I think Clinton was an incompetent President who benefited from an economic boom. When it comes to foreign policy, he was a disaster. Spent his whole time pointlessly alienating Yeltsin’s Russia (paving the way for Putin’s aggression against the West), unnecessary wars in the Balkans, mishandled Bin Laden, pretty much ignored/antagonized South Asia (especially India, Bush fixed this). The Brzezinski/Albright/Holbrooke foreign policy did nothing to strengthen American interests (is there a name for this school of thought?)
Interestingly, not many people know this, but Clinton began the program of extraordinary rendition which transferred terrorist suspects to states like Libya and Jordan where they could be tortured. Bush was heavily criticized by liberals for his policies towards torture, but liberals forget their own guy was the one who created the program.
Id have to agree with this. Even though he liked to get his hambone stimulated extra-maritally by chubby interns, I’d say that he was a man that stoud by his prinicples and thats why people respected him.
his principles just didnt happen to include fidelity in marriage, but no ones perfect.
fuck russia, no matter what we would’ve done they would end up hating us. They’re culturally programmed to be whiners and haters.
unnecessary? the last time there was genocide in europe was ww2, so stopping it is unnecessary? and doing it with minimal causalties and expense is a bad thing?
hindsight is 20/20, and it was reagan who empowered the mf’er in the first place.
India was a pretty good candidate to be ignored in the 90’s, who could’ve known they would develop as they did? The country had just stopped being a planned economy and was crawling its way out of the licence raj. Also, half the business processes that are now being outsourced there didn’t even exist in the 90’s. What countries are we ignoring now that will be surprisingingly developed in 15 years? Vietnam? Columbia? Who knows? There’s also the fact that they did test nuclear weapons and act aggressivey towards their neighbours…
I remember the 90’s as being alot more peaceful and less antagonistic then the last ten years have been. Plus Bill Clinton was an ardent freetrader which is something we have completely lost focus on and which I believe is of critical importance to the global economy.
Any thoughts on who, Romney or Obama, has spent more unpaid time helping the poor, the underprivileged, and those generally in need and does said time factor into being able to “relate”? Or who has spent a greater percentage of their income on helping the poor, the underprivileged and those generally in need? What do “empty suits” generally do with their time and money?
“The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Romney told donors yesterday. “In each case they were very generous in what they gave to each of those groups.”
Sounds about right. I’m sure this quote will cause a firestorm.
No suprises there…obama’s old playbook involved community organising and helping those who can least help themselves…a career in community organising is bound to pay dividends when presidential campaigns are conducted at the roots. Romney’s playbook on the other hand prefers a narrative for white folks,alienating him from many other strands of the population…
Hence the need for a republican coalition with social conservatives. This model has no chance in the future. In any case, how is it that people acknowledge these tactics and still vote for either of these parties. All you social liberals out there: there’s another alternative and it won’t require you to mortgage your children’s future. It’s called the libertarian party. The only truly moral party.