Estrich: Clintons holding Democrats down

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I normally don't agree with Susan, but she brings up an interesting point...

 

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?c...columnsName=ses

 

The Clintons are back.

 

Sidney Blumenthal -- much-hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist -- $850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right-wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

 

Hillary's book is next.

 

Could someone please tell these people to shut up?

 

The Democrats might have a chance of electing a new president if they could get the last one, and his defenders, to clear the stage. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They should be history.

 

The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

 

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they'll never do so long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990s.

 

Don't get me wrong. No one spent more time defending Bill Clinton than I did. Too much, according to most of my friends. But in a constitutional crisis, there was no choice. Enough is enough.

 

There's no excuse for a grown man to have an affair with an intern, whether his name is Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy. What the former president did was wrong.

 

It's bad enough that Fox has given Monica Lewinsky a talk show. Of all the hundreds of women who could help find Mr. Personality, the last one on earth who's earned the right to do it is the Queen of Blow Jobs of the 1990s.

 

The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

 

Why are we? Or, to put it more accurately, why are they?

 

Not because it serves the interests of Democrats of the future.

 

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt.

 

It makes George W. Bush look good.

 

It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me, during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me in trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder Republicans are delighted to see his return to the spotlight.

 

It raises money for their causes.

 

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show on CBS has proven to be a colossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

 

Let's not mince words.

 

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention non-working, independent, non-political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

 

But the more people talk about her as a future president, the more money Republicans raise. The more people talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

 

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

 

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

 

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats ...

[Guest Vyce]

The Clintons, attention hogs? SHOCKING.

 

Who is Susan Estrich? Is this that gravelly voiced woman that occasionally appears on Fox News? Christ, I can't stand that woman's voice. It makes me want to stick dinner forks through my eardrums.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Yep, that's her...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Nobody really thought too much about Clinton until he started doing speeches. That's really what he was good at. He felt your pain, even when he was usually the one causing all your pain.

 

Nobody is being an individual in this election. At least not yet. It's all "we're the band of dudes who want to kick out Bush!" At this point, it's still hard for the average Dem voter to know who stands where on what issues, because it's all a big "We can beat W!" group hug right now.

 

The result is going to be low numbers at the polls, I'd imagine. As well as those of us who do track politics just voting for whoever we think has the best chance of knock Boy George off his high horse.

 

I have a love-hate thing with Bill Clinton, and certainly all the attention whoring of the 90s political icons aren't helping the current group of democrats.

 

Unfortunatley, a lot of Americans still think we live in this cliche'd "post 9/11 world" where nothing will ever be the same and the world will be forever changed, blah blah blah. So Bill pushing himself into the spotlight (and the media is all too happy to oblige) is about as relevant to current events as, well, Hulk Hogan in 2003. Heh.

[Guest Some Guy]

I heard that something like 66% of registered Democrats can't name one of the nine Pres candidates. That's pretty sad. I think this woman has a point and I've said it before. Billy Jeff should step the fuck out of the spotlight and allow it to shine on whoever the Dems deem to be the "Next Big Thing" for them, too bad the current crop isn't too great.

 

Do you see George H.W. Bush runnign around on TV and giving speeches all the time? No. Did you see him running around and critizing Clinton when he was Pres? No. Clinton is an egomaniac. He can't step away. In his mind the earth doesn't revolve around the Sun it revolves around Bill Clinton. I know that's a tired cliche but truer words have never been spoken. Everything he's done has been for his benifit. He wanted Socialist healthcare (Hilarycare) and that didn't poll weel, so he shifted to a totally politically opposite issue that did, Welfare reform. There was very little consistancy form Clinton, other than doing what was best for him. And now is no different. He won't step out of the way and let others shine. Like KKKYMB said in the title of this thread Bill is HHH, too bad the Dems don't have a Booker T, RVD, Benoit, Eddy, or anyone else who's ready to be a star.

 

I still think the best course of action for hte Dems is to get rid of their less desirable members. Sharpton is a moron and Mosley Brown is just as bad. One of them should be nominated, allowing Bush to kill them off with a landslide victory, throw in Dascle to that mix as well (he polls alwfully, he turns people off just at the sight of him).

[Guest NoCalMike]

To the contrary, I think it was Al Gore's mistake of distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 race that cost him the win. Like him or not, Clinton was a popular president. Yes, his haters, hated him DEEPLY, but he was still popular at the end of his term. Gore was paranoid that since Clinton was an adulterer, that he would be caught up in being accused of all the same things. That is why he would blatantly kiss his wife for the cameras aszif to say, "look, I don't cheat on my wife, I'm not Clinton" Stupid Indeed.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Do you see George H.W. Bush runnign around on TV and giving speeches all the time? No.

umm, YES. I see about 1 speech per day which is basically the same identical speech as the day before.

[Guest MD2020]

Could you please tell me where one can find these speeches? I mean, George W. Bush should be doing speeches--he is the president and all--but I can't seem to find all this coverage about the 41st president. Perhaps I should upgrade to digital cable.

[Guest DrTom]

He wanted Socialist healthcare (Hilarycare) and that didn't poll weel, so he shifted to a totally politically opposite issue that did, Welfare reform.

Clinton was a crafty political chameleon. He was a "New Democrat" (read: thinly-veiled socialist) after taking office, but then the Republicans swept into Congress in 1994 and signaled a conservative movement among voters. Clinton then adopted traditional conservative ideals -- welfare reform and the balanced budget, to name two -- when running for re-election in 1996.

 

To the contrary, I think it was Al Gore's mistake of distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 race that cost him the win.

Absolutely. Clinton was still popular, and had Gore simply ridden his coattails a little bit, I have no doubts he would have been elected in 2000. Instead, Gore chose to distance himself from Clinton, thus cutting himself off from Clinton's popularity and appeal to voters, as well as the generally healthy economy of the time. Gore ran the most miserable national campaign I've ever seen, and managed to snatch narrow defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Way to go, Al.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Could you please tell me where one can find these speeches?

Well this month we've had a National Day Of Prayer speech, a War Ending Speech on a battleship, an Iraq UN Sanctions speech, a tax relief speech in Arkansas (one that caused the workers at that factory to not get pay that day and the boss made them choose between working on Saturday or missing a day on their check. Thanks, George), and a speech at a University.

 

The media doesn't interrupt everything they're doing for each and every one of them anymore, but they're there. They will step up now that he has officially began his re-election campaign.

[Guest MD2020]

Just curious, but can you guys read? If not, let me know and I'll explain it to you.