The biggest reason to pick a Democrat other than Hillary? The same old gang will be back in DC. I mean, are we really that desperate to relive the 90s?

http://www.nbc11.com/news/14608788/detail.html

Either I'm missing something, or that's a Barry Bonds article.

The biggest reason to pick a Democrat other than Hillary? The same old gang will be back in DC. I mean, are we really that desperate to relive the 90s?

http://www.nbc11.com/news/14608788/detail.html

well considering the 90's we good for us is that really a bad thing

No, you're right I definitely don't want Barry Bonds in the White House.

Do you have any idea what I would give for a strong economy, a Soundgarden concert, and the nation to be arguing about blowjobs?

Effin' paradise by comparison.

The flip-side is, though, I wonder how much of that strong economy was real. You know, like, how much of that money actually existed?

Interesting. Rafeal Palmeiro lied to congress, when he was under oath. No indictment. Barry Bonds, who admitted taking steroids (not knowingly he said) gets indicted. Hmmm, I wonder why. Eventhough scores of other players have been caught lying about their steroid use.

The flip-side is, though, I wonder how much of that strong economy was real. You know, like, how much of that money actually existed?

Can't have been worse than the deficit we're in now...

Can't have been worse than the deficit we're in now.

Point. I can't argue with that.

• • •


Interesting. Rafeal Palmeiro lied to congress, when he was under oath. No indictment. Barry Bonds, who admitted taking steroids (not knowingly he said) gets indicted. Hmmm, I wonder why.

Matter of sentiment. Think about it. Bonds jerks people around, sees his trainer thrown in prison to protect him, and then breaks a sacred baseball record. Rafael Palmeiro, on the other hand, jerked people around but can't get it up.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/08/02/sports/02sandomir.jpg (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/sports/baseball/02sandomir.html)

Either I'm missing something, or that's a Barry Bonds article.

No you're not missing something. I goofed and posted a link I had already used in another thead. Here's the real link:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/15/blumenthal_back_to_working_for.html

The 90's were great, why wouldn't we want that? (I could do without the Republicans though).

Whats so great about the 90's.

The political scene in the 90s was a nightmare. I have no desire to return to that era, which is exactly what the Clintons would usher in.

The political scene in the 90s was a nightmare. I have no desire to return to that era, which is exactly what the Clintons would usher in.

by nightmare do you mean the us not being controlled by neocons. the 90's we very good for this country

By nightmare I mean both Democrats and Republicans both acted like morons in Washington DC. Returning Clinton to office will only return folks like Blumenthal to the fold. After Bush redux, I can't stomach the idea of that.

Oh, and the things that were "good for this country" in the 90s (that is the economy and the lack of war) had little or nothing to do with what the politicians were and weren't doing.

Wrong, who is in the office of president matters, and Clinton did an exemplary job, which is why the Republicans did their best to make the political scene seem chaotic.

The flip-side is, though, I wonder how much of that strong economy was real. You know, like, how much of that money actually existed?
It was as real as the Clinton "surplus".

All those CEOs just magically started cooking the books the minute Dubya took the oath of office.

;)

Wrong, who is in the office of president matters, and Clinton did an exemplary job, which is why the Republicans did their best to make the political scene seem chaotic.

I never said who was in office didn't matter. I said the "good things" in the 90s had little or nothing to do with who was in office. To expound on that, I meant that the booming economy, which later bust, was not being driven by Clintonians or their opposite members, nor was the fact we absence of the War on Terror driven or controlled by the politicians.

Regardless, the point of this thread is that all the usual suspects — Berger, Blumenthal and Albright — have aligned themselves with Hillary. After seeing Bush redux, I do not want to see Clinton redux, with all these old partisan warriors slinking back to Washington. It won't be good for the country.

Whats so great about the 90's.

The Democrats were running the White house and the Republicans were

running the Congress.

Right. I've always said a split government, regardless of which way the split occurs, is the best under our system.

I never said who was in office didn't matter. I said the "good things" in the 90s had little or nothing to do with who was in office. To expound on that, I meant that the booming economy, which later bust, was not being driven by Clintonians or their opposite members, nor was the fact we absence of the War on Terror driven or controlled by the politicians.

Regardless, the point of this thread is that all the usual suspects — Berger, Blumenthal and Albright — have aligned themselves with Hillary. After seeing Bush redux, I do not want to see Clinton redux, with all these old partisan warriors slinking back to Washington. It won't be good for the country.

I guess the war in Bosnia doesn't register as significant, since we worked with the UN, failed to spend hundreds of billions on it, and we had an exit plan. We arrested those responsible for terrorism. We contained Saddam instead of getting bogged down in a quagmire. We had a balanced budget, and all this contributed to positive prospects for the future, which as you must know, is the basis for success in the stock market.

The only partisan warriors slinking back into Washington under another Clinton presidency will be those adept at character assassination and slander, because we will have interrupted their plan to break the Federal Government down to the point where they can "drown it in a bathtub".

Right. I've always said a split government, regardless of which way the split occurs, is the best under our system.

I don't suppose you have any proof to support this? It seems to me that when there is a split then nothing gets done, at least when they are united things happen, action is taken.

