If Obama was a white man......

[Hawktown]

Your certainly welcome to your beliefs RD. I personally feel that they should be punished for the smallest of crimes or they might as well throw the laws books in a big bonfire. If the president can break a law then that law should not apply to ANYONE, IMO. The president is no better than you or me nor does he deserve more rights and being a president does not give you a right to disobey the law, regardless of the circumstances. We are all people created equal. I would not mind seeing a president that does not get paid, who only has the best interest of the country in mind, not the power or money. Hell, i don't think any government worker deserves more than the median income in their area. Just my opinion though.

[kalibane]

I'll do you one better RD. The House didn't impeach Clinton for perjury. They impeached him in an attempt to run an end around the electoral process. That's not based on being a Clinton fan or on the left side of the aisle either. The Democrats tried to get the same sort of thing going for Bush Jr. they just didn't have a concrete technical example of a "crime" to base their impeachment proceedings on.

The sheer amount of time, money and effort spent on manipulating Clinton's blowjob into a reason to remove him from office is mind blowing.

Furthermore, that the OP's actually believes that Obama's blackness has saved him from being impeached is ridiculous. 1. I really wonder what people's experiences are that lead them to believe that being black is an advantage in this country. You can't even make it further than a couple of episodes on the Bachelor/Bachelorette if you're black. 2. There is nothing known as of this date that rises anywhere near the level of an impeachable offense. Race has zero place in the conversation about impeachment. So to go there only makes it look like you are the one preoccupied with the President's Race (and that's not a good thing fyi).

All in all Hawktawk, you are stating your opinions on a vast number of topics as fact, so it's hard to believe you actually want a dialogue. It appears you want an echo chamber.

[Hawktawk]

I'll do you one better RD. The House didn't impeach Clinton for perjury. They impeached him in an attempt to run an end around the electoral process. That's not based on being a Clinton fan or on the left side of the aisle either. The Democrats tried to get the same sort of thing going for Bush Jr. they just didn't have a concrete technical example of a "crime" to base their impeachment proceedings on.

The sheer amount of time, money and effort spent on manipulating Clinton's blowjob into a reason to remove him from office is mind blowing.

Furthermore, that the OP's actually believes that Obama's blackness has saved him from being impeached is ridiculous. 1. I really wonder what people's experiences are that lead them to believe that being black is an advantage in this country. You can't even make it further than a couple of episodes on the Bachelor/Bachelorette if you're black. 2. There is nothing known as of this date that rises anywhere near the level of an impeachable offense. Race has zero place in the conversation about impeachment. So to go there only makes it look like you are the one preoccupied with the President's Race (and that's not a good thing fyi).

All in all Hawktawk, you are stating your opinions on a vast number of topics as fact, so it's hard to believe you actually want a dialogue. It appears you want an echo chamber.

Actually the house did indeed impeach Clinton for perjury, although a BJ was definitely a factor in the perjury that was committed. As for an end run around the electoral process your spot on. Really ever since Nixon the party not in the white house has attempted to play gotcha in hopes of creating the perfect storm to remove their opponent from office or at a minimum neuter them to stop their agenda. But of course Obama's crimes rise far above that silly game.

So first off about being black and having it be an disadvantage lets start deconstructing your ridiculous argument with this. A black man with numerous baggage and limited experience who was named Barack Hussein Obama became the POTUS 7 years after 911.Then he was reelected after 4 years of a disastrous run as President. We have had a black secretary of state, Sec of Defense, Attorney general,Director of homeland security, leaders of corporations, CEO's, Supreme court justice, etc I could go on and on.Blacks who cant make it in this country have nobody to blame but themselves, along with every other ethnicity including white. But in the case of this particular POTUS its been very common for his party henchmen and the lap dog press to play the race card any time anyone opposes him for any reason. Couple his lawless attitude with his black attorney general who has even less respect for the law and we see the results. Yet we are racist if we dare question him or Holder.

And of course if these people can erase Emails, ignore subpoenas, plead the 5th etc nothing impeachable will ever be known even thought there are potentially impeachable offenses in every one of these scandals.

