MyDD :: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive

Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive

by aiko, Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:13:56 PM EST

It finally hit me why I have a visceral reaction to the thought of the Clintons back in the White House. I am still, to this day, offended by the things he did in the White House. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for president. There I said it. Sorry but I think most of you were too young to remember...or maybe just too young to care. I will not have anything to do with the Clintons returning to the White House. If I have to resign from this blog I will. I will not be voting for Hillary in 2008.

Many a good democrat, like myself, defended Bill Clinton for years and years against the 'right wing slash and slime machine. Republicans hated him and unfortunately he kept doing dumb things, giving them more and more ammunition. So we just kept up defending him through thick and thin. It was practically a way of life.

The cigar and the intern was over the top--unbelievable--stunning. But even then, most of us stuck by him, and defended him all through impeachment and beyond.

As I remember it, most of us didn't agree with Gore distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 election because we knew that Gore's chances were better with Bill at his side. And we were right.

But just because we recognized Bill's charisma and political charm didn't mean that we also didn't understand that Al Gore had a daughter the same age as Monica and that Al and Tipper were deeply offended and disgusted by Bill's sexual dysfunction. As was I.

And just because his favorables were high, didn't mean we were feeling good about ourselves, our country or our president.

I can't go back there. It was a bad time--praying that the intern would lie to a grand jury so as not to bring down a president or permanently damage the dem party. I can't go back there. If..., and I think he probably will, if Bill has another episode of infidelity, I won't be one of those people who has to defend Hillary and Chelsey because --well, I won't have voted for her.

Instead I will be able to say: I told you so.

Mark my words. If they do it, the democratic party will regret nominating Hillary Clinton as president.

Tags: obama, clinton, 2008, edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 29 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (2.00 / 2)

Hey its your vote do whatever you like with it.

There are millions of us ( real democrats , not your type of democrat) that would fight for whoever our nominee.

I would suggest therapy because you are clearly still dealing with some unresolved issues.

As for me I am looking for someone that would turn the country out of the rut we are in and either of the 3 dems would be fine.

When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line

by lori on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:23:50 PM EST

good call (none / 0)

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What are your thoughts on JFK? (none / 0)

How many chicks he tag as President?

20? 50? 100? 200?

We know Bill got a bj in the White House from a girl named Monica but did he ever get one in the back of a limo?

Does any of this bs really matter.

Hillary, I can guarantee you NEVER got a bj.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:25:32 PM EST

Re: What are your thoughts on JFK? (none / 0)

i would hope not.. that might endanger the female vote, but she'd def pick up the rest of the LGBT vote (candice cayne!)

Rise, Hillary, Rise

by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (2.00 / 2)

A lot of folks who felt they had to make a "statement" with their 2000 vote owe an apology to an awful lot of dead people in Iraq.

Anyone who follows politics closely enough to understand the damage this country would suffer from another Republican regime has no business failing to oppose that prospect with every fiber of their being.

The state of the economy is only getting worse. There are people out there in the streets, there are people struggling to feed their family, there are mothers trying to clothe their children. None of these people are concerned in the slightest about sex scandals. They can't afford to be.

This election is not about you.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:25:42 PM EST

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

John Edwards owes an apology to a lot of dead people in Iraq. But an apology doesn't bring them back.

by Piuma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

Are you disagreeing with me, or just taking a cheap shot?

There is no excuse for anyone who understands politics to fail to work to elect the Democratic nominee in 2008. None.

If you want to disagree with that, at least have the balls to take it head-on.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

I think it's way across the line to try to blame someone who decides to vote his conscience as being responsible for "deaths in Iraq". Way over the line. When Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as VP I was disgusted. No one owes the Democratic Party their vote if they move to a direction that is antithetical to what that person believes. That doesn't make them responsible for what occurs afterwards. The people who voted for and promoted this war are the ones responsible.

by Piuma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

We, the people, have the sovereignty in this country. That has been established since 1776.

It makes a real difference if Republicans or Democrats get to run the country. It makes a real difference for a lot of people who don't have the luxury of caring whether someone picked a sanctimonious running mate or someone's husband had a sex scandal 10 years ago.

Perhaps you have a sort of point in that in 2000, many people failed to realize the horrible consequences of allowing the wrong party to run the country. But after having the benefit of eight years to absorb that lesson, there is absolutely no excuse for making the same mistake in the name of "voting your conscience."

I'm always saying that Obama needs to do more explaining to his supporters that there are very, very important differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. Apparently I was more right than I knew.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

No, what you said was people who decided to vote 3rd party as a statement of anger to their party are responsible for deaths in Iraq. That remark is disgusting.

by Piuma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

"Making a statement" has real consequences for real people. If you didn't know that then, you have no excuse for not knowing it now.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

Nader is morally culpable, he knew as well as most Democrats that a Bush administration meant war. He thought a Bush disaster would get people to overthrow the two-party system.

The people who voted for Nader and did not know what he was up to are too stupid to be morally culpable.

by souvarine on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:46:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

I'm going to agree with both you and Piuma to an extent. First, I'm with you in that voting has material consequences and that participation shouldn't be taken too lightly. Thus, even though I have very little love for the Clintons, I will vote for Hillary should she win the nomination.

However, your original comment that Nader voters (or "statement" voters) "owe an apology to a lot of dead people in Iraq" was over-the-top and stupid. First, most of the tragic foreign policy decisions under Bush's watch weren't exactly foreseeable. Also, these same voters may have actually taken to the streets in protest in 2002 when the march to war began. Meanwhile, many folks who voted for Gore either supported the war or said nothing. Indeed, I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in 2000 (not a protest vote, since I was very much a libertarian at the time) and actively opposed the war while more than half of my yellow-dog friends were firm supporters of the Iraq invasion.

