T Nation

Bill Clinton

is an amazing speaker, and would win this election in the biggest landslide in this country’s history if he could run again.

All you bushleaguers won’t admit it, but you know it’s true. And I bet it just really pisses you off, doesn’t it?

90% of the people in the world are stupid. Clinton’s re-re-election would just be more proof.

The dumbing down of the electorate has produced

he is a very good speaker. I was only listening in the background but he did very well as opposed to grandpa simpson jimmy carter who was wheezing and couldnt get fired up when he was making a big point for fear of heart attack. Just listening briefly to bill, I was glad he didnt say something dumb about IRaq to appease the audience since we all know his position on it, but he didnt tell a bunch of half truths/lies, especially about stealing money from social security.

Hillary sucked ass and might as well have given bill a lewinskiyesque beaner on stage because she said nothing about herself or the candidates really, but just puckered up to Slick Willies brown hole, showing once again that if she runs for election in 2008 (which this speech was clearly set up to do) it will be because she is riding the coattails of her husband.

I’d like to go back to Dole’s hometown, where he was QB on the football team, tug his sleeve and say “Bobby, you’re going to be a war hero. You’ll be horribly mangled in that war. You’ll return home, serve your country with honor and pride, and be a senator. When you go for the top job, however, you’ll be beaten – not by a Washington, a Jefferson, a Lincoln, or even a Roosevelt, but by a Clinton. You’ll lose to a man who makes being banal into an art form. You’ll lose to a man who puts cigars into a young woman’s privates and then smokes it. You’ll lose because soccer moms want a pretty face, not ‘oh, that horrible man with the ugly arm.’ You’ll lose because your country is losing its soul.”
May God have mercy on us, because Justice will not.

What I would say to answer this question is this: If this was Sep 10. 2001, and he was nominated for a third term, Most definitely. All of what he did would still be hidden and secret. The econ. would still be the main focus. Clinton would say see I was the one I did this I did that. I created the great econ. we live in today…And he would not center as much on the foreign policy. Or the intelligence or defense. Got to let the good times still roll!!

Now after Sep 11, 2001. And what is all being revealed about him. ( And it is well so documented too.) What he did as President. What were his main concerns. What he cared about more. And
what he did not. What he did with the Chinese. About Al Queda, Intelligence,
His views on Sadam Hussien, and the PLO.
ALso what he did in the Oval Office. And all the scandals, that are linked with his admin. And what is more important, National Security or or nation’s econ. today? ANd when it came to our Nations’s Security, our defenses, the FBI and CIA, how did Clinton look at them? And who was tougher on the War on Terrorism? Bill CLinton or George Bush? And that really is the bottom line here. And there are enough people that will make sure Clinton’s record on these matters would be brought out. In the open for all to see. And show he can’t lie about any of this anymore. It is so well documented what he did as President on these matters. And the liberal pess and media and Hollywood, who totally love this man, would try to whitewash it all. Say you are making up lies. And push the focus back on the econom. But all these people would be squelched. Becasue the voices of what CLinton did in his admin.esp on these matters, would be all over the airwaves. And he would loose the election this time around…If he ran…



"…is an amazing speaker, and would win this election in the biggest landslide in this country’s history if he could run again.

All you bushleaguers won’t admit it, but you know it’s true. And I bet it just really pisses you off, doesn’t it?"

No one has ever doubted Clinton’s natural abilities. That’s part of Clinton’s tragic tale - so much ability, so much of it wasted on fluff and ego.

Would he win a landslide election? I don’t think so. He would have to answer for lying to a federal grand jury and the reckless list of pardons he authorized the last day of office. Democrats love Bill, Republicans not so much still. In order to generate a ‘landslide’, Clinton would have to grab a lot of votes from the GOP, and I suspect that would not happen.

As for being ‘pissed-off’ at Clinton’s talent or popularity - not really, in fact, I think he should run for office, much like John Q Adams did after he left the Presidency.

