This guy is just amazing. He's a legend. There will never be another Bill Clinton. That's a good and bad thing. Bad because democrats NEED another Bill Clinton for a win in 2008. Good because he is truly in a class of his own, a crucial part of this country's history (and in a very positive way, IMO, unlike our current President, also IMO). It's so nice to see someone called "President" talk so eloquently.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Anyone watching the Bill Clinton interview on CNN?
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
Mike Works
Member
The Democrats don't even need half a Bill Clinton to win the next election. Anyone with 1/10th of the brilliance of Clinton would probably win the vote.
Unfortunately I think Hilary is 1/11th.
so close
Unfortunately I think Hilary is 1/11th.
so close
A southern accent helps, too. Yeah, I would love to see Hilary run. But I don't want to see another loss for Democrats in 2008, and that could make it a reality. But... at this point, who else are they going to run? What Democratic all stars are there right now? Not many... there's Obama, but he's too young. Maybe in another 15-20 years.Mike Works said:
I dunno... 2006 and 2008 will be interesting. :\
I was about to post a topic or something about this as well. The way he's talking about important global issues like poverty, governance, climate change... I mean WOW, this guy really knows his stuff. Plus I heard he's doing a lot with drug companies to produce low cost but high volume HIV drugs. People have been criticizing his global summit as a launching platform for Hilary's presidental run, but you know what? Who the hell cares? He's wielding his influence to do some real good in the world. That's more than I can say for a lot of people with positions of power.
got a video of the interview anywhere??
Edit: Different interview, same general question: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nbc_today_clinton_repeal_cuts_050916a.wmv
Edit: Different interview, same general question: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nbc_today_clinton_repeal_cuts_050916a.wmv
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Reagan wasn't an unknown. He even had an independent electoral vote for him in 1976.
Governors I think are more likely to win elections because they're running inside the state. They have their own budgets, laws, etc. Senators go far away (sometimes) from their states and vote based on their ideology, not what the people there want.
As for Clinton, its either him, FDR, or Teddy Roosevelt as the best Presidents to ever be inside the Oval Office.
Governors I think are more likely to win elections because they're running inside the state. They have their own budgets, laws, etc. Senators go far away (sometimes) from their states and vote based on their ideology, not what the people there want.
As for Clinton, its either him, FDR, or Teddy Roosevelt as the best Presidents to ever be inside the Oval Office.
Squirrel Killer
Member
I'm sorry, but anyone who has to lump Los Angeles into "The South" in order for his point to be valid is streching things a hell of a lot further than they should be. When that rubber band snaps, watch out, 'cause it'll leave a bitch of a welt.Brad DeLong said:
Megafoo Chavez
I love EGM
why do you like america and that president clinton so much diablos? he's a corrupt piece of shit politician.
Incognito said:
What I've seen of him in 2004, he looks like a more human version of Al Gore with a smile plastered on his face 24/7. Actually I can only think of him as wearing that fake smile.
Clinton is just a naturally charismatic person. He has a natural way about him. It's hard to explain.
Groder Mullet
Member
I didn't much care for Clinton while he was in office. He came off as arrogant quite frequently. However, he seems to be a changed man ever since he had his bypass surgery. His recent fundraising efforts with Bush I and his friendliness with Bob Dole have made him a much more likable character, even to a moderate conservative like myself.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Lo-Volt said:
I don't think Washington was that great as President. As a member of the Revolutionary war, he was great. Lincoln...he's good but I feel that these three (FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Clinton) were the best. That doesn't necessarily mean that the others were bad.
You like Bush better? I know your girlfriend doesn'tMegafoo Chavez said:
Anyway, there's not some mystery charm behind Clinton. What made him so successful was that he was more close to the center than he was to the far left. A moderate liberal. But that alone isn't what allowed him to get elected twice. He is also a southerner, so he was really good a speaking the small town talk and really connected with those people. On top of that he's a really intelligent guy with a lot to say, but was good at phrasing it in such a way that did not alarm or offend most people.
