If Hillary should win in 2008, I’m crossing the Rio Grande into Mexico, or rowing a boat to Cuba.

“Clinton was king at only one thing: avoiding media attention for his injustices towards humanity.”

I’ve never heard adultery described as an “injustice towards humanity.” You make him sound like Saddam Hussein. What a flair for the dramatic you have! Seriously, I wasn’t impressed with some of Clinton’s behavior, but he was a pretty good president when compared with his contemporaries. He’s certainly better than the current president, although I suppose it’s safe to assume you would disagree.

I’ve always wanted to ask you what color the sky is on your planet.

“By any logical standard, Democrats of every stripe ought to be embracing Clintonism and its central tenets â€â€? providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals.”

You might be able to cherry pick some Clinton actions and define them as liberal, but the intended point of the article is very clear…the idea is the Dems ought to find a candidate who embraces central tenets.

You can either agree or disagree with that, but to trot out the Clinton Boogie man is irrelevent and ultimately tiresome.

Whether it was giving the NARAL ladies their legal infanticide bill, lobbing bombs in the general direction of the enemy and calling it “national security”, or pulling “budget surpluses” out of thin air, Clinton was king at only one thing: avoiding media attention for his injustices towards humanity.

What the Democrats need is not another corrupt Clinton, what they need is a clue.

kriez: You are working off flawed definition of conservative and liberal. You are using the dictionary definition and not the political definition.

Cautiousness =/= conservative
Recklessness =/= liberal

As to Michael Moore, I didn’t know he did jokes, lately all he does is bash America, probably for making him obese.

So who’s the real conservative?

My point exactly. Even Michael Moore jokes that Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve ever had. I think Clinton was much closer to a true conservative than Bush, and I think the right-wing knew that. It’s why they tried to destroy him…because they knew that people would start to really shift back towards a more moderate agenda, and that didn’t fit into their plans.

If by the Wingers, you mean the far right, of course no one the Dems pick will appeal to them, but the idea is not to appeal to them or their counterparts on the far left

The idea is to appeal to the vast majority in the middle with someone who has enough charisma and a solid plan to excite the middle so we can take our government back from the extremists

I think it would be nice to have a president who didn’t piss away $200 million [borrowed] a day on corrupt contractors and bogus, non-existent projects.

The wingers will smear anyone the Dems select so there’s no point in trying to pick someone they’ll appove of. Fuck em.

Another Clinton, though, is as likely to be elected as another Bush.

Put somebody up with his centrist appeal (real or imagined!), WITHOUT the baggage of the name, and the Donks have a race on their hands.

I dunno, maybe because beyond the bad behavior with the interns, the rest of your diatribe is mere far-right rhetoric?

Clinton never slashed spending–he simply did not increase it at levels some hardline hawks deemed necessary. Every year saw minor increases (some very minor). Bowing to an eternally corrupt UN? Your opinion, but not supported by facts

Many people who voted for Clinton did not approve of his personal behavior, myself included, but more people were better off under Clinton then under Bush, who has floundered in most issues foreign and domestic.

The point of the post is that the country needs a candidate whose centrist tendencies appeal to the vast middle, not to give the far right another opportunity to spout off on Clinton.

Clinton is done. He cannot run again. Stop trotting him out like the boogie man to scare the GOP-base and try righting your own ship and wresting it from the sycophants and fanatics who have taken the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower so far to the right as to be repulsive to the ideals on which it was founded.

How you can post how anyone should be “like Clinton” with a straight face is baffling.