Display:


Re: Good lord (2.00 / 3)

I think you need to be reminded that the Democrats, after a 40 year run as the majority in Congress, were a pretty corrupt bunch.
The list includes Abscam (late 80s), the House banking scandal of the early 1990's (20 out of 24 of the worst abusers were Democrats) and the post office scandal, which resulted in investigations that concluded with crimial charges in 1993.
Combine that with Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America" in 1994 (ok, I know it's not really Contract on America), and the reason that we lost Congress (only 2 years after Clinton's election) is obviously NOT the fault of Bill Clinton.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:15:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (2.00 / 3)

thank you!!  I was going to post this info, but you beat me to it

It is amazing how some people rewrite history to slam BC


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:25:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (none / 0)

No, his administration was not the primary cause, but his missteps certainly did not help.  His inexperience in dealing with Congress wasn't helpful.  I hope that Obama does better, given the fact that he's about the same age as Clinton was when he ran.  He's got legislative experience so hopefully he knows how to finesse Congress.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (2.00 / 5)

and the unwillingness of the Congress to work with Bill Clinton wasn't helpful at all either.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He certainly didn't help (none / 0)

Many factors played a role.  The ones you mention and also Bill's political missteps at the beginning of his term.  Bill has many good attributes but he also has some very unhelpful ones.


by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]