Incognito: I agree, I really like her and I think she'd make a wonderful President - and I WOULD vote for her - but let's face it, she would never make it. If Kerry couldn't win, how the hell could she? Hillary, even if her record is more "consistant," is far more liberal than Kerry... or is at least seen that way by most of the public unfortunately. That's one hell of a risk for her party to take if they nominate her. Of course, she's been active in many things over the past years that would give her a reason or two to say she has experience to lead. But that doesn't change the way a lot of people in this country see her.
They need to run someone that's more of a moderate, can connect with the south and has a record that's hard to penetrate. I don't know WHO, out of all the people we know of now, that they could nominate. Edwards is a great guy, but only eight years of experience under his belt. People didn't like that when he was trying to be VP, so that would really hurt him if he ran for President.
But in all honesty... none of us should be getting too excited about a Democrat winning in 2008. If history remains accurate, it shows us that Republicans have been elected more often than Democrats since the 70's.
Nixon - Republican
Ford - Republican
Carter - Democrat
Reagan (8 years) - Republican
H.W. Bush - Republican
Clinton (8 years) - Democrat
Bush (8 years) - Republican
Also, notice how you don't see two Democrats in a row anywhere. That hasn't happened since Roosevelt and Truman. I guess you could say Kennedy and Johnson, but Johnson was forced to because of what happened... so I'm not sure if that counts. And even then that was a long, long time ago.
I think it could take a while for over half of the public to want a Democrat again... sadly we may see a repeat of George H.W. Bush. Someone that says they will carry on what Bush did (which didn't work anyway), but the people will buy it regardless, but by the end of his first term Democrats will become strong enough again to win another election. Hopefully two. I mean, right now, I just don't know who they're going to be able to run.
Maybe if the DNC cultivated some mass volunterring like the RNC did for their candidate last election, we'd be singing a different tune. RNC had something like 1.5 million volunteers getting out the vote and what not, while the DNC had a grand total of 250k volunteers. And the Dems lost the election by a mere 108, 000 votes.
Ugh..
Ugh..
Mike Works was right though, someone that's not even the Bill Clinton Complete Package®, but still has enough to regenerate that same kind of interest is all the Democrats really need. And they just need to sharpen the message. Hillary almost makes it. She can sharpen the message SO well - can you imagine going against her in a debate? You could put a headset on the Republican nominee with Karl Rove constantly talking to him, and Hillary would still be able to own him on every single point made against her. You could NOT mess with her in a debate. She'll eat you alive. The only thing going against Hillary is that she is a woman, and sadly, lots of old, perverted, closed-minded men (and sadly some young ones as well) don't want this, on EITHER side I'd be willing to bet. She's also seen as an extremely liberal individual. And comments like "I don't sit around and bake cookies all day" will not sit will with lots of stay at home mothers, I'd be willing to bet 
She said lots of offensive things when she was younger that they will probably hold against her.
Ah well, we all are overreacting. It's 2005, after all. In 2001, did you even know who John Kerry was? And if so, did you actually think he'd run for President? I rest my case. Democrats can still get it right. And when 2008 comes around, I'm gonna join ther campaign for whomever is nominated. It's the least I can do and I can't wait, to be honest. I've heard nothing but good things about joining a campaign.
She said lots of offensive things when she was younger that they will probably hold against her.Ah well, we all are overreacting. It's 2005, after all. In 2001, did you even know who John Kerry was? And if so, did you actually think he'd run for President? I rest my case. Democrats can still get it right. And when 2008 comes around, I'm gonna join ther campaign for whomever is nominated. It's the least I can do and I can't wait, to be honest. I've heard nothing but good things about joining a campaign.
I think 2004 proved that debates don't matter. Kerry went to work on W and still lost the election. To anyone with a brain who watched the three debates, it was PLAIN to the naked eye who was the better candidate. And polls back that up, too.
