I caught a little of this on C-Span and the article below doesn't really give the speech its proper due. Clinton sounded out some themes that I think will become more pronounced leading into the next election... 1. Democrats are practical people who look for ways to solve problems while the current administration is so bound by ideology that they lack the capacity to change course, even when a policy is demonstrably wrong. 2. We need to win the war on terror, but we can't do it alone, so we need to "make more friends and less terrorists." 3. Emphasize the tax cuts by showing what they costs in real terms, like cops on the street, after-school programs, worker training programs, etc., while showing the disproportionality of the cuts. 4. Dems aren't the ones playing class warfare... the Republicans made choices to hurt poor and middle-class Americans and to favor the wealthy. 5. He kept urging the crowd to go out and talk to your neighbors about what's going wrong, but tell them with a smile and tell them what Democrats would do differently. I suspect he thinks the current tone of this administration will wear thin if compared with an optimistic and upbeat Dem candidate. 6. He also sounded out some environmental themes for mainstream appeal. __________________ washingtonpost.com A Fresh Appetite for an Ex-President Clinton's Aid Would Be Welcome, Candidates Say By Dan Balz and Tania Branigan Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 14, 2003; Page A06 INDIANOLA, Iowa, Sept. 13 -- There were seven presidential candidates and several thousand Democratic activists assembled on a muddy field here this afternoon, but the red-and-white placards told the story: "Welcome Back Bill," they said. "We Miss You!" They were referring, of course, to former President Bill Clinton, the star at the annual political steak fry hosted by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (D) and a politician who still looms large over his party almost three years after he left office. In the 2000 campaign, Democrat Al Gore, concerned about the fallout from the political scandals associated with Clinton's personal life, largely shunned the man who had picked him to be vice president in 1992. Today, Clinton was embraced as a Democratic hero. "I'd vote for him again," said Barbara Anderson, as she walked toward the food tent with her husband and family. "He's a people person, and we need more of that." These activists are focused on the battle for the 2004 Democratic nomination, but when Clinton took the stage, they rolled back the clock, remembering the man who had energized their party and brought them back from the wilderness in 1992. They also listened intently as Clinton delivered a seminar in how to try to win back the White House in 2004. The former president charged his successor, President Bush, with missing an opportunity to unite the country after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Instead of uniting the world, we alienated it, and instead of uniting America, we divided it by pushing it too far to the right," he said. He also regaled his audience by pointing out that Bush had given the wealthy -- himself included, Clinton noted repeatedly, now that he is earning millions -- a big tax cut, but that it came at the cost of cuts in law enforcement, education and other programs affecting ordinary people. Most Americans, he said, don't know that. "All we have to do to win is make our differences clear," Clinton said. "Tell them [the voters] what they don't know and wouldn't like either if they knew it, and what we would do if they gave us the job." Clinton also appeared conscious of not overshadowing the candidates, even though a majority of Democrats cannot even name one of them. "I get tired of people saying this field can't beat the incumbent president," he said, and added, "I know these people, and this is the best field of candidates we have put forward in decades." Harkin, who ran against Clinton in primaries in 1992, has been holding his steak fry for a quarter-century, but this may have been one of the most unusual he has ever staged, and not just because of the rain that fell steadily throughout the day, stopping finally shortly before Clinton took the stage. With the Iowa precinct caucuses -- the first major contest on the calendar next year -- little more than four months away, the gathering provided the candidates a forum to show off their organizations and perhaps convert some of the undecided. Seven candidates appeared here today, with only Al Sharpton and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) not in attendance. Supporters staged mini-rallies in behalf of their candidates. Those backing Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) distributed oranges. Supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) trailed him while smacking together inflatable tubes with "Bushwhacked" printed on them. The candidates have vied to embrace Clinton on the campaign trail, and when they had their brief opportunity to speak today, it was as if they were trying to channel the spirit of the former president. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), like Clinton a southerner with a big smile, said, "I'm tired of Democrats walking away from Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who led the greatest period of economic growth in our history." "He brought us peace and prosperity," former Illinois senator Carol Moseley Braun said to cheers from the audience. "This crowd has [the Bush administration] brought us depression and war." Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) told reporters he wants Clinton's help if he becomes the nominee next year. "When I'm the nominee, I'm going to have Bill Clinton out on road for me fighting to win this presidency," he said. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D) also said he, too, would welcome Clinton at his side. "He's a larger-than-life figure, so there's always a risk that he'll diminish whoever the nominee is, but I think that he'd be a very valuable asset on the campaign trail." The steak fry came at the end of a week in which several of the candidates sharply challenged Dean, who leads the field in polls both here and in New Hampshire. Dean dismissed the attacks as "nitpicky" and said, "This is more Washington stuff, and I don't think the people are going to buy it." Gephardt said the criticisms will continue. "We're all friends, and we're all working toward the same goal," he said, "but we've got to have a legitimate debate in this race." That will come again soon, but for a few hours here today, there was nothing but unity. Clinton joked that, in every campaign, Democrats want to fall in love with a candidate, while Republicans "just fall in line." He added, "Go ahead, fall in love, be for somebody, but when the primaries are over, let's fall in line and bring the White House back."
Let me respond piece by piece...... 1. What solutions except for "let's throw more of your money on useless programs that buy us votes and blame the Republicans when it fails." They don't ever want a solution to anything, just a way for them to continue to take advantage of it (Social Security, Mediscare, any other Democratic social program). 2. What, do you think we are losing the war on terror? Has there been another attack on American soil. I think not. We are winning. And yes, we are trying to use the rest of the world to help. 3. When is it the Federal govt's responsibility to pay for cops on the street, after-school programs and worker training programs? And what cuts? If anything, Bush has given the Dems everything they want in social spending and more! 4. Why shouldn't the wealthy keep more of what they earned? Do you have a right to be the judge, I think not! Paul Begala once said "**** the rich!" That is the prevailing attitude toward them from the looney left, even though the Dems have a higher percentage of their donors (mostly in Hollywood) in the upper tax brackets than people out in real, middle class America. The average Republican contribution was a measly 25 bucks and the Dems got an average of over 100 bucks or so. Guess who out-raised who? 5. And face it, all of the Democrats in the ring are about as far left as Mondull and Dukakis were and will lose by similar landslides, thank the Lord. They are not positive and upbeat, but yet bash Bush at every single opportunity without offering so much as a single new solution except the liberal mantra screw the rich, redistribute their hard-earned income and blame the Republicans and offer to repeat the sequence even more when it blows up in their faces.
bammaslammer, could ya be any more ignorant ? ..the Dems hate the rich but more of the rich are Dems? did you really mean this? LOL you are a tool of Rush, Coulter, Hannity and FNC...why don't you wake up and do some actual READING on these issues and learn the facts of the real world.. your posts are full of T_J-like opinons stated as facts when you fail to ever site a fact, a source, or anything.. Why don't you start thnking for yourself ?
If I followed your tack, I could say that you've been listening to too much Al Franken, Paul Begala, Carville, Hildabeast and other liberal figures of love and watching too much CNN. I am thinking for myself. That's why I'm not a liberal.
At least bama has some informed takes on defense issues. I'll give him credit for that. I don't agree with him (that's you, bama ) that all our defense problems can be traced somehow to Democrats and/or Clinton... and I certainly disagree with a ton of other things, like his ideas here. bamaslammer does differ from the fellow you mentioned, Maynard, by having an intelligent opinion on the topic I mentioned. Which sets him apart from the fellow who doesn't have an intelligent opinion I've seen yet. Just vitriolic attempts to goad people and elicit inflammatory responses.
