Is this all we have?

The Clinton's bailing out Bush and now Kerry is saying that Massachusetts was wrong regarding civil unions...

What the fuck is wrong with this picture?

This does not surprise me in any way.  The Clintons are for 1 thing- the Clintons.  Bill has stayed with Hillary because staying with Hillary has advanced his huge ego and greed; the same is for why Hillary stayed with Bill.  The two are social vultures and the Democrats would be smart to tell them to get lost-they had their time in the sun-to the detriment of the Democratic Party which has now lost both houses of Congress and the presidency.  (Even though the presidency was stolen, but I agree we need to help Democrats win by such a large margin that not even paperless touch-tone computer voting machines can steal away from them.)

Democrats are winning the debate on Social Security.  They need to point out what they have been pointing out-that Social Security is not in crisis, that private accounts will not only bankrupt the system but involve huge benefit cuts to almost every American, and that any problem in the future can be solved by rather harmless solutions such as raising the cap on the wealthy for SS taxes.

As I have stated in the past, I have had enough of Bill Clinton's kissing the butt of the Bush family.  This is all a strategy to position Hillary in the middle.  She will sell out her base once she takes office.  The base should call a spade a spade and tell her and her disloyal, adulterous, lecherous husband to take a hike.

Democrats can do better.  We have done better, we are the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society, the moral clarity and compassion of Jimmy Carter, the toughness of John Kerry, the compassion of John Edwards-we can do and have always done much better than this pathetic, self-serving, greedy and immoral pair of opportunists, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I think he's been hanging around Dole too much or something.  Maybe it's that President's Club thing.  Maybe he just can't live with out the spot light cast on him from time to time - no matter what he has to say to get it.  Maybe he really believes it or maybe he's worried about his "legacy " again.  Who knows?  But sometimes he just doesn't seem to be on our side.

Reason #8,658 why Bill Clinton should not be lionized by the Left the way he has been of late just because George W. Bush is the Worst President this Country Has Ever Had.

I still have not forgiven Bill Clinton over signing Welfare Repeal -- nor will I ever.   He is breathtakingly cynical, and has proven time and time again that he will sell out the Democratic Party for his own personal political gain.

Democrats, get out of your startruck gaze at Bill Clinton and develop a backbone.  

I never quite understood the fascination that black people have with Bill Clinton.  I remember how Toni Morrison named him the "first black President" -- my gut feeling at the time was, "I doubt Lani Guinier would feel that way"

Is it OK to hate Hillary now? I've been suspicious of her silence on key issues for several weeks. This confirms my suspicion. Hillary has no loyalty to Social Security or the Democratic party. Dick Morris has been right about her all along.

Query 1: Is Hillary DLC?

Query 2: Who the hell cares?

Query 3: Are Al From and the DLC going to back Clinton's play?

Query 4: Has this been their plan all along? Is this the reason the Democratic party has not officially adopted the them There is no crisis?

I don't know exactly how you target the turncoats, but they have to be made to pay a price. Lieberman is step one. Biden, Feinstein or Hillary will be step two. We have to have a Political Human Sacrifice organized by the netroots. It's not going to come from any other source.

The goal is to send the message to politicians in Washington. If you betray working class Americans, you lose your job.

Just like plants, Bill Clinton is always turning towards the Sun. More precisely, the spotlight of public attention.

Since the current debate is about Social Security, Clinton cannot resist the urge to draw attention to himself -- and he can't do that, unless he trumps GWB.

While he was president, I often said Bill Clinton's great failure was that he is a trimmer, following the latest polls.

A true statesman, like FDR, is always guided by the pole stars of conviction. Polls are useful for calibrating the message -- but if you have no principles, in the end you will only empower the Bush-Gingrich-DeLay Barbarians.

care as a part of Social Security, like Medicare for all, etc. then maybe I could see it as something I could get behind. Sure it's a frog without legs, but as a good offense to get us off defense, I could like it.

I disagree with Clinton on this.

However, I see no reason why we should pounce on him and attack him as though he were a Republican. This is ridiculous. Can't Democrats tolerate Democrats who disagree with them? How on earth can Democrats make a comeback if we fight among ourselves?

Reserve your ire for Republicans and how they are trashing our country. Then discuss ways of improving our society.

Does The Note have another page somewhere? I couldn't find the story. I'm taking another look, but the only thing I found about Bill was about some global initiative:

The Clintons of Chappaqua:
Deb Orin of the New York Post chatted with the former president in Baltimore earlier this week and provides a months-early curtain raiser on the "Clinton Global Initiative" gathering he is organizing in New York this September. Orin has an early peek at some of the folks invited and expected to attend. LINK

The Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray interviews Bill Clinton about his Global Initiative:

"The Global Initiative will be funded by charging the companies that participate. Any funds left over after covering costs will go to the William J. Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit that pursues various global health, economic, political and social initiatives."