And don’t you have anything better to do than to try and agitate members of this board with juvenile questions?

peartmath, very well said. I do have to admit that BC is an EXCELLENT public speaker, and one needs a clear understanding of the issues to recognize they are being flim-flammed (unless of course they agree with him). GWB should be so charming.

By the way, does your screen name by chance have anything to do with Neil Peart’s ability to execute some pretty sophisticated rhythms across a variety of odd meters? If not…well…never mind.

I watched Clinton give his speech last night.

He is good!! Real Good.

But he did all he did with a Republican house that rubber stamped his fiscally solid proposals.

Can’t say as much for Bush, as the Senate has bad more filibusters in the last four years, than ever before.

Ha! Remember when Newt Gingrich and the other Republicans in Congress shut down the federal government because they wouldn’t pass a spending bill? Hardly rubber-stamping. That came back to bite Newt in the ass, big-time.

Clinton was a true moderate who made many compromises in a spirit of bi-partisanship. Bipartisanship and moderation is something that Team Bush sorely lacks. And I suspect that will play a role in his defeat. People do not want extremism in the Oval Office, and Bush has pushed the country hard to the Right. I suspect the pendulum will swing back towards the middle (with Kerry, who like Clinton knows how to compromise and work in a bipartisan fashion).

March 20, 1998

Clinton’s State Socialism
His economics ideas are outside the democratic mold
By Howard Hobbs, Daily Republican Contributing Editor
WASHINGTON, D.C. - There’s a certain kind of misrepresentation at the core of president William Jefferson Clinton’s economics rhetoric, and it’s been plaguing the Nation for quite a while.

At his most basic level, Clinton doesn’t know how to measure economic growth. So, he will always misunderstand the dynamics of economic expansion and attempt to take credit for a dynamic over which he had no influence.

The idea of growth that Clinton wants Americans to buy-into is one that is a vision of an economy that produces the same goods and services, except more of them.

What’s wrong with thinking that way? While capitalism is always enlarging the economic base. It’s constantly altering the mix - turning out different products, better products, a few worse products and even discovering what its true products are.

The method Clinton uses to estimate that kind of progress takes undeserved credit for any positive economic dynamics from prior administrations of reagan and Bush. It also avoids ownership for future unintended consequences of his own economic policies that will not materialize for five to seven years.

Here’s the basic shortcoming of president Clinton economic policies. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of the Commerce Department)collects ‘snapshots’ of financial data that it bases its estimates of gross domestic product on. These are: consumption + government + investment + net exports. The formula yields an estimate for nominal GDP.

However, that figure does not take into consideration price inflation and price deflation. In order to arrive at real GDP, BEA consults the Bureau of Labor Statistics (part of the Labor Department) for the necessary price indexes.

Also, it’s BLS’s responsibility to report on growth in productivity, which it defines as output per worker-hour. It calculates the hours on its own (although with the help of the Census Bureau, also a part of Commerce). But for the output side, it borrows the figures from BEA. And to make things easier, it limits the scope to output in the nonfarm business sector, and in the process artificially excludes government.

So, in order to help the BEA arrive at a figure for real growth, the BLS has to provide the price indexes that adjust the nominal figures. And in doing so, one key question it has to answer is: When is a price rise not a price rise? The answer: “When the quality of the good or service has improved by an equal amount.”

So, when the price of a good rises by 5% and the quality is enhanced by the same 5%, no price increase at all will be recorded. And in that case, $100 billion in nominal terms will become $100 billion in real terms.

However, if the price has risen by 5% with no increase in quality, then the $100 billion nominal will be reduced by 5% to $95 billion real.

But, just how do you measure quality? One thing is certain, it is not the type of knowledge president Clinton acquired in law school.

So, in the case of automobile production Clinton’s Bureau of Labor Statistics wants the American people to believe that productivity actually declined from the late 'Seventies through the mid-'Nineties.

