Senator Clinton...Senator Bill Clinton

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Денг Гордон

Денг Гордон

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
6,039
Likes
26
Points
48
(CNN) -- After eight years as senator from New York, Hillary Clinton is trading places, moving from Congress to the incoming administration.

Former President Bill Clinton has been mentioned as a possible replacement for his wife in the Senate.

On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he asked his former rival to be his secretary of state.

That means the scramble begins to replace Clinton on Capitol Hill. Among those mentioned to take her seat as New York's junior senator is her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

At a news conference in Chicago, Illinois, on Monday, after Obama announced her selection, Clinton said she wanted to "thank my fellow New Yorkers who have, for eight years, given me the joy of a job I love with the opportunity to work on issues I care deeply, in a state that I cherish."

Clinton added that "leaving the Senate is very difficult for me."

The task of choosing a successor falls to David Paterson, New York's Democratic governor. Whomever he picks would serve for two years, before a special election in November 2010 to decide who fills the last two years of Clinton's term.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/clinton.replacement/index.html

That would be fun.
 
Why would a disgraced former President was to be appointed a US Senator? I would think there are a lot of other prominent (or promising) democrats in NY to take the job.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Why would a disgraced former President was to be appointed a US Senator? I would think there are a lot of other prominent (or promising) democrats in NY to take the job.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton might just be a place holder until the 2010 special election. Bill Clinton will have the incentive of doing it to try to repair his image, that he damaged during the primaries.
 
It might be an attractive position for him. Senators do get interns, right?
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Why would a disgraced former President was to be appointed a US Senator? I would think there are a lot of other prominent (or promising) democrats in NY to take the job.
Click to expand...

Disgraced?

We're talking about Bill Clinton, the most popular (worldwide) President of the 20th Century.

You must be thinking of that despicable traitor Bush.
 
MARIS61 said:
Disgraced?

We're talking about Bill Clinton, the most popular (worldwide) President of the 20th Century.

You must be thinking of that despicable traitor Bush.
Click to expand...

The guy who shook his finger at you and swore he never had sex with that woman?

Only the 2nd president to be impeached.

Disbarred by SCOTUS and his home state.

Paid $900K to Paula Jones.

The most scandal ridden presidency in the last 70+ years, if not since 1900.

So popular that AlBore easily won the presidency as a sign the people so wanted more of the same.

You know his full name is William Milhaus Clinton, right?
 
MARIS61 said:
Disgraced?

We're talking about Bill Clinton, the most popular (worldwide) President of the 20th Century.

You must be thinking of that despicable traitor Bush.
Click to expand...

No, I'm thinking of a President who was impeached for lies to Congress and were it not for a deeply partisan Congress, would have been thrown out of office. I'm also thinking of a president who drummed up the largest tax hike in the history of world civilization and lost both houses of Congress over it.

Early historians are calling his administration the 3rd most corrupt ever.
 
Yeah BP...Faux News historians?

You might remember that the situation in the US was more than a little better in terms of economy, foreign policy, and human rights, than it is now.

I bet Clinton is somewhere in the middle, historically speaking. Great in his ability, but deeply flawed as well.
 
March 2000 would be during Clinton's last year in office.


Loading…

www.lowrisk.com


This chart shows the current Nasdaq bear market compared to the Dow Jones Industrials in 1929:
nd-dow-long.gif

The black line shows the Dow bear market that started on September 3rd, 1929. After that drop, the Dow didn't make it back to its highs until 1954!! The magenta line is the Nasdaq bear market that started on March 11th, 2000.
 
RayDavies said:
Yeah BP...Faux News historians?

You might remember that the situation in the US was more than a little better in terms of economy, foreign policy, and human rights, than it is now.

I bet Clinton is somewhere in the middle, historically speaking. Great in his ability, but deeply flawed as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, I read revisionist historians that are 100% non political. Very heady stuff. The general consensus is that Clinton had the 3rd worst "administration" and he ranks as our 10th worst president. I think that's about right. Of course, to libs he's one of the greats and to conservatives he's one of the very worst. As for me, I'll take the non political route as it's more honest.
 
Денг Гордон said:
Bill Clinton might just be a place holder until the 2010 special election. Bill Clinton will have the incentive of doing it to try to repair his image, that he damaged during the primaries.
Click to expand...

How on earth did he damage his image during the primaries? Barack Obama called a president who has done more for black people than any other since Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Abraham Lincoln a racist. It was President-Elect Obama who trashed him and his fawning press was complicit in the character assassination.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Actually, I read revisionist historians that are 100% non political. Very heady stuff. The general consensus is that Clinton had the 3rd worst "administration" and he ranks as our 10th worst president. I think that's about right. Of course, to libs he's one of the greats and to conservatives he's one of the very worst. As for me, I'll take the non political route as it's more honest.
Click to expand...

Step away from the glue bottle. :biglaugh:
 
maxiep said:
Barack Obama called a president who has done more for black people than any other since Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Abraham Lincoln a racist.
Click to expand...

Again, link?

Obama publicly praised Bill several times that I saw, and never called him a racist as far as I am aware of.

The right-wing press implied it daily, and Bill definitely tried to prey on the fears of redneck racists to help his wife win, but it backfired in the same way Mccain's attempts backfired.

Voters are smarter nowadays.
 