And that's the plan, play 4 corner stall and scream race card and disrespect for the office to anyone who questions them. Sick the IRS, NSA, etc in the case of Dinesh D'souza the Attorney general on them to shut them up.Oh yeah and spy on the WH press pool, I forgot that one.
People who have a who cares attitude about this, the most lawless administration in history are useful idiots for the goals of these people.


Everyone is stating opinions at this point Kal. You cant trust the numbers. Like most things political there is not a lot of middle ground. And yeah I don't know if I was looking for an echo chamber or what but Ive head nothing here to change my opinion.Black, white, purple Obama is a bum and hes devastating America.

[kalibane]

like I said you want an echo chamber. Your "truth" is so extreme there isn't a much of a point in really getting involved in this.

[Hawktawk]

You are right Kal. The truth is extreme. Its shocking that an administration could get away with all this lawlessness. There really isn't much to discuss other than whether U care about it or not.

[Hawktown]

You are right Kal. The truth is extreme. Its shocking that an administration could get away with all this lawlessness. There really isn't much to discuss other than whether U care about it or not.

+1^^^

[Eaglehawk]

I'm not excusing a President for doing something illegal during the course of his administering of the executive branch. What we're talking about here is impeachable crimes, in other words, high crimes. Impeaching Obama for something like not informing Congress of the hostage exchange is IMO akin to giving one of us a 5 year sentence for going 70 mph in a 55.

Totally different in my book RD. In my opinion.

[RiverDog]

Actually Clinton wasn't impeached for anything, he served out his term.

We've still never had an impeached president; both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, though impeached by the House, were acquitted in the Senate voting and Nixon resigned before his impeachment proceeding ever went to vote.

Better brush up on your Constitutional terms, Cbob. Impeachment does not mean removal from office. It means that they are brought to trial. Clinton was impeached, as was Andrew Johnson. Clinton stood trial in the Senate and was not convicted, just like Andrew Johnson, the only other American president to have been impeached. Removal from office requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate after a trial. Johnson survived impeachment by just one vote.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen ... ted_States

Contrary to popular belief, Richard Nixon was not impeached. Articles of Impeachment were adopted by the House Judiciary Committee but Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on them.

[RiverDog]

I'll do you one better RD. The House didn't impeach Clinton for perjury. They impeached him in an attempt to run an end around the electoral process. That's not based on being a Clinton fan or on the left side of the aisle either. The Democrats tried to get the same sort of thing going for Bush Jr. they just didn't have a concrete technical example of a "crime" to base their impeachment proceedings on.

The sheer amount of time, money and effort spent on manipulating Clinton's blowjob into a reason to remove him from office is mind blowing.

The accusation was for giving false testimony in a civil trial while he was in office. It is a felony crime. The subject of the testimony is irrelevant. People have gone to jail for it. What Clinton should have done was refuse to answer the question because it (a consensual relationship) didn't have anything to do with the accusation he was being tried for (sexual harassment), even if it meant he risked being charged with contempt of court. I would have respected him if he chose that course rather than to lie about it. And to make matters worse, Clinton voluntarily went on national television, in a choreographed appearance and not some press conference where he was backed into a corner, and scolded the American public for having the audacity to believe in such charges by staring into the camera and shaking his finger at us, in saying that "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman!"

And if you want to get into the politics of the Clinton impeachment, the Dems were hugely hypocritical in their defense of Clinton. When it involved allegations that were never even brought to court let alone be proven, as in the case of Sen. Bob Packwood, or during the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (remember Anita Hill?), when the only thing that was he was charged with was some dirty talking, they raised Holy hell. But when it involved a member of one of their own party, suddenly a man's sexual activities was his own business and it was OK to lie about it while under oath.

And here's another twist on it: Monica Lewinsky was a paid employee of the federal government in one of the lowest ranking positions, Bill Clinton obviously being the highest ranking government official. Had that been me in that position, having a sexual relationship with a subordinate on company property and on company time, I would have been fired in a heart beat regardless of any consent given. Same goes for the military. Imagine a 4 star general having an ongoing sexual relationship with a private. Clinton's behavior, and defense of such, was reprehensible. The man gets zero sympathy from me.

The only reason I have since reconsidered my position on removal from office is that the perjured testimony did not alter the outcome of the Paula Jones civil trial and Clinton was never reprimanded, although there was a bit of a deal struck, similar to a plea bargain.