Well, I think a lot got done in the 90s on fiscal issues such as welfare reform and budgets cuts, and moderate solutions were reached because the Republicans had to work with Clinton. Another example would be the Reagan years, where there was a Democratic Congress.

The political scene in the 90s was a nightmare. I have no desire to return to that era, which is exactly what the Clintons would usher in.

Well, yeah, politics was a mess in the '90s. I blame the GOP and its radio attack dogs. See, my political conscience came about during the twelve years of Reagan and Bush, and one thing I can say for sure was that until Clinton became president, you weren't supposed to talk about the president that way. And once Clinton left office, you weren't supposed to talk about the president that way. It's just one of the many reasons I think the American conservative political movement is fundamentally dishonest.

I mean, admittedly it wasn't a good idea for liberals to sink to match the right-wing mudslinging, but I understand how their polling suggested otherwise. But it's amazing how delicate the right wing is. Apparently the one thing they can't take is what they dish.

I can't agree with the specifics of what you claim, but I agree with the spirit of much of it.

The Republicans very openly became unhinged when Clinton was elected, which I never understood. The guy was mediocre. A footnote, nothing more. He certainly wasn't worthy of all the bile and mania he churned up from nowhere. You talk of Republican attacks dogs. Fair enough. But Blumenthal, who initiated this thread, is as despicable a person as any of the men he "fought" against in his "wars." So is Sandy Berger.

Regardless, I don't want to live through all the needless drama again, and electing Hillary would provoke it. The Republicans would lose their minds again, and Hillary and her loyal cohorts would become the snarling dogs they really are, too. The whole thing hurts my head.

Oh, and OJ is about to go on trial, too...

By nightmare I mean both Democrats and Republicans both acted like morons in Washington DC. Returning Clinton to office will only return folks like Blumenthal to the fold. After Bush redux, I can't stomach the idea of that.

Oh, and the things that were "good for this country" in the 90s (that is the economy and the lack of war) had little or nothing to do with what the politicians were and weren't doing.

there politicians they will always act like morons

Regardless, I don't want to live through all the needless drama again, and electing Hillary would provoke it. The Republicans would lose their minds again, and Hillary and her loyal cohorts would become the snarling dogs they really are, too. The whole thing hurts my head.

So ... because the GOP would go nuts, Hillary shouldn't be president? I mean, I get the bit about Hillary's snarling dogs, but I'm going to doubt you're suggesting that it would be more appropriate for her to roll over and simply take it.

I would think the fact that she's a Clinton should be enough of an argument against her. While I do have an appreciation for "political savvy", that's not what the country needs right now.

Oh, and OJ is about to go on trial, too...

Okay, so that's a part of the '90s I'd rather not go through again.

So ... because the GOP would go nuts, Hillary shouldn't be president? I mean, I get the bit about Hillary's snarling dogs, but I'm going to doubt you're suggesting that it would be more appropriate for her to roll over and simply take it.

No, it's more a combination of the Republican tomfoolery, Hillary's way of doing business and the people she would bring back to Washington around her (Blumenthal et al). In other words, I'm not simply saying I don't want her because she would provoke something and then respond badly, I'm saying I don't want her because of the total package (You know, the whole I have no idea what she has done and what she really stands for thing?).

I would think the fact that she's a Clinton should be enough of an argument against her. While I do have an appreciation for "political savvy", that's not what the country needs right now.

To add to what you're saying, I think the 20-plus years of Bush/Clinton rule should be enough to sour anyone on her. But the point, raised tentatively by the Media, seems to have provoked little response from the electorate.

I don't have a problem with the Bushes and Clintons, individually. My qualms are more with the people that surround them. And in Hillary's case, those people, and the way the would invariably operate in DC and the reaction that would provoke, aren't what the country needs, I think...

(You know, the whole I have no idea what she has done and what she really stands for thing?)

Well, that last, especially, I understand. On the one hand, we Americans have made an art out of accusing politicians of being spineless if they do what the electorate actually wants. To the other, Hillary has gone beyond art and made it a soulless mechanical process to give over to whatever wind she thinks is blowing.

However, in that light, it's not quite fair to simply presume she would play the crony game the same as Bush; she's politically aware that such crap is agitating the voters' collective nerve right now.

Of course, she's also smart enough to invent some spectacular logical twists.

To add to what you're saying, I think the 20-plus years of Bush/Clinton rule should be enough to sour anyone on her.

The wear is inevitable, but that's not a fair argument. Conservatives dismissed dynastic concerns about Dubya.

I don't have a problem with the Bushes and Clintons, individually. My qualms are more with the people that surround them. And in Hillary's case, those people, and the way the would invariably operate in DC and the reaction that would provoke, aren't what the country needs, I think...

And that's generally a fair concern. To the other, though, I do have a problem with the Bushes specifically. It took the son to exonerate the father, and that grace is purely relative. The elder may have struck me as mean-spirited at the time, but at least he knew better than to go to Baghdad. All else considered, Americans should have known better in 2000. C'est la vie, eh?

We are dealing now with Nixon's old gang. Von Rumsfled and Cheney have been around for a long time.

It's almost—almost—enough to make me feel a twinge of sympathy for the late Saddam Hussein. To live and die by the divine will of Don Rumsfeld and an @sshole named Dick ....

What a sorry way to be.