<p>Co-sign to Hindoo.</p>
<p>I’ve always liked that brilliant rascal. But enough is enough.</p>
<p>That’s OK. Push the Clintons and Clinton supporters out of the New Democratic Party. We’ll vote for McCain and donate to the Clinton Global Initiative.</p>
<p>You don’t get it, do you? You are seeing the demonization of Bill Clinton by the New Democratic Party and the media. Obama’s strategists said they were going to destroy him and, of course, the media is a willing partner. You are throwing away the best resource the Democratic Party has – its only two-term president since FDR in favor of losers like Jimmy Carter and John Kerry.</p>
<p>This is the same Vanity Fair that ran Mrs. Timmy Russert’s article decrying the loss of the finger bowl at Georgetown dinner parties and vilifying Hillary Clinton because she didn’t entertain the Georgetown social club enough, prefering instead to entertain policy experts.</p>
<p>“You are seeing the demonization of Bill Clinton by the New Democratic Party and the media.”</p>
<p>I feel exactly the same way about Bill today that I felt prior to the publication of this article, and pretty much the same way I’ve felt since the impeachment.</p>
<p>Phenomenal guy, one of the leading lights of his generation, but his inability to keep it in his pants led directly (and predictably) to the election of W. For this I can never really forgive him, although I’ll probably always like him.</p>
<p>What does any of that have to do with media demonization?</p>
<p>Hindoo
I wholeheartedly agree with your post #36. </p>
<p>I did not see “demonization” in the article. There was acknowledgement of Bill’s accomplishments alongside his escapades and some other questionable activities.</p>
<p>ID, why resort to accusations of “media demonization”?</p>
<p>Agree with much of the good expressed here about BC (brilliant, charismatic, great president), but his pathological cheating and self-deception has tainted her campaign and reminds everyone about the embarrassment he caused. Bad association. I guess for some, such as yourself, he can be forgiven everything and anything, but for many, such as myself, we’ve had enough of him. And I don’t/didn’t need Vanity Fair to tell him how I feel about him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clinton didn’t lose to George Bush. A bad candidate (Gore) and inept political strategists (Donna Brazille) did. </p>
<p>Gore tried to distance himself from the Democratic administration’s peace and prosperity.</p>
<p>“Gore tried to distance himself”</p>
<p>Right. Because along with peace and prosperity, BC brought scandal that tainted everyone around him and distracted the country from the real issues of governance. It was ridiculous that the scandal took on the proportions it did, but it was also totally foreseeable that it would. If Gore had been able to campaign with BC at his side, there would have been no stopping him. But because BC couldn’t keep it in his pants, Gore had to stump on his own, and lost in a squeaker.</p>
<p>Gore should have scolded him and then run with him because he is brilliant. One of Bill’s greatest speeches ever was at the 2000 convention at 11:15pm when most of Florida and the Eastern time zone had gone to bed. </p>
<p>“It’s not what you pay in taxes, it’s what you take home!”. </p>
<p>What a waste! I’d love to pay millions in taxes!</p>
<p>I would still rather have Bill Clinton in the White House than anyone else! Why is competence, prosperity and fiscal prudence so underrated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That won’t be a problem this year. I can’t imagine the New Democratic Party will even invite Bill Clinton to speak. After all, according to Obama’s campaign manager, “he’s a racist just like Lee Atwater”.</p>
<p>The New Democratic Party will highlight Jimmy Carter and John Kerry.</p>
<p>Am I the only one here who believes Vanity Fair has its fair share of well-researched, intellectual stories (along with all the superficial advertising, etc.). I find many of their stories very enlightening… not the fluff stuff of other magazines marketed toward women.</p>
<p>^ Why do you capitalize the word “new” ? Is this like a “new” denomination that only you have identified for the Democratic party? Hillary has said that she will stand behind Obama when he wins the nomination for the Democratic party. Many of her long time ardent Democratic supporters are now supporting him. </p>
<p>I guess this “new” party of which you speak may have more support than you may think.</p>
