Clinton - the Dems Chances This Election

[Timber Loftis]

As if it's not common knowledge, I have always been a Clinton semi-fan. I consider that a compliment since I tend to dislike both parties. What I liked is that he was very moderate, and I think I'd beat back challenges to that statement. He was certainly pro-business. Of course, who wouldn't be after scamming as much from the SBA as Billary(TM) did during WhiteWater.

Anywho, here are his thoughts on the Dems chances next election. I'd say he's blustering as a party spokesman, as Bush is likely a two-termer. Take note of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the ultra-rich guys who put Clinton in power.

It does suck the Howard Dean is trying this time around. The Dem field is strong, and Bush is strong. Too bad. No presidency for a Vermonter is in the cards at present, I'm afraid.
__________________________________________________ _________

WASHINGTON (May 14) - Former President Clinton said Wednesday night that the Democrats seeking the White House have a chance to win in 2004 if they quit bickering and develop a clear philosophy with a national security element.

``I think on balance they're doing pretty well,'' Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press. ``They need to keep making their philosophy clear.''

Clinton made the comments after a private session with the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic think tank that helped propel him to the White House.

When he came out of the session, Clinton talked about his views on how the Democratic presidential candidates are doing this year in balancing the moderate ``New Democratic'' message with the traditional values of the party. Clinton mastered that balancing act in winning two terms to the White House, in 1992 and 1996.

The 2004 Democratic candidates will have to incorporate strong positions on national security as they develop a clear overall philosophy spelling out why they are running for president, Clinton said. Democrats should not cede the national security issue to Republicans, he said, whether on defense strategy, weapons systems or foreign policy.

But he said it was important for Democrats to stop fighting among themselves and refocus their criticism on their eventual foes - President Bush and the Republicans.

Clinton said he had advantages in his successful 1992 run against the president's father that the Democrats won't have this time.

``We had been out for 12 years,'' he said. ``The Democratic Leadership Council had been working on new ideas. All of this had been building up.''

But Democrats have had a much shorter time to develop their philosophies and issues this time and are racing through a campaign that is moving quickly toward a crush of early contests in 2004, he said.

Clinton said he and one of his 1992 opponents, the late Paul Tsongas, a senator from Massachusetts, put out detailed issue books spelling out their positions.

``That played a major role in our success,'' said Clinton, who finished second to Tsongas in the New Hampshire primary but successfully cast himself as a winner of the expectations game - dubbing himself ``the comeback kid.''

If the current crop of candidates is judged on what they accomplished before running for president, the field is strong, Clinton said. And some of those accomplishments contradict the image candidates have earned in the presidential race, he said.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is described as very liberal by many following the presidential race, Clinton said, ``but look at what he did as governor of Vermont.''

Clinton described Dean's accomplishments with health care in his home state and his proposal to promote a national health care plan with a modest price tag as ``New Democrat'' positions. He was referring to the moniker the Democratic Leadership Council puts on Democrats who can blend moderate ideas that appeal to swing voters with traditional Democratic themes.

And Clinton didn't hesitate when he was asked the overriding question: Can Bush be beaten?

``You can always be beaten,'' Clinton said with a smile. ``I could have been beaten in 1996.''


05/14/03 21:41 EDT


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[Charean]

That has been the Dems problem for a while, they aren't cohesive. They aren't putting out a clear message. All I hear at the moment is that if the Republicans are for it, they are against it - which gives the Republicans a stronger position.

I was hoping the Dems would get their act together, but I won't hold my breath this election.

And I agree Timber, Clinton is a moderate.
That alone, has my support. In a land of extremes, I will be in the middle.

Im gonna steer clear of this fight..but will make one observation. If the Dems want a chance at the white house, they should quit trying to tell us how bad the repugs are, and tell us what they are going to actually do. I find it loathsome to have as your only plank in your platform "The other guy sucks", lets see some leadership and some conviction...tell us what you stand for BUT also tell us how you will actually do it. (note I didn't bash that guy once...TL I think behaviour matters.)

