect the fact that Americans are fed up with both. Obama, campaigning how he is, reflects this. He may not win in 2008 but I could see him as President in 2012 or 2016 very easily.
Reply
-
-
HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
stephen-johnson8 months, 1 week ago
Freedom of speech is a two-way street. "Protestors" who deliberately try to drown out what someone else is saying don't believe in fre
-
-