There was also nothing under the Social Security heading.

Agree with wegerje and PaulSiegel, above. After reading My Life, I am convinced that Clinton is, first and foremost, a pragmatic politician. I hardly agreed with everything he did during his administration and he may have taken one step backward on progressive issues but, on the balance, he took two forward in a politically hostile environment.  I think he deserves credit for that.  The Clintons are no more or less narcissistically changed then many others inside the Beltway, enven if they live in Chappaqua now . . And, after reading the American Prospect article on Bill Thomas, Rethuglican chair of the House Ways and Means Committee,the Dems better have some response to his avowed plan to ram Soc Sec reform through the committee and onto the House floor for a vote.    

Email Hillary. I think we should let her know how we feel.

I just sent the following email:

I think an explanation is in order.

I live in an extremely conservative, Repub controlled area of PA (Lancaster County), and guess who was the head speaker this week at the annual Repub lovefest, otherwise called the annual Chamber of Commerce dinner?  Bill Clinton who was paid some astronomical sum to speak for a few hours.  

Why does Clinton do these things?  For money, or to convert conservatives to the side of the "force", or does he really want to be one of these guys?  Inquiring minds want to know?  When Clinton was in office and he paved the way for all these jobs to go elsewhere, did that indicate a workingman's Democratic leaning?  I think not.  In fact, it seems to me that a lot of Bush's outsourcing economic tendencies were put in place by big Bill.

Finally, I am going to hear Roy Neel speak tonight at a local Democratic gathering, which because of this hyperconservative location will be small.  Roy Neel use to be a Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff, and was Dean's campaign manager.  Is this guy a comitted progressive?  Is he like Clinton and the same question can be asked of Clinton?

Does anyone out there have any realistic opinions about Neel and/or questions you would suggest to be asked of him?

... one bit.

We need W to twist in the wind for as long as possible -- we've waited too long for W's arrogance and stupid bullheadness to put him in a box...  what the hell is Bill doing, cutting him a door?

There is no other way to look at it:

(1.) Bill Clinton has just single handedly salvaged Bush's 60 day disaster campaigning to kill Social Security. Bush can get up in front of the whole nation and say "See? I was right. There is a Social Security crisis."

(2.) Republican accusations that Democrats are obstructionists have just been legitimized.

(3.) The slight chance that the Blair-Bush Iraq memo would make either the Sunday Funny Shows or the MSM is now dead. The only topic on the Sunday Funny Shows will be Bill Clinton agreeing with Bush that there is a crisis and we have to fix it this year.

(4.) Democrats are going to get their butts kicked on Social Security this weekend and from here on out. They were already doing bad enough as it is.

(5.) Is it too late to go back to the Senate and Impeach Bill Clinton?

"The Democratic Plan is already in action-- it's called Social Security."

... bears repeating.

Clinton lost Congress in the 1994 midterm election, not 1992.  He won the presidency in 92.

Also, I've disagreed with Clinton on many issues, but I still feel he was a great president overall.  In my book he was too conservative, but I don't expect perfection or across the board agreement.

Constructive criticism will never get this party anywhere.  We should just continue with same routine that we've had since the mid-80's.  Having comprehensive, defensible positions on issues will never win elections.  That's why President Kerry was so eloquently murky in regards to the War in Iraq.  

My point was that we've had about 20 years of losing elections because we've run out of ideas.  What's wrong with offering a superior plan to fix Social Security and then letting the GOP vote it down?  We have spent the last 20 years being the party of "no" without offering viable alternatives.  Do you think that the Republicans have slight majorities in Congress and a President who was twice elected by the slimmest of all possible EC majorities because the American people agree with them on most issues?  Or is it because they've successful framed themselves as the party of the future and taken up the reform mantra?  We can't continue to run with the slogan "We're not them" and expect to win.  That was the problem with the "Anybody but Bush" movement.  How are we supposed to attract anyone except Bush-haters if we care more about stopping the Republican agenda than we care about promoting our own?  We have 45 Senators and 203 Representatives in our caucus and they are obligated to do more than wait for a majority to fall into their hands.  

Since I think Hillaary's nomination would be as bad for the Party as Bill's presidency was, I hope Hillary follows Bill's advice on social security.  Since she is trying to "tack" to the middle, she will have to come out with some sort of benefit cuts, which will hurt her in '08.

I think she us too smart for that.  I dont think she will have any plan at all.  Which makes me wonder, "what the hell was he thinking??"

Yeah, good luck with that.
I find her responses to communications less than forthright.
Let us know what you get back (if anything).