[kalibane]

That's not what I mean Riv. What I mean is that if Clinton were republican the same people pushing for impeachment would have fought against impeachment. They couldn't care less about the actual crime. It wasn't about perjury, it wasn't about a blow job... it was about perceived leverage to remove someone from office that they couldn't defeat in an open election. The dems tried the same thing for Bush with war crimes, it just never got as far the Clinton proceedings and then turn a blind eye to Obama keeping GITMO open. It's all politically motivated.

No one is asking for sympathy from Clinton but call a spade a spade. No one really cared about the perjury it was just a vehicle for a political agenda... a means to an end.

Also depends on the company. Work place affairs happen all the damn time and most people do not get fired for them. The number of congressmen who have had affairs with staffers is too long to cite but last I checked Newt Gingrich is still kicking around the halls of congress and was a presidential candidate despite the fact that he had an affair with a staffer while ironically helping to lead the charge for the Clinton impeachment.

No one on either side really cares unless it can help them politically.

[RiverDog]

That's not what I mean Riv. What I mean is that if Clinton were republican the same people pushing for impeachment would have fought against impeachment. They couldn't care less about the actual crime. It wasn't about perjury, it wasn't about a blow job... it was about perceived leverage to remove someone from office that they couldn't defeat in an open election. The dems tried the same thing for Bush with war crimes, it just never got as far the Clinton proceedings.

I disagree. They are not that gullible to think that much would change if Al Gore took over. You could argue that it was about future elections, about tarring and feathering a man they didn't like, about payback for all the R's/conservatives the D's had smeared going all the way back to the Bork SCOTUS nomination and continuing through the confirmation of John Tower as defense secretary, the Bob Packwood scandal, and the Clarence Thomas nomination. There was a lot of bad blood that flowed on Capitol Hill during that period of time. But I don't think they felt that removing Clinton was going to change much in terms of their relationship with the Administration.

I do agree that the R's would have taken a much different position had that been a member of their own party faced with the same allegations. But that wasn't my point, either. I was speaking of my own opinion on the charge itself. I do believe that perjury is a "high crime" that meets the impeachment standard and that Clinton did commit perjury.

The rest of my rant was just about venting some residual steam from that period of time. I had a serious dislike for Clinton.

[kalibane]

I wasn't talking about you Riv, the Republicans (or Democrats as the case may be) are counting on people like you who do believe in principals to give them the necessary support to sustain a frivolous campaign.

And you're also wrong about the relationship with the White House. Gore may have held the same types of positions as Clinton but like him or not Clinton is an absolutely brilliant guy, very charasmiatic and one of the best politicians in the country still. He had the ability to get things done that Al Gore never could have accomplished. Furthermore, it paints Al Gore with that same brush effectively neutering him for the upcoming election and trickles down to all the democrats who supported Clinton. It also makes Bill Clinton go away (the way Bush had to stay away from the McCain campaign) and there are not many people who stump as well as Clinton. Not being able to have him as a credible public supporter of your campaign is a major blow to any democrat seeking national office.

There was a lot to be gained politically if they could actually impeach the leader of the opposing political party.

[RiverDog]

I wasn't talking about you Riv, the Republicans (or Democrats as the case may be) are counting on people like you who do believe in principals to give them the necessary support to sustain a frivolous campaign.

And you're also wrong about the relationship with the White House. Gore may have held the same types of positions as Clinton but like him or not Clinton is an absolutely brilliant guy, very charasmiatic and one of the best politicians in the country still. He had the ability to get things done that Al Gore never could have accomplished. Furthermore, it paints Al Gore with that same brush effectively neutering him for the upcoming election and trickles down to all the democrats who supported Clinton. It also makes Bill Clinton go away (the way Bush had to stay away from the McCain campaign) and there are not many people who stump as well as Clinton. Not being able to have him as a credible public supporter of your campaign is a major blow to any democrat seeking national office.

There was a lot to be gained politically if they could actually impeach the leader of the opposing political party.

