Bill Clinton finally able to campaign for Kerry

[Mitchell]

I heard a report on WPVI-TV in Philadelphia tonight, (The ABC station in Philly) which said that former president Bill Clinton will finally be able to make a public campaign appearance for John Kerry next week. Supposedly, Mr Clinton is going to make a campaign stop for Kerry somewhere in the Philadelphia area. I think it will be a big help to Kerry to have Clinton out there at least a little bit in the final week with the race as close as it is. Supposedly, even though Clinton has not been able to publicly campaign for Kerry due to his recovery from his recent heart bypass surgery, Clinton has still been in constant touch with Kerry by phone, advising him on the campaign. I do feel that Clinton would have been a big help to Kerry had he been able to publicly campaign earlier, but we know he couldnt due to his health. Thankfully he will be able to assist in the final week, and it should provide a boost for Kerry. So, for all Democrats of the TMF who support Kerry, it will be good to have our former president out there to hopefully help propel our candidate to victory on November 2.

Mitch

[drew70]

Given Bill Clinton's perjury and subsequent impeachment (I believe he's only the 2nd President in US history to receive this dubious honor), I too am glad he's campaigning for Kerry.

[Krokus]

yea, so am I, especially considering he's the greatest president of all time. :cool:

[Xodlirv]

I don't know if I'd say "all time", but certainly my lifetime. Of course, I'm only 37 and he doesn't have much competition.

Despite all the scandalmongering, Clinton is still very popular with the public, so his support can only help Kerry. Of course, Bush already lost the popular vote once and it didn't stop him.

[venray]

Clinton was elected with less of the popular vote than Bush. That's the way our system works...I didnt see anyone complaining then......

Besides that, there were over 1 million absentee ballots not counted in the election. The rule in most states is that if the number of absentee ballots outstanding in that state cannot effect the vote in that state, then they do not have to be counted...

At the time of the 2000 election

The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong reported:


"Nationally, Mr Gore actually won more votes than Mr Bush, carrying the popular vote by less than one percentage point - around 150,000 votes out of almost 100 million cast.
"But the popular vote was irrelevant since US presidential elections are decided on a state-by-state basis by the Electoral College, which came down to Florida."

This same popular vote count shows up on numerous news sites if you want to verify it further.....

BUT....with the number of absentee ballots not counted, and the fact that most of them were military ballots, and the fact that most (about 65% ) of military absentee voters were supporting Bush, then it is reasonable to conclude that Bush may have actually won the popular vote, The # of military absentee ballots not counted in California alone COULD have given the popular vote to Bush, without affecting the outcome of the electoral votes in that state.....

He did not win the popular vote based on votes that were COUNTED, but to say Al won the popular vote outright is wrong......(or an outright lie)

Ray


http://www.cwv.org/milvote/milvote.htm

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/01-05-09seavey.html

[Xodlirv]

Clinton was elected with less of the popular vote than Bush. That's the way our system works...I didnt see anyone complaining then......

I remember that, and I remember that a lot of people did complain. Republicans mostly, because their guy lost. A lot of them said we needed to do away with the electoral college, because the popular vote is the will of the people. Isn't it ironic that if they'd gotten their way, Al Gore would be President today and a thousand Americans would not have died for Haliburton.

[kurchatovium]

Can you imagine the amount of recounting that would have been done in the 2000 election if we did not have an electoral college system. My god the candidates would have recounted every district in the nation in an election that close. Thank god for the electoral college system.

[Mitchell]

Drew, let me give you a reality check. Clinton was a two term extremely popular Democratic president under whom we had a bustling economy, the stock market went from 3300 on the day of his oath in 1993 to more than 10,700 on the day he left, who created 22 million jobs, and who left office with a 60% approval rating. With those statistics, (Cited from historical sources and accurate, by the way, venray, just so you know) I would say he can be nothing more than an asset to Kerry's campaign. His "impeachment" that you speak of had NOTHING to do with his official capacity as commander in chief, but rather was the doing of a Republican witchhunt into his private life that was NOT the American people's business. The bottom line is that most people in this country were better off when he left office on January 20, 2001 then when he took office on January 20, 1993. Clinton also left the country with the greatest budget surplus in history.
Now, to compare Mr Clinton's statistics to your choice for commander in chief, the inept misleader Mr George W Bush. Mr Bush will go down in history as the only American president other than Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of American jobs during his term. Additionally, he took us from the greatest budget surplus in our history to the greatest deficit due to his mismanagement of the economy and the war in Iraq. He misled us into a war by insisting that there were weapons of mass destruction, a scenario later found to not be accurate. He is responsible for the deaths of 1100 innocent American soldiers, and has destroyed our credibility in the world, all for the purpose of having what he calls a "Free Iraq". The Iraqis, in turn, show their appreciation by having insurgents kill our soldiers that have been dispatched there to aid them in rebuilding their country. This is leadership? The facts speak for themselves. You can rip Clinton all you want, but the fact is that the country was better off under him, and we are not better off now then we were under Clinton. The facts I have listed back that up.
Clearly, Bush supporters will believe what they want, but the facts are the facts. I care not that Clinton lied about sex, I more care that Bush misled us into a war where 1100 are dead. That is a far more serious issue. Bush supporters will spin the scenario any way they see fit, but the facts speak for themselves.

Mitch

[drew70]

Yes, so you keep saying, Mitchell. You are the quintessential broken record. "inept leader"...."mislead war"...yadda yadda...You're welcome to those opinions, but don't expect the rest of us to share them. The truth is, Kerry's campaign is in serious jeopardy, so much so that rather than appeal to his fellow liberals, he's going duck hunting in full camouge gear in a rather silly attempt to fool people into thinking he's conservative. He knows he can't win from just the liberal votes, he's got to somehow siphon off conservative votes. His campaign is in such jeopardy he's relying on Bill Clinton, a known perjurer and one of the only two presidents ever to be impeached. Yes, the facts do speak for themselves, Mitch, but you seem to be as comfortable ignoring them as are your fellow liberals.

[Mitchell]

I dont ignore facts, Drew, but it seems you do. Why if Clinton was so bad did he leave office with a 60% approval rating, having nothing lower than above 50% for his entire second term? Bill Clinton was not "liberal", he was an extremely effective middle of the road Democratic president. He positioned himself as a moderate Democrat, and helped balance the budget as the Republicans wanted, only to have Bush come in and drag us into record deficits with his inept war. Why is it that the Republicans insisted that Clinton balance the budget within 7 years, and shut down the government to do it, and then Bush comes in, wants to cut taxes for the rich, which blew a hole in the budget and the surplus, and drag us into a misguided war while has cost us over 200 billion dollars?
Drew is it not me that sings the same old song, it is you. In fact, Clinton's perjury is not affecting the United States of America in 2004, as he is retired and recovering from heart surgery, having left office with a high approval rating in spite of it, because most voters who vote on the real issues didnt care about Clinton's sex life. More important is your man Bush who is responsible for the most misguided war in history, where no WMD's were found, and has destroyed our credibility around the world, and created deficits which will last ongoing, all while giving the greatest tax breaks to the biggest wage earners. If Clinton is liberal and Bush is conservative, then I would rather have the liberal any day.
One more point: You keep saying Kerry's campaign is in trouble. How in fact is a statistical dead heat in trouble? An incumbent president usually wins by a large margin unless he is inept. Look at Clinton in 1996, as he won by a greater margin than he did in 1992 in both the popular vote, and the electoral college. Look at even President Reagan, for whom I have great respect, the country was in good shape in 1984, and Reagan won handily, as he should have. The economy was strong, and the voters were behind him. He was doing a good job.
It is always said that any sitting president with an approval rating under 50% is in trouble, and Bush's is under 50%. The bottom line is that it is not only me and my "liberal" base. (Iam not "liberal" as you say, but rather consider myself middle road Democrat, who would vote for a middle of the road Republican like Mccain) There are many Republicans I know, moderates, who voted for Bush in 2000 because of his moderate rhetoric then, and will vote Kerry now, because they feel he is positioned too far to the right, and disagree with the war, and the record deficits he has created.
If you want to vote Bush, that is your peroggative, Iam not disagreeing with you, merely pointing out why I refuse to vote Bush. We will see what happens in 11 days. I suspect that there are still a few surprises in store in this election, and if Bush does get defeated, there will be reasons why.

Mitch

[red indian]

...seriously think Clinton wants Kerry to win this election? and put Hillary out of contention for probably two Presidential terms? its very strange how quiet the normally fog horn mouthed Hillary has been of late dont you think? but then of course she has been at Bills bed side mopping his brow like a dutifull wife ...yeah, and I'm a cowboys auntie.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
Clinton was elected with less of the popular vote than Bush. That's the way our system works...I didnt see anyone complaining then......

Besides that, there were over 1 million absentee ballots not counted in the election. The rule in most states is that if the number of absentee ballots outstanding in that state cannot effect the vote in that state, then they do not have to be counted...

At the time of the 2000 election

The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong reported:


"Nationally, Mr Gore actually won more votes than Mr Bush, carrying the popular vote by less than one percentage point - around 150,000 votes out of almost 100 million cast.
"But the popular vote was irrelevant since US presidential elections are decided on a state-by-state basis by the Electoral College, which came down to Florida."

This same popular vote count shows up on numerous news sites if you want to verify it further.....

BUT....with the number of absentee ballots not counted, and the fact that most of them were military ballots, and the fact that most (about 65% ) of military absentee voters were supporting Bush, then it is reasonable to conclude that Bush may have actually won the popular vote, The # of military absentee ballots not counted in California alone COULD have given the popular vote to Bush, without affecting the outcome of the electoral votes in that state.....

He did not win the popular vote based on votes that were COUNTED, but to say Al won the popular vote outright is wrong......(or an outright lie)

Ray


http://www.cwv.org/milvote/milvote.htm

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/01-05-09seavey.html

Venray... this just brings me to one important question... Why even bother with democracy if we can't count the votes correctly? I figured that counting votes was kind of an integral part of the system. Oh well... fuck it...

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
Can you imagine the amount of recounting that would have been done in the 2000 election if we did not have an electoral college system. My god the candidates would have recounted every district in the nation in an election that close. Thank god for the electoral college system.

It sounds to me that this inadvertently is an admission that it is likely that most of our states aren't even properly disclosing votes. Does this disturb anyone else that we don't really even know how accurate our statewide systems are? The electoral college is essentially an institution that demonstrates the fact that we're too big of a country to be run under one government. Maybe the states should be sovereign in a truer sense than we currently allow.

[sushi854]

First of all I realize that any discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the Electoral College is futile. I think that the reason the 2000 election prompted more outcry than the 1992 or 1996 elections is that while Clinton had a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Bush did in 2000, he still had more votes than anyone else who was running against him. Al Gore, of course, officially had more votes in the popular vote than Bush in the 2000 election, a statistic that is admittedly meaningless other than to promote controversy. We all, liberal and conservative, should concede that what "goes around comes around" regarding the influence of third-party candidates on elections in a two-party system.

[Mitchell]

I just watched a replay of Clinton and Kerry's rally in Philadephia today on C Span. It was quite an energizing event. The crowd looked electric. Clinton spoke for about 15-20 minutes, discussing the record of his presidency, how the country was better off under his leadership, and the Democrats, and how Kerry can restore credibility around the world. After that, Kerry spoke to the cheering crowd for about 15 minutes, asserting the record of how the country was better off under Clinton and the Democrats, and how he planned to reduce taxes for the middle class, roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy, and cut the deficit. I believe that Clinton will be a major asset to Kerry in the final days of this campaign, and I for one am happy to have him aboard, as the man left office with a 60% approval rating, and I believe can serve to aid in swaying liberal Republicans, and undecided voters, who may not be comfortable with Bush and his policies, into John Kerry's column.
I heard that Clinton and Kerry were at a rally in Miami tonight, and plan to make several more stops before election day. Hopefully, Bill Clinton will serve to be an energizing factor and aid in propeling Kerry to victory next Tuesday.

Mitch

[drew70]

It seemed to me that the crowd was cheering Clinton way more than they were cheering Kerry. Dispite his tainted and tarnished record, Bill Clinton still seems to have considerable charismatic charm. I got the idea that Clinton was campaigning for himself more than he was for John Kerry. He kept talking about how great the numbers were during his term as opposed to those during Bush's. In short he was basically saying, "I was a way better president than George W. Bush, so vote for m...um....oh yeah, John Kerry!! And oh by the way, I'm rich now!"

[Mitchell]

This "tainted and tarnished record" that you speak of is a joke. That was in his personal life, an area that was not anyone's business but his own, Hillary's and Lewinsky's. As president, the record speaks for itself. 22 million jobs created, the lowest peacetime unemployment rate, record stock market growth, and a record budget surplus. Clinton is popular because he was an effective president under whom the country prospered. Had he been an ineffective president like Bush, he would not have been nearly as popular. The bottom line is that most Americans were better off four years ago then when Bush took office. I think that many, especially those invested in the stock market, would take Bill Clinton and the prosperity that occured under him back in a second, as they were certainly doing a hell of a lot better under him then they have these last four years under Bush.

Mitch

[drew70]

Sure, Mitch. I'm sure it looks that way on the surface. Dig a little deeper and you'll discover that Clinton was sleeping on two time bombs that he could have diffused. The first being Osama Bin Laden, whom Clinton blew an opportunity to capture. He was too busy boffing Monica in the Oval Office, of all places. And then of course you had the economic time bomb Clinton was sitting on, where companies were grossly exaggerating their reported revenue, setting the stage for the economic crisis that was compounded by 9-11. But hey, if you feel better blaming Bush for all of it, go right ahead. God forbid you liberal democrats actually have a platform to run on other than "This guy's so bad you just have to vote for me!"

[venray]

Originally posted by Mitchell
This "tainted and tarnished record" that you speak of is a joke. That was in his personal life, an area that was not anyone's business but his own, Hillary's and Lewinsky's.



Not anyone's business??

So we should not be concerned that the President of the United States committed adultry in the Oval Office? Is that really what you truly believe? If so, then I guess the lack of moral values is a good reason to vote for a candidate, so sign me up for Kerry....
:rolleyes:

[Mitchell]

I concede that Clinton himself admitted that he made errors in his attempt to capture Bin Laden, but how exactly are companies falsely reporting their revenues, and what has happened with companies like World Com, and Enron, Clinton's fault? He didnt have any bearing on the inflated and unethical practices of those companies. I remind you that while Martha Stewart was nailed (justifiably) for her unethical behavior, former Enron chief Ken Lay, who was instrumental in the whole Enron scandal and mess, hasnt spent a day in jail, nor will he ever, probably, because he is Bush's buddy. You hear nothing about him.
You use the word "liberal" like it is a dirty word. How in fact is having compassionate values, wanting to tax the rich fairly, and aid the poor a bad thing? Bush has none of those values. I again say, if Clinton was so bad, why was the man re elected to a second term in a landslide? He left office with a 60% approval rating. If Bush is doing such a great job, why do we have an out of control war, our credibility destroyed around the world, and why is the man fighting for his presidency in this election? Normally, if the country is in good shape, the incumbent is re elected in a landslide. It happened with Clinton in 1996, and with Reagan in 1984. The bottom line is that Bush 43 has no record to run on. He has lost over 1 million jobs in his term, has turned the biggest surplus into the biggest deficit by running his out of control war, and has antagonized our allies and former allies with his policies. We are in need of new leadership, and with the policies of the current administration and the past four years not working, it is high time we try a new direction and new ideas. Clearly, the country will likely be better off in four years from now if Bush loses next Tuesday, because if he wins, it will likely be more of the same failed policies that have weakened our country over the past four years.

Mitch

[New2u]

When Clinton "lied"...nobody died.

'nuff said.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
Not anyone's business??

So we should not be concerned that the President of the United States committed adultry in the Oval Office? Is that really what you truly believe? If so, then I guess the lack of moral values is a good reason to vote for a candidate, so sign me up for Kerry....
:rolleyes:

Try entering a war for ulterior motives as a "moral action." How about making tax cuts mostly for the benefit of your rich friends while about 20 million of your citizens remain homeless? How about eliminating environmental standards so businesses can pollute more freely and negatively affect the health of countless citizens and ecosystems? If you want an example of an immoral candidate, take a look at Bush. Adultery is obviously wrong, but these other things I've mentioned are far worse....

[Cosmo_ac]

Not anyone's business??

So we should not be concerned that the President of the United States committed adultry in the Oval Office? Is that really what you truly believe? If so, then I guess the lack of moral values is a good reason to vote for a candidate, so sign me up for Kerry....


Please ray, please tell me your not suggesting Bush is a "leader of strong morals".

[New2u]

cosmo_ac said, "Please ray, please tell me your not suggesting Bush is a "leader of strong morals".

Cosmo, I could be wrong but, I think Ray seems to really believe everything Bush tells him.