<p>I don’t think the article demonized Clinton but I do find it slightly negative. For eg. it didn’t put BC’s actions in context of other former presidents . It only said Bush & Carter did not cost taxpayers as much as Clinton, but I don’t know if they also raised as much as BC for charity. I remember Reagan received an enormous sum of money for speaking in Japan way back then, he might have continued in that fashion if he was in good health. </p>
<p>IMO Bill Clinton governed well, despite his numerous failings. There is no hint that GB ran around on Laura - his family relationships look great but I think most people will agree GW is not a good president. Not making excuses for BC’s behavior, he is not someone I would never be invited to my home (if the opportunity presents itself) because I do not respect him. But I still think he did a good job as president.</p>
<p>Sometimes mass murderers govern well. Other times they don’t.</p>
<p>I wish he’d spent more time with Monica.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what Donna Brazille called it when she said the New Democratic Party didn’t need working white voters anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ll see in November.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me four. </p>
<p>I do believe that Hillary is more of a Hawk than most people believe, though—she might even be more hawkish than McCain, actually.</p>
<p>"Every dime of new spending must be paid for. That’s how her husband balanced the federal budge</p>
<p>Not true.</p>
<p>Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained /some/spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
[FactCheck.org:</a> During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html)</p>
<p>
I completely agree with this and moreover I think it completely cuts to the issue that bedevils Barack: are you “American” enough (variations of which have been, at different points in the campaign: “are you black enough” and are you “working-class white” enough).</p>
<p>It may be that many Democrats would not vote for Barack because he is not white; but I tend to believe that in the end they would have voted for him–if they believed that he was less an internationalist and more an American guy in his bearing. I think this is where a lot of the so-called “elitism” charges stick. Also the flotsam and jetsam of flag pins and American flags that gave him a bad rap. </p>
<p>To many, I think Barack stood for ‘a better world’ whereas Hillary, in the minds of many, stands for ‘a better America.’ Rightly or wrongly.</p>
<p>Non-intellectuals and working-class types relate to one more than the other. I also believe this is why Barack did not in the beginning have, as one might have expected, the Black vote that he now completely owns. Outside of Chicago I don’t think he connected with the black community. </p>
<p>In any case, Barack, at the very least, is clearly a proud intellectual. Most Americans are not --even if they regard themselves as smart. Hillary is often referred to as “smart” and “tough” but rarely as “brilliant” or an “intellectual” as is Barack. Editor of the Harvard Law review et al.</p>
<p>Kerry, Bush and McCain were all slackers at their alma matters (JFK was no great shakes either, as I recall. Sure, he surrounded himself with intellectuals, but he himself was not the intellectual-in-chief…plus, he had a tough guy in Bobby).</p>
<p>Thus Barack endured all the “is he black enough” kvetching early on. For that matter, he was probably not “white-guy" enough for many working class Americans. One might as well have said: “I want a smart American not a Harvard law review genius…I don’t care what color he is.” As time went by you heard him dropping the ‘g’ on words like “beginning” and something became ‘somthin.’ Good move.</p>
<p>It should be noted that the Democratic presidential candidate that was closely associated with the Clinton administration didn’t win the General election eight years ago.</p>
<p>It may be that the Democratic party has changed. Change can be a good thing. Until the “old” Clintonian (et al) Democrats agree that change is in the best interest of the party, the “old” Democrats may indeed divide the party enough to make a November election a very difficult task for anyone in the Democratic party.</p>
<p>Gore rejected the entire Clinton administration of peace and prosperity when he ran. He fired all the pollsters who told him that the Clinton centrist policies were enormously popular. He went with Donna Brazille’s advice and threw away a sure-bet election win for the Democrats.</p>
<p>Sound familiar?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You got your guy. If he and the New Democratic Party lose the election in November, blame him and the party pooh-bahs. Has nothing to do with the Clintons.</p>