Hillary’s big mistake
I think Sen. Hillary Clinton just made a big mistake. She wants her husband to campaign for her.
Does she think that the public has forgotten that her husband was impeached for lying about his affair with that young girl? He lied about it. It was proved that he lied. He dirtied the Oval Office forever.
President Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted and served out his term.
When this happened, a lot of Democrats became Republicans. This is why President Bush was elected. I want to thank President Clinton for that.
Fred L. Eblen, Centennial
Are you talking about that president that left us with the huge surplus? The one that george w bush immediately turned into the largest deficit in history?
Are you talking about the guy that pals around with george w bush's father?
Hey, I think that sheis brilliant to have his help.!
Tommy Ellis
wow I can't believe that anyone would think a clinton belongs in the white house again, that is if youre not a socalist.
oh tommy you forgot to mention about the tax cuts for the rich and the blah blah blah. did you know that tax revenues are up? its because of the rate reduction and not a cut.
those will go away along with corporate profits to fund billarys government.
Slick Willie back in the House? Yeah Baby! What a great opportunity to relive the best moments in Political Humor! Bill was without a doubt, the most entertaining President this country has ever had. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" HA HA! What a scream!!! Late night TV hasn't been the same since. Bring back Bill! Bring back Bill!
Posted by Harry on May 10, 2007 05:36 AMAh, yes, those bygone days of peace and prosperity under Clinton. Thank heavens George Bush rescued us from that long national nightmare.
Posted by Docjay on May 10, 2007 08:21 AMIt was the republican congress that gave us the good economy.First of all if there was such a surplus why was our S.S. raided.Plus where did you think all corporate scandels came from,they saw billy bob cooking the books why couldn't they cook the books..And the deficit happened because of clintons incompetence of not dealing with Al Qaeda for 8 yrs.Check the facts down believe what you want to believe.
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 08:31 AMThat is funny Keith.. You are the guy that believes that Mr Clinton caused the events of 9/11.. You are not credible Keith. What a joke !
Posted by Repugnants on May 10, 2007 08:44 AMI can't believe that people think that lying about oral sex is worse thant illegally invading a sovereign nation using faked information. How many American military personnel have to die before you realize that our current president is no better than the dictator he had to remove from Iraq?
Posted by rick on May 10, 2007 08:54 AMrick,the information used by Bush was compiled by the clinton adm.In 98 and 99 I saw on live tv clinton,kerry,kennedy,biden and other dems.saying that saddam already has or they know he is trying to get W.M.D.'S.That saddam is a grave threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world.This is all on video tape.So how is it Bush lied but the dems. didn't.What clinton did that was impeachable was allowed Bin Laden to run free after killing Americans all through the 90's while Bin Laden said he planed more killing.Allowing Bin Laden to set up cells in 60 countries including the U.S..Allowing the U.N.scandels and corporate.By selling military secrets to the Chinese.Using Americans tax payers money to finance N.Korea's nuclear program.There is so many more.
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 09:11 AM"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
And let's not forget that other memorable statement: "Combat operations are over". Oops, that wasn't Clinton, was it?
Interesting comparison though. Has anyone researched how many people died or were injured, or how much money we spent, after Clinton's remark?
Posted by Truth on May 10, 2007 09:17 AMGore's big mistake was distancing himself from Clinton in 2000. Had he let Clinton stump for him, Gore's victory would have been too wide for Bush to claim it for himself. Fred probably knows that Bill would be a huge asset, and therefore is desperately trying to forestall that.
Posted by Liam on May 10, 2007 09:18 AMRight. You just go on believing this. And creation is real, science lies about everything, corporations never screw over their employees, and the world is flat.
Posted by rick on May 10, 2007 09:21 AMkeith, why can't you take responsibility for your party's actions? The deficit was caused by Clinton letting bin laden go free? You sure it doesn't have something to do with money seeing how that's what the deficit is refering to? Why couldn't bush get his own information? Oh I forgot, it's still 1954 in your eyes. What clinton did to get impeached was get a bj, and then lying about it. It has nothing to do with bin laden. You really need to stop trying to pass off everything that has happened on somebody else, is there anything you would be willing to take credit for? I mean besides this fake "great economy" we have right now that doesn't exist other than in your mind? And the part about how clinton did everything bad and bush did everything good? The problem you have is that you are so blindly follwing a party that you completely forgot what it's like to be an actual American.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 09:23 AMObviously, Hillary is playing to win. This is a smart move.
