Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: Let's argue about Clinton 

Bart, yesterday you wrote:

> Really, our only double winner in 66 years is the reason we're losing?

Assumes that most of your readers are Democrats; but probably many of your readers are 
too smart/have spines to be Democrats.  I'll bet many are Independents.  Do a survey. 

Assumes that "winning" is the goal, not governing.  Winning is important, but only as a means to an end. 
If you "win" for the middle class, but sell them out with NAFTA and employing Robert Rubin to give 
Wall Street the Treasury, then "winning" twice is not really something to brag about. 
Unless YOU benefitted greatly from Clinton's governance (I didn't benefit at all).

Yes, eight years of peace and prosperity are better than Bush's death, war and depression.
To suggest otherwise makes me think your Clinton hatred is Mariana Trench-deep.

Why do people who dislike the Clintons constantly take their eyes off the ball?
I never said, "Clinton was God."
I said, conpared to every other president since WWII, he was our  best president.
That means it's incumbent on YOU to name a better president, which you can't do
which means you agree with me (because I'm right) but you just can't face the facts.

This is a no-win argument if you can't admit what you know is true.

Then you wrote:

> The Clinton haters prove how stupid they are every day.

If you read my email about the accuracy of the 500K children that died in Iraq as a result of sanctions, 
you'll have to admit that we "Clinton Haters" are not stupid.  The Rethug Clinton Haters are though. 
Maybe you should differentiate between the Progressive "Clinton Haters" and the Rethug Clinton Naters, 
even as it serves your purposes to lump we "Haters" all together.

A. Why would a logical man hate the best president of his time?
B. I missed that e-mail you speak of, but what would it matter?
    You have no choice but to admit Clinton was the best, but you want perfection.
    You want 1,000 of every 1,000 decisions to please you and that's never going to happen.
C. People who refuse to admit the facts might deserve to be lumped together.
D. What's preventing you from admitting Clinton did a better job that Carter, LBJ, JFK and Truman?
E. Like with the Davidians, it's not Clinton's fault that some people are born into bad situations.
    The alternative to sanctions is war or allowing Saddam unlimited money for his aggressive war machine.
    Of the three available options, which would President Neil choose?
    Or is this another question you'll have to ignore?

As you once said, we are on the same side (fundamentally, we are decent, compassionate people), 
but you shouldn't assume we share all the same opinions, or the Clinton Lust. 

Your silly "Clinton lust" crack tells me you're still not willing to face the facts.
That tells me you can look at a thunderstorm and say, "Nice day for a picnic."
You can't name a better president than Clinton, yet you insist on classifying those who 
recognize the facts in front of their face as somehow "in lust" with our best recent president.
You are at war with the facts, not me.

Some of us are more objective, and not as swayed by celebrity. 

There you go again, pretending.
You want people reading this to assume Bart is some star-struck school girl staring at
a Jonas Brother when it's you who have failed to make your case.  I'm asking you to
name a better recent president and your reply is "Clinton did some things wrong."

Having been fortunate to meet some very extraordinary people, 
even geniuses (not poker sharks) in my life, I can tell the difference at my age (59).
Best, as always,
 Neil in Maine

You imply that Clinton's "celebrity" has little or no value.
Remember the 24 million jobs created under his administration?
Do you think America would enjoy having 24 millions jobs created today?
Do you think America would enjoy going back to no wars and a stock market that tripled in value?
Do you think America would enjoy going back to "Help Wanted" signs in most store windows?

Neil, you're on the losing side of this argument.
I'm not demanding that you "lust" after Clinton, but please stop ignoring the facts.

You can spew a litany of complaints against Clinton
but you can't name a better recent president.

If I were you, I'd change my position to something like,
"Granted, Clinton was our best recent president, I'd give him a B+
  but he could've gotten an A if he had done X and Y differently."

Then you would sound credible on this subject.

And what was that "not poker shark" snippiness about?

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .