Constrained Thread: Hillary is of a Corrupt Presidency, How Is She Acceptable?

[host]

Ground rules for this thread:
1.) Discuss your opinions only, post no links and cite no specific sources or posted quotes from those sources. Post what you know, what you recall from the 1993 to 2001 period of the Bill Clinton Presidency.

With her husband being the first US president to be impeached since Andrew Jackson in 1868, and the revelations of the Whitewater investigation and findings of the special prosecutor appointed to investigate the Clintons, the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, Hillary's quick gain in commodities futures trading, travelgate, and Hillary's participation in a closed door series of meetings to impose a socialist, health care solution on the country that did not guarantee the option of keeping or choosing your own physician, how is it that Hillary Clinton is permitted, by the press, and by much of the voting public, to even run for the presidency, wiithout a huge outcry in objection?

Didn't the whitewater prosecutor nail the Clinton's with enough examples of wrongdoing to dismiss them both as unindicted felons?

I think that Clinton has as much right to run as anyone, but I know many who believe she was as criminal as her husband, Bill, or even the brains behind his wrongdoing.

Please post why this is an inaccurate description, or, why you think, knowing what you know about her husband's administration, she is getting away with runnning for president, with no objection by the press, and no serious coverage of the misdeeds she and her husband were involved in.

[ratbastid]

I think--and I think that most Americans agree--that the scandals of the Clinton presidency were largely the result of Republican witch hunting. Only die-hard Republicans think of Clinton as "slick" or "teflon". Everyone else knows that nothing with any real sticking power was ever attempted to stick on him.

Hillary Clinton is not at all unassailable as a candidate--the illusion of her "inevitability" was a Karl Rove construction designed to put her in place as a beatable Democratic nominee. She's actually in fairly tenuous straights, when you look at her record, particularly her hawkish tendencies. But none of the attempted-scandals that were thrown at her husband's White House walls have stuck to her because they were basically groundless to begin with.

That's my opinion.

[Redlemon]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I think--and I think that most Americans agree--that the scandals of the Clinton presidency were largely the result of Republican witch hunting.... But none of the attempted-scandals that were thrown at her husband's White House walls have stuck to her because they were basically groundless to begin with.

In a perverse way, I think that what ratbastid has mentioned here is an advantage for Hillary. There has been so much focus on raking up dirt from her past that there can't possibly be anything new to come up during the Presidential race.

(I have not chosen which Democrat to support - I suspect that the race will be over by the time I get to vote in the primary anyway.)

[reconmike]

If Hillary wins the oval office maybe she will bring back some of the Lincoln china they stole, but then again maybe she will take the rest of the set when she leaves.

[The_Jazz]

host, great implementation of this idea. Kudos for having the balls to do it.

All of us have done shady things at one point or another in our lives - you know, that thing in the place with those folks (to crack wise). Many politicians are corrupt - I'll certainly convinced that Hillary may have benefited from Bill's position, but she wasn't an elected official at the time. If there is any guilt, it belongs to Bill, since he certainly colluded.

That said, she wasn't impeached or charged with a crime. She's clean.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by reconmike

If Hillary wins the oval office maybe she will bring back some of the Lincoln china they stole, but then again maybe she will take the rest of the set when she leaves.

Its this kind of childish response that adds nothing to the forum

BWT, mike....the Republican Congress in 2001 and the incoming Bush administration demanded that the GAO conduct an investigation of the Clinton "thefts and vandalism".

The GAO found no theft by the Clintons and only minor vandalism on computers in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building by junior staff at about the same level as the vandalism by GWH Bush staff when Clinton came into the White House.

The cost of the vandalism was estimated at less than $5,000. The cost of the Republican witch hunt, 11-month GAO investigation was over $100,000.

The government spent more than $80 million investigating the Clinton's personal and public lives before and during their WH years and found no wrong-doing by Hillary.

Who stole more from the American taxpayer?

[robot_parade]

Yeah, host, aside from the oft-repeated but never proven wingnut theories you quote, I'm not aware of any proven wrongdoing on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Some of the accusations you list I've heard before, others are new. But, without proof, I assume it's more of the same right-wing slandar.

Prove it.

That said, I don't think Hillary would make a great president. But at this point, I'll settle for a so-so president. And hell, maybe she'll get the job, and surprise me.

To answer your question, I'm not aware of any wrongdoing by Hillary that would prevent me from voting for her if she gets the democratic nomincation. And there's no way in hell I'm voting for any of the republicans.

[dc_dux]

She is not my first choice (now that Dodd is out, I support Obama) but to answer the question...how is she acceptable?

Look at some of legislation she introduced in the Senate. I think they are all good bills:

* a bill to require stricter enforcement of the Davis-Bacon act (requires paying "prevailing local wages" for government contracts) as a result of abuses in government contracts for Katrina recovery.

* a bill to expand the Family Leave Act to allow more time off work (without threat of losing job) to care for a returning severely injured member of the military.

* a bill to expand the availability of nurses in rural areas by providing tuition assistance for those willing to commit to work in such areas.

* a bill to provide specialized occupational training for vets with service-connected disabilities.

* a bill to provide more regular and comprehensive assessments of US trade agreements

* a bill to increase funding and support for math and science education to restore US competitiveness in these critical learning areas

These are not "big contributor-centric" bills.

Add the fact that among all the candidates, she is the most experienced and I believe, most committed,to preserving and supporting our greatest resources.....our children. This goes back to her days at the Children's Defense Fund. I remember Bob Dole and the Republican chorus mocking Hillary's book, "It Takes a Village (to Raise a Child") at the same time that Dole was campaigning on his small town values and how, in his own small town in Kansas, friends and neighbors all helped in his recovery when he returned home wounded from WW II.