Karl Marx popularized the labor theory of value which pushes the preposterous notion that the value of a good is directly proportional to the labor time spent in making it. In the case of autos, the Bureau of Labor Statistics attempting to popularize the same production-line theory of value, which says that quality improvements are directly proportional to the cost of altering the production process.

However, under capitalism we subscribe to a consumer theory of value, which says that the value of a good reflects the satisfaction that buyers happen to derive from it.

Under Clinton’s socialist fallacy the $trillion health care industry would determine prices for health care according to a per-diagnosis method. The economic impact of such a policy is undemocratic. In effect, Clinton argues, if you can reduce the average length of the hospital stay of a heart-attack victim, then the quality has risen.

So, he says, if the costs of treating a patient rise by 10%, and if we can get him out of the hospital 10% sooner, then there has been no rise in price.

Using the socialist fallacy, the BLS completely fails to include the capitalist quality revolution in customized products. Today, business is providing more novelty and variety than ever before in what used to be standardized products.

Defining capitalism down, the Clinton administration is giving customization no credit on the output side for increasing consumer satisfaction, Instead it is debiting [subtracting] it on the input side for increasing the cost of production.

Why? Clinton economists at the BLS mischaracterize consumer customization as a capitalist tool to subvert standardization. In other words, consumers should not want customization. If they persist in such demands, the BLS will ignore its economic dynamic by subtracting it out of its reports.

This is the type of faulty socialist thinking that has shaped the policies of president William Clinton, and will be with us long after his White House days have passed.

A Statement on Our Economy, Our Polity and Our Community
August 1993

The American role in democracy’s new moment has been given additional impetus by the Clinton victory in our 1992 elections. President Clinton’s campaign demonstrated public support for three basic missions: “putting people first” as we face deep technological change and the globalization of the economy; restoring the civic unity that underlies and protects America’s diversity; and providing American assistance to the worldwide democratic revolution.

President Clinton is to be applauded for affirming these goals, but all his election does is open the way to fulfilling them. The reforms on the Clinton agenda can be achieved only by involving large numbers of people in a movement of democratic revival and reconstruction. This will demand new thinking and “re-inventions” at all levels, not only in government, but also the economic and cultural domains.

The 1992 Presidential election in the United States was a vote for active government and repudiation of the Bush Administration’s passive and in some respects cynical domestic and foreign policies. We are even persuaded that Clinton’s victory was a kind of endorsement of social democratic values. But while many in our society evidently share these values and ideas, there is no intellectual community to subject these views to thorough examination and debate, no organized network to transform them into practical policy, no broad political movement to support them against attacks from either the Right or the Left.

We hope that American social democrats can help to constitute such a community of thought and practical action, and that our work can contribute to a social democratic revival in other countries as well.

  • The record reaches back to the 1919 Chicago Convention of the Socialist Party of the United States – which repudiated the anti-democratic factions that eventually became the Communist Party, USA-- and to Eugene Victor Deb’s rejection of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” and his protests against Lenin’s repression of opposition parties in Russia.


Maybe Kerry could have Clinton record his speeches and then lip-sync them.

[quote]tme wrote:
if he could run again.[/quote]

Remember D.C. Mayor Marion Barry? He was videotaped smoking crack in a hotel room with a prostitute. Then he went to prison. When he got out, he was reelected.

There are probably just as many pig-ignorant people who would reelect Clinton, too.

Here are some apt comments by Jacob Levy, Libertarian and political science professor at University of Chicago:


Thoughts on Day 1 of the Convention:

  1. Y’know, a speech isn’t any less negative just because the convention organizers leak the information that they’re not allowing any negative speeches-- or, for that matter, because the speaker tells us that it’s not negative.