Denny Crane said:
March 2000 would be during Clinton's last year in office.


Loading…

www.lowrisk.com


This chart shows the current Nasdaq bear market compared to the Dow Jones Industrials in 1929:
nd-dow-long.gif

The black line shows the Dow bear market that started on September 3rd, 1929. After that drop, the Dow didn't make it back to its highs until 1954!! The magenta line is the Nasdaq bear market that started on March 11th, 2000.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to take your word for all this as the graph has no timeline, and no explanation of what the numbers and % mean. I could overlay another graph line like you did and it would match as well. Bush's popularity starting in 2001. Or the average American's actual buying power over that time frame. Or the % of rights and freedoms we enjoyed over that time frame. Or the overall health of our environment over that time frame. Or the level of respect our nation has from other nations over that time frame.

This is fun! Graphs are like the Bible, you can use them to support any nutty arguement.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Actually, I read revisionist historians that are 100% non political. Very heady stuff. The general consensus is that Clinton had the 3rd worst "administration" and he ranks as our 10th worst president. I think that's about right. Of course, to libs he's one of the greats and to conservatives he's one of the very worst. As for me, I'll take the non political route as it's more honest.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA... what 'revisionist historians' are you reading?

What are their goals in attempting to overturn popular historical views?

Among Whom is this general consensus held?


...Well?
 
RayDavies said:
HAHAHA... what 'revisionist historians' are you reading?

What are their goals in attempting to overturn popular historical views?

Among Whom is this general consensus held?


...Well?
Click to expand...

Probably nutjobs like Pat Buchanan.
 
Денг Гордон said:
Bill Clinton might just be a place holder until the 2010 special election. Bill Clinton will have the incentive of doing it to try to repair his image, that he damaged during the primaries.
Click to expand...

Yeah but he really doesn't need to do that. He just needs to go around the country campaigning for Democrats, raise money, stuff like that.

If he goes to the US Senate, it will be because he wants to still craft policy. He never wanted to leave office.
 
MARIS61 said:
I guess we'll have to take your word for all this as the graph has no timeline, and no explanation of what the numbers and % mean. I could overlay another graph line like you did and it would match as well. Bush's popularity starting in 2001. Or the average American's actual buying power over that time frame. Or the % of rights and freedoms we enjoyed over that time frame. Or the overall health of our environment over that time frame. Or the level of respect our nation has from other nations over that time frame.

This is fun! Graphs are like the Bible, you can use them to support any nutty arguement.
Click to expand...

The 100% on the left is the peak of the NASAQ index and DOW index. The numbers across the bottom are days since the peak. The timeline is quite clear if dates like "September 3rd, 1929" and "March 11th, 2000" do a silly thing like establishing times.

"You might remember that the situation in the US was more than a little better in terms of economy, foreign policy, and human rights, than it is now."

Isn't quite true about the economy, which lost between $3T and $7T of peoples' net worth after pursuing Clinton's economic policies. There was Enron, the destruction of AT&T, WorldCom, Global Crossing, the loss of hundreds of thousands of high paying tech jobs when the dot bomb bubble burst, and that people ended up borrowing against their homes to pay the taxes due to the Bush I and Clinton tax hikes.

Like it or not, W's economic policies of massive govt. spending and lower taxes, lower fed interest rates, and weak dollar are all the levers that the feds have to affect the economy for the better during times of crisis. FDR couldn't have been more proud - it was exactly his Depression Era playbook in action.

Unfortunately, you cannot sustain a strong looking economy based upon bubbles - like the stock market one the graph shows bursting, or the housing bubble that burst a year ago. You cannot grow govt. to any size, say by subsidizing money losing propositions like Solar or other alternate energy scams or universal health care without consequences. The govt. is simply already far too huge to be funded on INCOME tax - they've been taxing peoples' life savings/nest eggs since 2000, and the people are tapped. It might be a signal that things aren't working when the rich are paying 90% of the taxes, the lower several millions aren't paying taxes at all and more removed from paying them with each tax cut, and families have to work 2+ jobs to come close to making it.

It isn't exactly true about foreign policy, either. If I do remember correctly, Clinton used military force in at least Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Iraq - while N. Korea was secretly building nukes in spite of the Clintons' diplomatic deals with that country and Iran funded and built top notch proxy terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan, and radical Islam grew unfettered.

(Note: I have no issue with Muslims in general, the very few extreme fundamentalists are dangerous to everyone).
 
Last edited:
RayDavies said:
HAHAHA... what 'revisionist historians' are you reading?

What are their goals in attempting to overturn popular historical views?

Among Whom is this general consensus held?


...Well?
Click to expand...

I certainly don't need to apologize to a brainwashed lib (or conservative) that I am college educated in the fireld of aeronautics (paid for every penny of it out my own pocket) and enjoy intellectual pursuits. I love history and have read it extensively for 40 years. I feel like I'm dealing with kindergarteners, sometimes.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
I certainly don't need to apologize to a brainwashed lib (or conservative) that I am college educated in the fireld of aeronautics (paid for every penny of it out my own pocket) and enjoy intellectual pursuits. I love history and have read it extensively for 40 years. I feel like I'm dealing with kindergarteners, sometimes.
Click to expand...

Typical response.

'I'm smart, really!"

nevermind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top