Doesn't anyone remember the end of the Bill Clinton administration? It was so bad it got W elected. The guy is a total slime ball.
What surprises me is that this surprises anyone.
I try not to but sometimes just can't help doing so too.
Isn't Bill one of the first neoliberal democrats to sign onto the neocons PNAC plan to take out Iraq and seven other mid eastern countries?
What I am about to compose might seem hyperbolic, but is not intended as such. It is drawn from material I came across several years ago, but effectively has been banished from access. And, the reason for banishment is obvious when aware of the substance of the situation.
OK, with the preceding cautionary, the information come across is that Bill Clinton's mother lived with more than one man after Bill's birth, and among these men was a child abuser. Thus, it is, Bill Clinton was an abused child, and continues to behave as such. When President, the first individual with whom he met every morning when attending to work was his pollster. Effectively, the public was his abuser, and he sought to appease the abuser. So being, his behavior tends toward the mercurial, responsive to the perceived abuse at the moment.
Appearance indicates he continues in the same manner. Presuming such certainly explains his implicit raising of suspicion of any American Muslim in his DNC speech. With this act, he has exhibited the same behavior, following what the general public assumes to keep that public happy. He did the same to Black Lives Matter demonstrators when defending his implementation of harsh Federal punishment that has placed 25% of US citizen African American males in prison at some time in their lives. Then, when confronting African American anger in response to his intimation of a cultural inferiority of African Americans (a disposition towards gangsterism) when rationalizing the harsh Federal criminal punishments he implemented as President, he subsequently apologized, and did so most woefully. Whatever keeps the abuser of the moment happy.
So, in one respect, Bill Clinton is despicable. But, in another respect, he is pathetic. Indeed, he is despicable because he is pathetic. He is a person without principles (e.g., the Monica Lewinsky affair). As such, like an abused child, he is quite good at rationalizing his actions, for that is what an abused child learns to do to avoid abuse. Thus, he appears smooth in his speeches ... as long as you do not look at the words and the "logic". Finally, do not attempt to "pin down" Bill, for he is too mercurial to take hold. So it is, he seems able to slip out of the very real harm he does.
As for the reply by "herbmix'" of "So what?" to this comment, I am left despondent. Not only is Bill Clinton responsible for devastating the lives of so many African Americans, but from TIME magazine, here is for what else he is responsible:
"25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis
President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment".
To be unbothered by these actions is either to literally approve of, or be indifferent to, them because of a psychiatric disorder, or to indifferently approve of them because partisan to an irrational extent. Indeed, if the latter, indicative is a psychiatric disorder in itself, but I will leave that analysis to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. Callousness is not an indifferent character trait. Whether indifferent or partisan in respect to the lives of other human beings, Herbmix's response is deeply disturbing in its indifference to human suffering, and the character of a Bill Clinton who could implement such suffering in the alleviation of his own suffering.
"Dim-oh-craps" is good, but I like "damn-oh-craps".
Well, it wouldn't be the first time the Clintons have revealed their inner racism. And yet, liberals are comfortable when Clinton spouts racist rhetoric, but are sure we're falling into fascism when Trump does. Nothing says "racism" like voting for regime change wars in the Middle East, advocating the drone bombing of Muslims; supporting Israel’s apartheid, and supporting sanctions that kill women and children. Tunnel-vision liberals focus on Trump’s rhetoric, but bombs kill more than rhetoric. Trump is the low-hanging fruit -- the neocons, Bush, Obama and the Clintons are responsible for the racist bloodshed in the Mideast and the blowback in Europe.
Would you buy a used car from this man?
If not, why would you wanna listen to him trying to sell you his wife?
I sincerely hope that doesn't mean you're considering buying the used wife from him.
It'd be less dumber to buy the used car instead.
Please tell me Bill Clinton got BOOED at the convention. Anyone know?
Would you buy a used car from this man?
So why would you listen to him selling his wife?
I concur!!! I'm so proud of the Sanders supporters walking out!! This is a revolt! I'm so proud of them. This should NOT be a DNC "as usual". I had to argue with a friend yesterday who didn't understand why the Bernie supporters couldn't just sit down and be quiet. I gave her an earful of WHY!
When Hillary gets installed, surveillance on social media will be a top priority for this fascist. It sickens me when people want to vote for her to avoid Trump. Which fascist do YOU want?
Clinton should have directed his comments to the REAL terrorists, Christian white men. They are the terrorists who overwhelmingly murder innocent Americans in droves with the full support of the NRA. Here's what he SHOULD have said: "If you're a white Christian male and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you." And of course the implication is that if these white Christian males DON'T want to be part of the solution to the extreme terrorism practiced by white Christian male terrorists, then they are a part of the problem and should be immediately placed on a terrorist watch list. By refusing to openly go after white Christian extremists in their terrorist cells (AKA churches, particularly evangelical ones), white Christian males are essentially supporting terrorism. Every white Christian male has a duty and an obligation to start monitoring their churches and their evangelical terrorist cells and be prepared to report ANY suspicious activity to the police. Oh, and Clinton forgot to mention terrorist toddlers. After all, terrorist toddlers murdered more innocent people last year (including their OWN MOTHERS) than all other American-based terrorist attacks. No data on how many of those terrorist toddlers were white, but I am guessing the great majority of them were, since the overwhelming majority of American terrorists are white.
This was just doing what the Clintons do best - triangulate. Although, what he really has done is again insult Muslims, and not move nearly far enough towards that constellation of conservative voters he was triangulating towards.
I also thought Mr. Clinton's speech was supremely weird, even though it was easy enough to appreciate what that approach was meant to accomplish. Once again the DNC is either unaware or doesn't care that the "use by" date has expired on Bill Clinton.
I have no unconditional love for the US, though I am a US citizen. I do love freedom, but don't believe US policy actually promotes freedom. And I also believe that I "hate" terrorism much more than my government does.
Does that mean I have to leave, Bill?
Well, OK, this is good that we tap into the obvious bigotry in the language. But it would be so much more effective to drop in a bit of perspective.
Bill Clinton bombed Iraq supposedly to disable WMD's that were known to not exist. His language asks Muslims to sign off on his egregious murders, and then the various acts of violence that succeeded during the various invasions and destabilizations and drone-strike fiat murders in over a half-dozen Muslim countries.
You see, yes it is a rhetorical slip, yes it shows a deeper and more extensive bigotry, yes we really do need to see that, but to really see that, we need to understand the context that Bill Clinton took part in creating and in which his wife and he act.
The guilt here is way beyond that of a silly RE charlatan, though jailing any of the group would make way more sense than voting for one.
Hubris, arrogance, entitlement, money and power drip from their every word.
The Clinton's have lied for so long about "helping the people" that millions still believe it. When you look at the audience at the convention they have the same blind trust you see in Trump's audience.
What they can't understand is that now we see who they are and we don't want any more of it. They've lived in their insulated world so long they are out of touch with reality. Do they care about progressives? No. Do they really think we will ultimately vote for them? Yes.
Jill Stein 2016
Excellent points to this extent. But tell us how you intend to vote, not how we should or shouldn't. None of it is that simple.