The R's already had a majority in both the House and the Senate, so I don't think they felt that impeaching Clinton was going to help them in opposing or promoting any legislative agenda. After the D's lost control of Congress in 1994, Clinton didn't do much on his own initiative. Hillary Care had been defeated and the R's were busy with their "Contract with America" legislation, much of which Clinton accepted. Clinton was actually quite cooperative with the R's in legislative matters, something that would not have been a guarantee had Gore replaced him. Clinton didn't do much on his own except to sign on to many of the things the R's proposed (remember the "days of big government is over" speech?) The R's could bottle up anything Clinton put forth, so they already had him by the short hairs....pun intended. Monicagate was an extension of the battle that had been going on for decades since Watergate, this tit-for-tat, D's are just as corrupt as R's mud slinging fest that has continued right into the current day.

Clinton wasn't all that popular with the American people. He never got a majority of the popular vote, something even Bush 43 could say that he did, so I don't agree that he was all that charismatic, at least not in the same way Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy was. Clinton was more polarizing, especially if you coupled him with his old lady. But I do agree with your painting of Gore with the same brush stroke remark. As a matter of fact, the Bush people were absolutely convinced they could have beaten Clinton had he been able to run for a 3rd term, and indeed, Gore distanced himself from Clinton in the 2000 election even though the country was experiencing peace and prosperity, a pretty good agenda for any incumbent to run on. A good part of that reality was the damage the R's had inflicted on Clinton in the impeachment proceedings. That's why I said that you could argue that it was about future elections, but not about overturning past outcomes.

I hope you're taking notes on how to have a reasoned debate, hawktawk.

[kalibane]

I do beleive I stated (or Dems as the case may be). Obviously it's an extension of all the obstructionism that has been going on between opposing parties.

I think you are in complete denial about Clinton's value as a politician though. No one is saying he's John F. Kennedy but Clinton still is one of the most bankable fundraisers right now. You may not have been charmed by Clinton's persona but just google "Clinton Charisma". Like I said... you may not like him personally but Clinton is one of the most gifted politicians we've seen in the last 30 years or so.

Also saying he never won the popular vote is kind of disingenuous. Clinton beat an incumbant with no extra ordinary circumstances (read: scandal) dragging him down which is incredibly hard to do. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a viable presidential candidate is a direct extension of Bill Clinton. And Ross Perot was siphoning a meaningful number of votes in both elections. Bush lost the popular vote the first time out against a non-incumbant even though Gore had the Clinton "stink" on him and in his second term he had no third party candidate to worry about. The circumstances were completely different. Both of Clinton's victories despite not technically reaching 50% of the popular vote were much more decisive than either of Bush's victories. If Bush thought he could beat Clinton running for a third term I think he and his people were gravely mistaken. Gore was truly a boring and uninspiring presence and it took a minor miracle for Bush to beat him. Clinton would have crushed Bush in the debates and would have had the built in incumbant edge. I'm sure to you this reads like I'm a Clinton fan but I'm looking at this the same way I would look at a sports matchup. Bush probably does better than Dole but I don't see how he actually beats Clinton. Even with the scandal.

But with that I'm going to get out of this thread. I do appreciate the way you approach these topics overall Riv but there are just too many biases built in. And when we start talking about technicalities like the popular vote with no context it's just going to head down a rabbit hole that doesn't have much value. I do tip my hat to you though.

[Eaglehawk]

Charles Kruthammer's point is a point I agree with 100 percent. Here you go folks:

The fact that Washington has serious problems was confirmed by Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer.

Referencing the White House claim that IRS emails sought by investigators looking into harassment of tea party and conservatives were “lost,” he said, “These guys are living on a different planet.”

He said computer experts said they are retrievable, but the Obama administration doesn’t want people to see them.

“Nixon lost 18 minutes. Obama now has lost two years of email,” he said. “One thing that people don’t remember, the second article of impeachment for Richard Nixon was the abuse of the IRS to pursue political enemies. This is a high crime. This is not a triviality.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/congressman- ... ewprVgY.99

[RiverDog]

I do beleive I stated (or Dems as the case may be). Obviously it's an extension of all the obstructionism that has been going on between opposing parties.

