Display:


shut up about Congress already (2.00 / 4)

because he clearly made Democrats better off in terms of Presidential elections than we were in 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, or 1968. Just look at the fucking electoral map. Thats what matters. Look at the states we never used to win and mostly lost in those elections I mentioned that we now always win. These include Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, CALIFORNIA, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Maryland, all of which are worth an amazing amount of electoral votes, over 170. We lost nearly all of those states in those 5 elections. Also, we used to get blown out in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and they not only were won by Clinton, but even with weaker candidates, are still close. We only lost Congress because of corrupt Dems and an amazing amount of scandals that happened before his term. You also forget how poorly the media treated him. Gore also won more votes than Bush, but you also forget what an abysmal campaign Gore ran. He had no message nor did he try to define Bush, and he also picked a bad running mate. But how many times does our party get called "weak on crime" or "soft on welfare" anymore? Those are why we always would get killed in elections. If yo have any memory, those issues are what killed us from 1968-1988. We averaged 113 electoral votes during those years. We always do much better today. And it was Bill Clinton, not Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, or Hubert Humphrey who fixed our image on crime and welfare.


by Lakrosse on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I apologize for stating some inconvenient (1.00 / 1)

truths about the Clintonmessiah.  We lost those elections because we had bad candidates.  I love how you just omit 1976 because it doesn't fit your thesis.  Your worshipful analysis is too simplistic to take seriously.  It was not just "crime and welfare" that hurt democrats in that time period.

Bill did some good things but he didn't single-handedly save the party.


by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I apologize for stating some inconvenient (2.00 / 4)

Likewise, Bill didn't singlehandedly destroy the party, either, as some continuallly suggest.

Denigrating his accomplishments for political gain by Democrats has been shamefull.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]