Oh, don't forget those other *countless* liberal media voices that clog the airwaves. I mean, there's uh.. Um, you know, those guys who have their own shows and spin all that liberal hate everyday. I can't remember their names, but I'm sure they're out there. And don't even get me started on the radio waves. If there was one more liberal voice on the radio, I'd barf. There are so many of them, I don't even know where to to start. There's, uh. Hmm, that guy I heard once...You know who I'm talking about. The big one, that everybody talks about all the time. The guy who runs in all the markets? What's his name?....
Silly, the TV waves are run by the liberals. All of the major networks including CNN, the big three and MSNBC are infested with them. So what if the Right has talk radio? If was up to your scumbag liberal buddies in Washington, they'd take away that via that b.s. Fairness Doctrine, which would destroy talk radio. The only reason talk radio and Fox News (which kicks all of the other news network's asses combined, rating wise.....ha!) are so popular that they appeal to a segment neglected by the liberal East and West coast media. That segment is the blue in the map that voted for Bush. So quit your whining about Fox News and Rush and Neal and Sean and all the other conservative/libertarian voices. To you, diversity is not relevant when it comes to non-liberal viewpoints.
BACK WHAT U SAY WITH FACTS you offer NONE If you'd like me to point out different studies that show the exact opposite of what you think, I will. The media has by and large let Dubya get away with whatever wants to while they jumped at every lil BS scandel the Republicans could drum up (how many of those *gate blew up big and 6 months down the road when an official report was filed showing no wrong doing by Clintons was barely reported) I think the crazy conservative's main problem is that they are so crazy paranoid, that they consider ANY news that isnt right in line with everything they think, to be "liberal" so of course, they only like AM radio and FNC and call everyone else liberal...to those sources, everyone else IS liberal, but that doesnt make those conservative sources "fair and balanced" and mainstream.
The same could be said for you......where are your facts, chief? Read Bernard Goldberg's (a liberal no less) book Bias or simply, watch the nightly news on CNN, MSNBC or the big three. If you don't see a liberal bias either you are.......... 1. liberal 2. blind 3. not paying attention 4. all three The media is by its very nature, liberal. Most people who go into journalism are of the leftist persuasion. I know, I am a journalist. Most of my profs and fellow students were about as far left as you could possibly go and not be a Communist. So get your facts straight before you start gnawing on my leg like some little leftist junkyard dog.
Or, read Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"and reach the opposite conclusion. Oh, last time I checked, the airwaves were run by Time Warner AOL, GE, Disney, News Corp., and Viacom. Yeah, that's the looney liberal establishment right there.
Goldberg's book is a bunch of crap 1. He used "Media Research Center" as a major source, a notorious right-wing organization 2. He takes quotes out of context and twists and spins them to make them look as though they are saying things they are not. 3. He uses very obscure off-hand remarks made by people not even in front of a camera of examples and proof. How about using examples from actual broadcasts as proof bernie? 4. Bernies has many points were he was clearly just plain lazy to actually get his facts straight, instead he mouths off about stuff he don't know about 5. Bernies totally ignores the 2000 Election coverage in his "analysis" But your right, a majority of journalism professionals do have more liberal views on social issues, BUT a major of journalist also have very CONSERVATIVE news on the economy.. but the important questions is not if journalist are more liberal in nature or conservative in nature, but if their REPORTING favors the Dem's or Rep's... here is a source http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp
Better yet, name *one* major liberal talk show. Just one. It can be on television or on the radio. Name a *single* liberal with his/her *own* show broadcast across the country on a major media outlet. This might prove difficult, however, because seven Republican-backed media conglomerates own all the television networks, radio stations and newspapers.
Easy, Chris Matthews...... How about another... Geraldo Rivera (on Fox, a so-called "conservative network)..... Let's make it three...... Paula Zahn.... Any of those schmuck women on the View......all liberal I could name more, but I will save you the trouble. Needless to say, the media is NOT CONSERVATIVE. Get through your thick, defeatist, angry liberal skull, the media is not conservative. Quit using the so-called "conservative" as an excuse for the fact that liberalism is slowly but surely, thank God, on the wane. It is on the wane because......it is a monumental failure.