  2. … but man, can Bill Clinton make you believe that it does. His speech was hardly if at all less of an attack than Carter’s; it was more of an attack than Gore’s or Hillary’s. But it didn’t feel that way. He’s simply a brilliant, masterful speaker. I can’t offhand think of a particular speech he’s given that’s memorable and enduring, like Kennedy’s inaugural or Reagan at Westminster or the Berlin Wall. His speeches are in important ways banal, of the moment, and always nakedly partisan and political. But he’s so damn good at them, and he’s gotten better over the years. (He’s outgrown the singling out of token audience members, for example.) He’s the only currently active political speaker I’d rather watch give his speech than read the transcript later.

  3. Still, I’m curious to see whether the mainstream press actually buys the claim that last night wasn’t loaded with Bush-bashing. Even Clinton’s wasn’t hidden; it was just coated in his honeyed voice. Carter’s would have been astonishingly nasty, if I still had the capacity to be astonished by Carter. (Much of the bashing was effective. Some of it was right. And bashing the incumbent is what a challenger’s party does. But I dislike the sanctimonious pretense that “As long as we don’t repeat Michael Moore’s theories, we’re running a positive, ‘choice of visions’ campaign.”)

I guess I’m one of them pig-ignorant people as I would’ve elected him as well. Past history be damned, it’s the person’s policies that matter most to me. If you guys were to vote based on military history or public office experience, Kerry would win in a landslide when compared to Bush.

Chuck, you really have a hard on for Clinton don’t you?

I don’t have a hard-on for Clinton - he’s not my type - but his speech was brilliant. One of the best political speeches I ever heard. Astonighing.

Clinton wasn’t fluff. He was forced to divert all his attention from being the president by loser Republicans who were obsessed with his blow jobs. Pathetic.
Clinton was so poorly treated by Republicans that it will unquestionably go down in history as one of the greatest Moments of Shame in our history, along with shipping Japanese Americans to interrment camps during World War II and the enslavement and disenfranchisement of blacks.

[quote]Pyotr wrote:
I don’t have a hard-on for Clinton - he’s not my type - but his speech was brilliant. One of the best political speeches I ever heard. Astonighing.

Clinton wasn’t fluff. He was forced to divert all his attention from being the president by loser Republicans who were obsessed with his blow jobs. Pathetic.
Clinton was so poorly treated by Republicans that it will unquestionably go down in history as one of the greatest Moments of Shame in our history, along with shipping Japanese Americans to interrment camps during World War II and the enslavement and disenfranchisement of blacks.[/quote]

Actually, the argument has been made, quite convincingly, that the best thing about the Clinton presidency, and what led to the economic “good times”, was that the government was too preoccupied with other stuff to get in the way.

BTW, not to get too caught up with Clinton, but care to name any economic legislation he originated that was passed?

Okay, I’ll take exception to that last post by pyotr. Making that comparison between black enslavement/japanese imprisonment and Clinton’s treatment by the Republicans is like Martha Stewart comparing her own incarceration with Nelson Mandela…silly.

Clinton never even won a majority vote, much less a landslide. Thanks to Perot, Slick Willie won with numbers in the low 40’s. During his presidency, more Democratic politicians switched parties than at any time since our nation’s founding, the Republican’s gained control of the House for the first time in several decades, and Republican voter registration rose from the high 30’s to nearly 50% of the voting electorate (all the Reagan dems switched). He did more for the Republican party and the Libertarians than we could ever do for ourselves. Hell, I almost wish he could run again. However, in a post 9-11 America, I doubt we can afford a president who was willing to sell nuclear technology to the Chinese and N. Koreans in exchange for campaign contributions, and who burned 80 men women and children to death in Wako, but was unwilling to take custody of bin Laden when the Sudan offered to give him to us for prosecution. He said, in a speech last year, that he didn’t take bin Laden because he had committed no crimes against the US yet. I guess he was too busy with Monica, Jennifer Flowers, Katheline Willey, etc to notice the Khobar Towers bombing, Yemen, the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center attack, etc. He’s a damn fine speaker though - I’ll never forget those immortal words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”