Anyway, I'm tired of the debates as they're currently formatted. It's time for a TOTAL MAKEOVER, ABC STYLE. I want the candidates talking to each other at length, discussing ideas and whatnot and answering questions that aren't totally softball(What do you have to say about your lovely wives-- BARF). That would be fucking awesome.
Anyway, I'm tired of the debates as they're currently formatted. It's time for a TOTAL MAKEOVER, ABC STYLE. I want the candidates talking to each other at length, discussing ideas and whatnot and answering questions that aren't totally softball(What do you have to say about your lovely wives-- BARF). That would be fucking awesome.
Incognito said:
I don't think so. Debates did indeed matter. Lots of people still take them seriously. I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't have got even 48% of the vote (that was the number, right?) had he not done so well in those debates. It was Kerry's record (which they made way too big of a deal out of,) and the whole Swift Boat thing that REALLY, REALLY hurt him. Take that away and he would have won. Hell, take away the gay marriage message that Republicans forced onto Ohio at the last second and he could have won.
I do agree about the debates though, it needs to be more open... less controlled. Just let them both go at it.
I really am for a third party in this country, but sadly, that only puts Democrats at a disadvantage here. And the existance of it would give Republicans a sure win for DECADES. I think England has the right idea for politics... the Labour party seems to be pretty moderate. If fucking Nader didn't have anything to do with Florida in 2000, guess who would have been President for at least four years. Dammit.
Yeah, it was overblown but that doesn't matter to undecided voters. It's just enough to make them vote for Bush.
I'd love to know if all of those guys, PERSONALLY, knew of John Kerry and what he had done according to them. If you ask me I think like 90% of them were just Republican drones that don't want the librul to win, and probably watch the news/read the paper/talk politics for 10 minutes a month.
There really should be a standard for how parties "attack" each other. The 527 ads, on both sides, should just be not tolerated, period, during the election season IMO. But the Republican smear tactics are even worse in my opinion. I often asked myself how they could be so valid, and well, LEGAL. They took so much out of context it made me sick. There needs to be a requirement that allows more research when dealing with those kinds of things... it's just wrong. Period. Not saying Democrats are perfect, but hell, the whole Republican mindset during election season is scary. It's not civil, human, or fair. It's not politics, I can tell you that.
That being said, Kerry did a piss poor job in responding to some of the attacks - everything from how they "exploited" his flip flopping of supporting the war, to even the quote where he said he wanted terrorism to go back to being a "nusiance" again. He meant it in the old-fashioned sense, not like a HOLLYWOOD MENACE OMG!!! He meant it like gum on the bottom of your shoe. The guy COULD explain himself, but it was too little too late.
All he had to do about the whole war thing was point out what he said when he voted for the authorization. He simply stated he'll vote for them to do it, but if he sees that things are not going as planned, that it's failing, that there are no WMD's... then he would be one of the first to complain. And he was.
I'd love to know if all of those guys, PERSONALLY, knew of John Kerry and what he had done according to them. If you ask me I think like 90% of them were just Republican drones that don't want the librul to win, and probably watch the news/read the paper/talk politics for 10 minutes a month.
There really should be a standard for how parties "attack" each other. The 527 ads, on both sides, should just be not tolerated, period, during the election season IMO. But the Republican smear tactics are even worse in my opinion. I often asked myself how they could be so valid, and well, LEGAL. They took so much out of context it made me sick. There needs to be a requirement that allows more research when dealing with those kinds of things... it's just wrong. Period. Not saying Democrats are perfect, but hell, the whole Republican mindset during election season is scary. It's not civil, human, or fair. It's not politics, I can tell you that.
That being said, Kerry did a piss poor job in responding to some of the attacks - everything from how they "exploited" his flip flopping of supporting the war, to even the quote where he said he wanted terrorism to go back to being a "nusiance" again. He meant it in the old-fashioned sense, not like a HOLLYWOOD MENACE OMG!!! He meant it like gum on the bottom of your shoe. The guy COULD explain himself, but it was too little too late.