[skywalker]

Bush is not bulletproof and a lot can happen between now and November 2004. If things go well for the Repubs and if the Demos can't gather their forces and support, there will be another term for Bush. If the economy does not turn around or if we get hit by another terrorist attack and Rove can't spin it properly, there may be a different outcome. It is too hard to say at the moment, we shall see how it looks after the primaries.


Mark

Quite right Mark..but as it stands..if things keep on keepin on...Bush is lookin to repeat...if something changes...well...who knows..the world could end in a firey bang tomorrow [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Azred]

The only way for any Democrat to have a chance at unseating Bush in 2004 is for Bush to foul up so badly that he costs himself the election. I watched footage of the group debate the "front runners" (all 7 or 8 of them ) had some weeks ago. At worst, they cannot decide among themselves who has the best chance and all line up behind that person; at best, when they focus on strengthening the economy and improving national security they sound like Republicans.

Although I am not a Democrat (which is fine because I am not a Republican, either) I have one suggestion they might not have considered. His pros: he is still relatively youthful, he is photogenic, and could generate a lot of appeal to a wide range of voters. His cons: he did have an affair, he has been out of the public scene for several years, and he has been neither a governor nor a member of Congress. I am talking about Henry Cisneros. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] No, he probably wouldn't want to run, anyway. But he is no worse than anyone who is thinking of running...he certainly can't be any worse than Rev. Al Sharpton. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img]

Wow, now there is a name I have not heard in a long time.
(apologies to Sir Alec). Wonder if this keystone cops democrud field might not offer some Libs a chance to get into a viable spot?.....naaa now that is just wishful thinking...still.....

[Attalus]

I agree that Bush isn't bulletproof, but I think if he turns the economy around just a bit, he will be a shoo-in. Unsure if another terrorist attack would be bad for Bush, since he is seen as much stronger on security than the Dems. As for Clinton, I think he should keep his pie hole shut, but he is never gonna do that. Instead of a moderate, I would call him an opportunist.

[Sir Taliesin]

Rove would eat Cisneros for lunch! That affair killed any political chance he had. I don't think he was a very popular Mayor in Denver either. The Dems need a squecky clean character this time. Edwards IMO is their best chance. He's young, built a rep has a moderate, voted with Bush on most if not all the security issues, supported the war. He could be a republican!

Rove and team would love to see Dean as the Dems nominee as well. kind of like Clinton Vs. Dole. it'd be a slam dunk!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Im gonna steer clear of this fight..but will make one observation. If the Dems want a chance at the white house, they should quit trying to tell us how bad the repugs are, and tell us what they are going to actually do. I find it loathsome to have as your only plank in your platform "The other guy sucks", lets see some leadership and some conviction...tell us what you stand for BUT also tell us how you will actually do it. (note I didn't bash that guy once...TL I think behaviour matters.)

You know, I was going to give you a big [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img] congratulations for not bashing him, then your wrote those last 5 words. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] Personally, I think similarly to Europeans when it comes to the Lewinsky affair: I simply don't see making a politicians' affair a big deal. Many powerful men -- in fact many men -- have affairs. Big deal. Hillary obviously doesn't care (my personal belief is she's a closet lesbian, but whatever), so why should we? Anywho, don't to rail here.

Attalus, you are right that Clinton is an opportunist. Which, IMO, is good sometimes, and certainly good for the country with an opportunist at the helm. But, like most folks who try to be or have been president, I think he cares about the USA and its future. (e.g. Even though he was a lame duck during December '00, Clinton slept less than ever - 3 hours a night for a month -- as he spent everyday trying to set aside land, pass laws, and in other way screw Republicans. ) As does Bush. They disagree on how to get there is all. When you get to the level of society planning they are/have been at, you can't escape the fact that it is a job you MUST love, lest you simply can't do it. 18 hour days are the norm.

[ 05-22-2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]