I could give more examples but she is still not my first choice because I dont think she is the most electable Dem because of her high negatives, mostly the result of the Republican assault on her character.

To evaluate Hillary (or any candidate) objectively, one should look at the total voting record and not just those bills which might be in the interest of contributors. Unfortunately, until we have meaningful campaign finance reform and lobbying reform, contributors will also be beneficiaries and few if any candidate or current legislators at any level are immune from such lapses.

[Elphaba]

Host, I admire your style and I am more than a little surprised at the results.
/back on topic.

I am very conflicted about the Clinton presidency, but not for any of the attempts at character assassination listed in the OP. Bill saw the value of Perot's economic focus and ran with it once Perot quit. I don't think anyone would disagree that Clinton is a brilliant politician and skillfully opportunistic.

The triangulation is my primary objection to his presidency. He gave away too much for too little in return, imo, and simply perpetuated the Republican economic model. I see no evidence that Senator Clinton wouldn't continue with much of the same. To her credit, she has proven that she can work both sides of the aisle for consensus and that is a quality we need desparately in the next president. And, I truly have no idea of what she *stands* for, what line is she unwilling to cross. For that reason alone, I am uncomfortable with her, and I will vote for her if she is the party's nomination.

[Seaver]

Believe it or not I take a balanced stance. I treat her the same as I treat the Bush administration's situations in this forum. If there's anything valid then the multi-million dollar investigations would come up with something that sticks. Since nothing did than it's a he-said she-said scenario.

Personally I believe the woman lacks any charismatic or inspirational skills which her husband had. I believe she'd be somewhere between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter of a president though. Not screw up as big as Carter, but not as friendly as Ford. Does that mean she'll be a bad president in my opinion? Not really, I think the Dems have a lot worse candidates.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

And, I truly have no idea of what she *stands* for, what line is she unwilling to cross.

Exactly. When I listen to her, I hear an echo chamber repeating what the polls tell me I'm supposed to want to hear.

By contrast, when I listen to Obama or Edwards (or Kucinich, for that matter), I hear a strong voice that stands for something and is willing to lead the way in a new direction.

[JumpinJesus]

Anyone who wants to be president this bad doesn't deserve to be president nor should they be allowed anywhere near that kind of power.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Anyone who wants to be president this bad doesn't deserve to be president nor should they be allowed anywhere near that kind of power.

Yeah, but you'd have to want it bad to do everything it takes to get the job.

Imagine a system where people are nominated for candidacy out of the general public, independent media profiled them, they're (somehow) narrowed down to a few candidates, and elected to the presidency by popular vote. I mean real ground-up crowdsourcing of the political process, a system that completely does away with campaigning as we know it now, and establishes real and true government BY THE PEOPLE. That'd really be something!

[roachboy]

my problem with bill clinton's administration had nothing to do with the political "scandals" created by the right, but more to do with a possible explanation for the creation of these "scandals"--the triangulation approach to politics--which was a tactic entirely about inter-party balance of power and not at all about the relation of the clinton administration to the rank-and-file (whatever that denotes), moving ever toward the right-center, co-opting republican logic and issues, which made clinton in many respects a moderate republican president.

the main difference between his administration and that of cowboy george appeared at the transnational level in a preference for multilateral agreements as opposed to assymterical bilateral agreements, which are preferred by the bush people. personally, i think that the problem for the far right with multi=lateral agreements was that they were insufficiently tied to nationalism, which is the absolute center of conservative politics, without which there is no conservative ideology. [[so the "scandals" were about creating an illusory clinton, one who occupied fundamentally different positions than he in fact occupied, and who was therefore able to be cast as a "bad man"--and the (imaginary) politics he stood for acribed to his being a "bad man"---which is about differentiating conservative political positions from those clinton had co-opted...so i take these "scandals" as an index of the desparate position clinton's triangulation strategy put the republicans in]]

my hesitations about hillary clinton derive from this, not from the manufactured pseudo-scandals. i was never sure of how bill's administration used hillary--at times, she seemed like she was positioned to the left of bill in order to take the political hit for policy initiatives that were out of phase with the overall logic of triangulation. so i had the sense that she was all about the same kind of tactics, and haven't read or heard anything that woudl contradict that.

but i'm not sure of this---it could be just an appearance that obtained then, but which does not reflect hillary clinton's personal views or what her administration might be like.

what i am more sure of is that she, like all the other democrats who have a viable shot at the nomination--with all caveats about what generates this impression in place---is a neo-liberal. so my mind the central ideological problems that the americans face are connected, at one level or another, to the consequences of the debacle that has been neoliberalism implemented. it is because from this viewpoint there are no real alternatives being presented, only variants, that what i see as happening in the next elections is mostly the replacement of the bush people with a different set of faces.


aside: a long time ago i was waiting for the t at the harvard square stop in cambridge ma. and there was a guy who played violin and handed out this crazy mimeographed screeds that he had written when he wasn't standing in the metro busking. one of these argues that anyone whose self-image is to shot to hell that they would need the approval of a hundred million people as affirmation by running for president really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power, simply because needing that kind of affirmation is in itself pathological.

i like that.

[StanT]

I don't buy the premise of a corrupt presidency. Millions of dollars of investigations over several years yielded very little.


My main objection to Hillary is that she is incredibly polarizing. As the democratic candidate I'm not sure she is electable. As president, she'll start out with the largest disapproval rating in history, I doubt she can get anything done. I'd prefer to see a democratic candidate that doesn't have her baggage of public opinion (as opposed to "corruption").

[roachboy]

it's strange, stan, but i think both our posts are accurate at the same time.
it's an index of the gap between clinton's politics and the way clinton as a signifier has been constructed.
both are operative.