Posted by Comment on May 10, 2007 09:29 AMWhy is Bill Clinton one of the most popular presidents in history, and GW one of the worst?
Posted by Ollie on May 10, 2007 09:43 AMI don't know Ollie, and frankly clinton wasn't all that great of a president in my eyes. He did some really stupid things, none of which compares to what w has done, but stupid none the less. Since the presidential elections now are nothing more than picking the lesser of two evils, it becomes more and more important to get away from the party side of it, and look at the person themselves.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 09:50 AMClinton was a great politician. That, of course, is not necessarily a good thing.
Anyway, it's the past. The reality is that Dubya has created such a mess it's a wonder if anyone can clean it up. My feelings is that there is something on the horizon that looks very bad, and neither party has the people that can fix it.
Posted by rick on May 10, 2007 09:58 AMDocjay,"Ah, yes, those bygone days of peace and prosperity under Clinton"
Ah yes, those bygone (KABOOM, goes the US Embassy) (KABOOM goes the USS Cole) (KABoom there almost goes the WTC) days of peace. Not to mention Bosnia, US Marines attacked, etc... Yes, those were the good ol' days alright.
I purposely didn't mention the prosperity because Enron was the only one laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 10:18 AMTo quote a bumper sticker: "When Clinon lied, no one died." And, apparently, Freddie boy, the "lot of Democrats (who) became Republicans," are back to being Democrats again - or didn't you notice the last election results? Or maybe you think Bush's huge groundswell of support (25%?) is some kind of bipartisan mandate.
And Keith says: "And the deficit happened because of clintons incompetence of not dealing with Al Qaeda for 8 yrs." Do you think Keith is a Harvard professor who just posts here between classes?
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 10:50 AMSorry, meant "Clinton" of course, not "Clinon."
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 10:51 AM10:18-
You're right, the Cole, Embassy, and WTC bombings, not to mention blackhawk down were all bad. Lets see, what was it, like 130 dead on the Cole, none at the WTC, none in Bosnia, 20 in Somalia? What is that, about 200?
Compared to 3300+ in Iraq and 2900 on 9/11 under Bush? Yea, we really had it bad during Clinton.
Posted by Tbone on May 10, 2007 11:01 AMTBone - The only thing Clinton did during each terror attack on Americans (here and abroad) was wet his pants.
If someone would've disciplined those terrorists each time they acted up over the last 15 years we wouldn't have such a huge, spoiled group of terrorists idiots who have become convinced the US won't take the necessary action to wipe them out. They view us a liberal woosies after getting away with it for so long.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 11:10 AMKW how do you disciplin a dead terrorist? Go kill his mom?
Damn those terrorists for not getting in a group for a photo or something, so we can wipe them out all at once. Since they won`t do that we are FORCED to bomb all over the place, hoping to hit one or two.
Imagine Rush if Hillary left Bill "out " of the campaign? What would he say? Knowing his mind, we can make up the monologue by ourselves.
Tancredo says we should bomb Mecca if they act up. KW, would you do that?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 10, 2007 11:31 AMI cannot believe these arguments from either side. Quite honestly, neither president, Clinton OR Bush was great. Further more I don't see the potential for a great president in any of the candidates from EITHER party.
Posted by bjs on May 10, 2007 11:59 AMThank you bjs.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 12:01 PMOsama bin Laden is dead, the War on Terror is a cruel hoax and Al Qaeda is an exxagerated myth used to suppport the fake war on terror.
Posted by Repugnants on May 10, 2007 12:01 PMIf the money spent so far has really gone to the troops, maybe I should sign up because they would be getting paid more than anybody I know.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 12:04 PM"the only thing Clinton did during each terror attack on Americans (here and abroad) was wet his pants."
KW - I don't believe there is any record of Clinton "wetting his pants" for terrorists. And at least he stayed in his office.