The relationship between a vote and the specific political consequences of that vote are often not foreseeable enough to attribute meaningful moral responsibility. There are exceptions when the candidate makes a promise to X or Y (appointment of originalist judges, for example), but often it's not so clear. To be sure, Bush ran on a platform of humble foreign policy, and no one foresaw 9/11. On the other hand, Edwards and Clinton voted to authorize the war--with Edwards co-sponsoring the effort--yet, those are your two favorite candidates in the race.

by DPW on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

As I said to Piuma, even if the link between cause and effect was unclear to some voters in 2000, there's certainly no excuse for failing to grasp it at this point.

Voting one's sincerely held policy beliefs, as you did, is far different from casting a "protest vote" because you didn't like the style of someone campaign or you didn't like the sex scandal her husband was involved in 10 years previously. We're all in a position to understand the consequences of our vote, and we should take that responsibility seriously because other people will be suffering the consequences much moreso than you and I will.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:24:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

I agree that the stakes are far more obvious in 2008. All likely republican nominees will doubtless cause further damage to the Sup. Ct. and continue a miserable foreign policy. And, although I worry about Hillary's foreign policy, I do believe it will be better than any republican's policy (and I have a lot of confidence in her Sup. Ct. nominations, as well as her domestic agenda).

by DPW on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

And yet you don't apply that responsibility to your candidate who actually trumpeted the War, joined in the lies to march us to war, and agreed to the War. The consequences of his vote is to award him the Presidency and then you turn around and say people who voted for Nader owe dead soldiers an apology?

by Piuma on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

Of course my candidate bears responsibility for the war. Why on Earth would you assume I think otherwise?

Frankly, if this diary said something like, "I can never vote for Hillary because she supported the war," I'd at least understand the sentiment. I still think the relevant fact is that John McCain is far more likely to get us into the next war than any Democrat, but I'd understand.

However, the argument of this diary is that "I can never vote for Hillary because her husband was a sleaze 10 years ago." That just shows an inexcusably unserious attitude towards the outcome of this election. Once again, these votes we cast have consequences for real people, they are not just there so we have a way to vent our personal hangups.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this election is not about your (2.00 / 2)

feeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:25:45 PM EST

scummiest diary in days (2.00 / 2)

congrats!

we'll just have to struggle on without you.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST

Next she will tell us Clintons murdered 82 people (none / 0)

... two with the favored weapon of Boris and Natasha, a train.

By the way, the wingnuts never explained the theory. They say they shot Ron Brown in the back of the head and then crashed the plane he was on, killing all aboard to cover it up.

If they were going to crash the plane why did they have to shoot Ron in the head first?

They claim Hillary had an affair with Vince Foster and had him murdered to cover it up. Then they claim she has never had sex with a man and is a lesbian.

Aiko, and the rest of the Obamamaniac logic is about as consistant. What a bunch of speds.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just as Bad (none / 0)

Suggesting that any of that came from anybody seriously associated with Obama is just as bad.

by converse on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (2.00 / 1)

His behavior is offensive.....pretty simple concept.

by aiko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:43:41 PM EST

with democrats like you (1.00 / 1)

what do we need republicans for?

It's all about Aiko, the right wing troll.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary haters think their feelings matter most (none / 0)

What's best for the democratic party or the future of the country or the 47 million poor devils without health insurance are totally unimportant. Just so these folks don't have to concern themselves with what goes on in people's private lives. Talk about massive and self indulgent narcissism.

by ottovbvs on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:46:19 PM EST

finally hit me? (none / 0)

You post this diary every six months. It was old the first time. We get it, you're another 'long time Democrat' who hates Democrats.

by souvarine on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM EST

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (2.00 / 1)

Let me very clear here. I am going to be as clear as clear can be.

I do not care if Bill Clinton routinely fucks 3 women, 4 men, two donkeys, and 12 midgets while wearing a wetsuit and riding a unicycle.

Most of America does not care anymore either. In hindsight, most of America realizes how flat-out stupid that witchhunt was, and how trivial a cigar and a blowjob really were in comparison to how GWB has forcibly raped everything this country ever posessed or stood for. They sort of wish now they had snickered and laughed it off, left it between he and his wife, the way Europe routinely does.

So good luck with your concern trolling. Most of America knows we are in deep shit, and have moved far far beyond obsessing over WJC's dick.

I feel sorry for you that you and Tweety haven't. But the voting public has.

by WMCB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:55:32 PM EST

its not just about sex (none / 0)

He lied and lied and lied. And then he lied some more.

Lying is offensive.

by aiko on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:43:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (1.50 / 2)

Aiko its really not worth arguing with these clowns.

Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.

by crackityjones on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:17:27 AM EST

Re: Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive (none / 0)

Its ok. I have all but stopped posting here but thought that I would go on the record about this decision. I can't be guilted into a vote for the Clintons. It ain't gonna happen. I have voted dem since Jimmy Carter in 1976 and now its time for a break. I think, but haven't decided for sure, that if she is nominated, I will re-register as an independent.

I really need to distance my self from the Clintons. I need to absolve myself of any responsibility for what will come. Remember it wasn't so long ago that Carville tried to oust Dean as DNC chair for Ford. That is just the tip of the iceberg....its going to be about sex, power, control, us vs. them, media gotcha, etc.

Not gonna go there. Not this time.

by aiko on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.