All he had to do about the whole war thing was point out what he said when he voted for the authorization. He simply stated he'll vote for them to do it, but if he sees that things are not going as planned, that it's failing, that there are no WMD's... then he would be one of the first to complain. And he was.
I don't know. The way they demonized Kerry on certain things (like his stance on the war changing) really hurts ALL politicans in the future. Now it's going to be SO much more complex to explain why you changed your mind about something. Kerry could have explained himself better, but he didn't. Now, whenever they find the Democrat changing his mind on something even fairly important, they're going to go apeshit. It's like they completely washed away the idea that a good leader is one that is capabile of changing his mind under dire circumstances. Nope ladies and gentlemen, that's not being a good leader anymore, that's being INCONSISTANT! Politics is a sales chart now! The one that has the straightest line going upward is the winner!
Seriously, what has this country become? It might be funny now, but who knows what the future holds. Democrats are in a rough spot, and Moderate Republicans are PUPPETS, sadly. Smart Republicans far to the right (McCain, for example) that are still actually capabile of thinking don't seem to be popular. Nope, you gotta be born again; ALL ABOUT JESUS!
The Religious Right will get more powerful with every election they win. That's the scary thing. Even if Democrats manage to get 4-8 years starting in 2008, those religious whackos aren't going anywhere. So whenever they're elected again, the same thing happens. :\
I have a feeling Bush was like an experiment for them. Their next guy will have the same intentions as Bush but he'll talk like a genius.
Seriously, what has this country become? It might be funny now, but who knows what the future holds. Democrats are in a rough spot, and Moderate Republicans are PUPPETS, sadly. Smart Republicans far to the right (McCain, for example) that are still actually capabile of thinking don't seem to be popular. Nope, you gotta be born again; ALL ABOUT JESUS!
The Religious Right will get more powerful with every election they win. That's the scary thing. Even if Democrats manage to get 4-8 years starting in 2008, those religious whackos aren't going anywhere. So whenever they're elected again, the same thing happens. :\
I have a feeling Bush was like an experiment for them. Their next guy will have the same intentions as Bush but he'll talk like a genius.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Yes.Diablos said:
Not only that, but I bet a friend that he would win the nomination.Diablos said:
Kerry was in Gore's upper list of potential VP candidates, and since Gore selected Lieberman(Nice choice, idiot.) instead, it was widely thought that if Gore did indeed win, that he would nominate Kerry to the Secretary of State position. I believe in late 2002 Kerry formalized his exploratory committee to run for President.
Squirrel Killer
Member
I work in politics. It helps.Diablos said:
Diablos said:Oh snap.
That sucks for Kerry.
Who else did Gore have for these "upper lists" if you know of course?
Basically anyone who voiced their displeasure with Clinton's moral deficiencies to the public. I'll never understand why Gore went to great lengths to distance himself from Clinton, especially when going up against Bush. In reading "My Life," "The Clinton Wars," and "The Survivor" it didn't really make sense to Clinton and his advisors either. Clinton was also personally hurt by a number of Gore's statements although he never told Gore.
Think fast: What are the chances of there being an independent and/or socialist President in the next 50 years?
Incognito: Yeah, that only hurt Gore in the end. Boo hoo Clinton got a blow job. Jesus Christ.
Wonder who he hates more now, Clinton for what he did, or Dubya for stealing the election from him?
I do give props to Gore for still getting half of the vote with little to no help from Clinton. A formidable task.
Incognito: Yeah, that only hurt Gore in the end. Boo hoo Clinton got a blow job. Jesus Christ.
Wonder who he hates more now, Clinton for what he did, or Dubya for stealing the election from him?
I do give props to Gore for still getting half of the vote with little to no help from Clinton. A formidable task.
Squirrel Killer
Member
0%Diablos said:Think fast: What are the chances of there being an independent and/or socialist President in the next 50 years?
Megafoo Chavez
I love EGM
oh you could say i'm a bush man.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lolevil solrac v3.0
Member
Megafoo Chavez said:oh you could say i'm a bush man.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol
the country aint laughing, but i guess this is all funny to you.
- Status