What I do remember right after 9-11 (after Bush carried on reading "My Pet Goat" to kindergarteners and didn't seem to know what to do) - Bush very quickly disappeared into a bunker in the Midwest & pretty much left this nation rudderless. Don't remember what Cheney did, but he no doubt disappeared into a hole in the ground as well. Then of course fearless George is quick to swagger around in a flightsuit when all the danger is passed.
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 12:06 PMdrew,ollie,tbone,12:01,You are the reasons I don't smoke dope.You guys have to do your own research,research does mean liberal propanganda outlets.And bonehead it was 17 crewmen killed on the Cole,Our gov. is getting sued right now because clinton new there was going to be attacked on the Cole and didn't have the commanders notified.These 17 families should be suing the dem party.
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 01:14 PMAnd bush knew there would be planes flying into the World Trade Center and did nothing causing more than 2000 people to die. You need to stop trying to smear other people and take responsibility for what your administration does.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 01:23 PMKeith: "clinton new there was going to be attacked on the Cole and didn't have the commanders notified."
Once again Keith proves that he is an uniformed douche..... Please go back to the single-wide and shut the h**l up before you are verbally dismantled once again and shown to be an intellectual midget you are.
Posted by J-Mac on May 10, 2007 01:57 PM"the public has forgotten that her husband was impeached for lying about his affair with that young girl? He lied about it. It was proved that he lied. He dirtied the Oval Office forever."
How about a little perspective here. Bill Clinton had an affair in the oval office. Woodrow Wilson held a white house viewing of D.W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation'. For those of you who think history began in 1992, that was a movie that depicted the Ku Klux Klan as saving the south after the Civil War. Warren Harding took his initiation into the KKK in the Oval Office. If 24 Hour a day cable news were around before CNN and Ronald Reagan, I am sure a few other presidents might have had more embarrasment. But I would stack any president having an affair with Wilson and Harding.
Again we see sex equated with dirt in the same letter. Yawn...
Posted by Sharon B. on May 10, 2007 03:01 PMPosted by Keith on May 10, 2007 03:04 PM
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 03:04 PM
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 03:04 PM
"When Clinton lied, no one died."
Except for the Tutsis, but since they aren't Americans, I guess that's irrelevant.
Posted by No use on May 10, 2007 03:07 PM"Except for the Tutsis"
Yea, that's rich coming from a supporter of a man who has incinerated tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens - and who sits with his thumb up his a** while millions of Sudanese die.
Funny, when Pres Clinton interceded in the Balkans to stop the slaughter, people like you and Tom Delay & all your buddies wanted our troops out because they supposedly had no business being there. And when he intervened in Somalia you all screamed bloody murder as well. You wingnuts are just so concerned about the welfare of the poor and downtrodden around the world, aren't you pal?
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 03:41 PM"Yea, that's rich coming from a supporter of a man who has incinerated tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens - and who sits with his thumb up his a** while millions of Sudanese die."
What is it with the "progressives" on this board and drawing conclusions that were not written or even implied from the depths of their paranoid minds? That is phenomenal classical logic you exercise there Drew, "If someone finds fault in Clinton's failure to get involved in one of the worst genocides in modern years, then they must be a supporter of Bush." This may come as a revelation to you Drew, but there are some people who don't just leap to conclusions on the basis of a line they've drawn in the sands of political affiliation, and instead choose to evaluate the performance of politicians on a case by case basis. The fact that the Bush administration has failed to help the victims in Darfur is in no way an excuse for the Clinton administration's failures during the Rwanda/Burundi genocide, particularly considering that Clinton is the one who said "Never again". You wingnuts are so quick to leap to conclusions, aren't you pal?
Posted by No use on May 10, 2007 04:15 PMFunny how you take the first opportunity to jump all over Clinton when the opportunity presents itself - so I'm so sure you evaluate politicians on a "case by case" basis. Clinton did more for the downtrodden around the world than the last few Republican administrations ever attempted - Rwanda/Burundi notwithstanding (and if you remember no-one in the west got involved with that).
So if you want to paint a fair picture of what your views are without people "drawing conclusions" why don't you at least have the gumption to sign a name to your postings, your poor, picked-on anonymous martyr.
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 04:32 PM"Funny how you take the first opportunity to jump all over Clinton when the opportunity presents itself - so I'm so sure you evaluate politicians on a "case by case" basis."
Once again, you show your amazing powers of deduction and logic. "If someone lays a dig on Clinton after he is referenced on a board, then it must be the result of political prejudice and not simply a comment on a asinine bumper sticker statement." You must have won the state debate title with such amazing reasoning.
"Clinton did more for the downtrodden around the world than the last few Republican administrations ever attempted - Rwanda/Burundi notwithstanding (and if you remember no-one in the west got involved with that)."
If you're going to make a statement like this I would think that it is reasonable to back it up. Is there now a quantitative measure of "aid for the downtrodden" that lends credence to your argument? I'll leave it up to the conservative posters on the board to defend their politician's philanthropic contributions, I don't really care about political party pride. That is a great sense of morality that your statement shows. If no one else stands up to the neighborhood bully that beats up little kid on the block, I can feel morally correct in not doing so myself. What a load of crap. Your parents failed you if that is the code of ethics they endowed you with.
Rwanda/Burundi notwithstanding (and if you remember no-one in the west got involved with that).
Please point out where I stated: "If no one else stands up to the neighborhood bully that beats up little kid on the block, I can feel morally correct in not doing so myself." Do me a favor read my post & respond to what I say - don't attribute things to me that I never said.
Typical Wingnut - set up a strawman & then attack that, but avoid the issue.
And as for being a debating champ - your initial post that"when Clinton lied, no-one died ...except the Tutsis"- is a real winner - Clinton's responsible for the Rwanda genocide because of lying about a stained dress?
OK - now you can go back to being the aggrieved martyr, you wishy-washy jackass.
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 05:20 PM"Please point out where I stated: "If no one else stands up to the neighborhood bully that beats up little kid on the block, I can feel morally correct in not doing so myself." Do me a favor read my post & respond to what I say - don't attribute things to me that I never said."
"Rwanda/Burundi notwithstanding (and if you remember no-one in the west got involved with that)."
Apparently you don't understand analogy very well Drew, I guess I should have used a different one.
"And as for being a debating champ - your initial post that"when Clinton lied, no-one died ...except the Tutsis"- is a real winner - Clinton's responsible for the Rwanda genocide because of lying about a stained dress?"
Here's another winner. SO you are going to argue that the only lie Clinton was involved with in office was the one regarding Monica Lewinsky? I pity your naivete. That statement was in regards to the denials of genocide that the Clinton administration made for most time of the time that the Rwanda killings were going on. Feel free to look it up. Has your hubris shifted the planet's orbit yet?
Posted by No use on May 10, 2007 05:59 PMI can't think of a good reason for not giving yourself a name on your posts. Would you go to a social event and refuse to introduce yourself?
You might have something of interest to contribute, but I don't read your posts because of this.
Is it a sock-puppet kind of thing?
Posted by Charles B on May 10, 2007 07:16 PMPosted by Keith on May 10, 2007 10:04 PM
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 10:05 PM
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 10:23 PM
I havent had a real good laugh in a while.
I dont know who wrote this blog. But I laughed until I was crying. And I quote.
" If the money I spent so far has really gone to the troops, I maybe I should sign up because they would be getting paid more than anyone I know."
Beautiful. Sad thing is its true. That was great thanks for the laugh.
I like to apoligize I do know facts are offensive to liberals. That why that lowlife liberal keeps on deling my facts
Posted by Keith on May 11, 2007 10:25 AMActually, the lie the post refers to concerns Monica and the stained dress - Bush's lie is one, or several, that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, of combatants and civilians - I understand analogy quite well, thanks. It's you who are making the stretch to items that weren't in the original conversation.
And if the best you can come up with is Clinton denying the Rwandan genocide - I think you're the one who should be citing evidence, not me - it's your assertion, not mine.
If all you can bring up with in the face of what this administration is doing to the Middle East and our country's reputation, then please don't give me your song and dance about being "not affiliated with any political party" or whatever crap you came up with.
So have the courage of your convictions and the balls to choose a name - even if it's "dumbass."
And my hubris hasn't shifted the planet yet but I think that yours and that of your right wing buddies has - and not for the better.
That's all from me - bye!
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 10:27 AM