OK, Chris Matthews made his name bashing Clinton. Just cause you're anti-War (pat buchanan) doesn't mean you're liberal. Geraldo Rivera? Yeah, He's a credible liberal on many liberal issues including the opening of Al Capone's vaults and Satanic transsexual lesbians who marry their cousins. I don't know why you think Fox is "so-called" conservative, it calls itself that. Paula Zahn? I'm sorry, last time I checked she was a talking head who read from a teleprompter. YOu can easily name more? Let's hear them. If you're already down to Paula Zahn...ouch.
you are living in a very delusional world if you think liberal ideas are on the decline in this country. But backwoods narrow minded racist Georgia/Alabama/Tenessee folk can't be expected to be knowledgable, they are more worried about banning books than reading any
Chris Matthews, Geraldo Rivera and Paula Zahn. These are the three booming voices of the huge liberal propaganda machine? I'd point out to you that none of these three people are, in fact, liberal, but I prefer to relish the fact you *think* they are. Why can't Republicans admit they control the media? Seems like they should be bragging about it, rather than lying about some non-existent liberal media. I mean, seizing control of how every American gets his information is no small task. Guys, you won! You own the media! Congratulations!
Green, take the damned crackpipe out of your mouth, open your eyes and ears and think before you speak. https://secure.mediaresearch.org/Campaign2000/CBSnetwork.html Read that if you still think the media is conservative. If you say that Geraldo, Paula Zahn and Matthews (who worked for several Democrats including uber-lib Tip O'Neal) are conservative, Elvis still lives, the Israelis pulled 9/11 to blame it on the Muslims, Jim Morrison took a 30 year vacation to get away with fame, Tupac is still alive, the Tri-Lateral commission run by the Jews runs the world, Bush is actually a space alien, Clinton was personally responsible for the roaring economy and so on and so forth. Get it through your thick skull, the vast majority of media are as liberal as you are. Their ownership does not matter. But here's a possibility as well and if this turns out to be true, my apologies. Maybe you are so far off the to Trotsky/Stalin/Lenin/Mao side of the aisle that Zahn, Geraldo and Matthews seem conservative to you. If that is the case, you have some serious issues.
Well, you've resorted to calling me names and concocting fantasy scenerios to discredit my ideas (but, strangely, not discrediting the facts), so I can only conclude that you're out of ideas. Oh, and the survey? It's pretty damning, alright, but not for liberals. The report shows that, over eight years, CBS used the word "conservative" 50 more times than the word "liberal." Not the average. The total number over three election cycles, 1988-1996. CBS labelled more "conservatives" alright, but because they SHOWED MORE CONSERVATIVES. But I think you're absolutely right on one point -- ownership doesn't matter. I'm sure bosses everywhere have no input into what their company is producing. You're right. I'm sure none of the media CEOs, who donate and support countless Republican causes, have any idea what's going on at their studios.
Ok, reality check.......... If the media people find it necessary to identify people of being "conservative" or the "right wing," but not liberals or left wingers, what does that say about them? Deep in the recesses of their little liberal souls, they are extremists who must be identified. Liberals to them aren't liberal because they are "mainstream," "moderate," "centrist," and "progressive." To them, liberals are the majority and conservatives, as being a minority, must be identified. I can't believe you seriously buy into this "conservative media" doggerel. It's not true. Sure, conservatives are kings on talk radio and Fox News is at least not liberal, but what about the rest of the networks? They are liberal. Face it. I see you didn't get my point, but to you, if Geraldo and Chris Matthews and Dan Rather and Katie Couric and all the other libs on TV are not far enough left for you, you are on the far, far, far, far left side of the aisle. Personally, I really do wish the right ran the media. It would be nice, but it simply is not the case.