I think you are in complete denial about Clinton's value as a politician though. No one is saying he's John F. Kennedy but Clinton still is one of the most bankable fundraisers right now. You may not have been charmed by Clinton's persona but just google "Clinton Charisma". Like I said... you may not like him personally but Clinton is one of the most gifted politicians we've seen in the last 30 years or so.

Also saying he never won the popular vote is kind of disingenuous. Clinton beat an incumbant with no extra ordinary circumstances (read: scandal) dragging him down which is incredibly hard to do. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a viable presidential candidate is a direct extension of Bill Clinton. And Ross Perot was siphoning a meaningful number of votes in both elections. Bush lost the popular vote the first time out against a non-incumbant even though Gore had the Clinton "stink" on him and in his second term he had no third party candidate to worry about. The circumstances were completely different. Both of Clinton's victories despite not technically reaching 50% of the popular vote were much more decisive than either of Bush's victories. If Bush thought he could beat Clinton running for a third term I think he and his people were gravely mistaken. Gore was truly a boring and uninspiring presence and it took a minor miracle for Bush to beat him. Clinton would have crushed Bush in the debates and would have had the built in incumbant edge. I'm sure to you this reads like I'm a Clinton fan but I'm looking at this the same way I would look at a sports matchup. Bush probably does better than Dole but I don't see how he actually beats Clinton. Even with the scandal.

But with that I'm going to get out of this thread. I do appreciate the way you approach these topics overall Riv but there are just too many biases built in. And when we start talking about technicalities like the popular vote with no context it's just going to head down a rabbit hole that doesn't have much value. I do tip my hat to you though.

No extraordinary circumstances? What the heck do you call a 3rd party candidate that takes 19% of the popular vote? Can you name the last time a 3rd party candidate took that many voters away from the two major party candidates? It wasn't Wallace in 1968. You have to go all the way back to 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran as an independent. I think that would qualify as an "extraordinary circumstance", wouldn't you?

Come on, Kal. You know better. The 1992 election had a monkey wrench thrown into it.

[kalibane]

Jesus Riv... are you serious? I clearly was referring to internal issues on the Bush side of the ledger. Given that I referenced Ross Perot in the same post. There was no massive scandal that tainted his reelection bid. And it's difficult to beat an incumbant president (even a bad one) without some kind of incident. One of your two most charasmatic presidents (Reagan) barely won over 50% of the popular vote against Carter and Carter was one of the worst presidents of the last century and had the Iran Hostage Crisis looming over his head.

You said it yourself... the last time there were 3 viable candidates on every ballot in every state was 1912. And yet somehow you expect in this extraordinary circumstance that Clinton was going to carry 50% of the popular vote? It wouldn't have mattered if John F. Kennedy or Reagan was running in 1992 or 1996. No one was getting over 50% of the popular vote in those elections... but you want to actually hold it against Clinton. Your slip is showing dude.

[RiverDog]

Jesus Riv... are you serious? I clearly was referring to internal issues on the Bush side of the ledger. Given that I referenced Ross Perot in the same post. There was no massive scandal that tainted his reelection bid. And it's difficult to beat an incumbant president (even a bad one) without some kind of incident. One of your two most charasmatic presidents (Reagan) barely won over 50% of the popular vote against Carter and Carter was one of the worst presidents of the last century and had the Iran Hostage Crisis looming over his head.

You said it yourself... the last time there were 3 viable candidates on every ballot in every state was 1912. And yet somehow you expect in this extraordinary circumstance that Clinton was going to carry 50% of the popular vote? It wouldn't have mattered if John F. Kennedy or Reagan was running in 1992 or 1996. No one was getting over 50% of the popular vote in those elections... but you want to actually hold it against Clinton. Your slip is showing dude.

The point is that Clinton did not win a solid mandate in the popular vote. Clinton had 43%, Bush 37.5%, and Perot 19%. Granted, Perot took votes from both candidates, but the majority of votes came at the expense of Bush 41 and all Bush would have needed is to have gained a net of 5.5% of the independent vote and he would have won at least the popular vote if not the electoral college.

Yes, Reagan had a relatively narrow popular vote win in 1980, about the same as Obama in 2012, but in 1984 he won nearly 59% of the popular vote and took every state in the Union save his opponent's home state. He perhaps had the largest unwavering core of solid supporters of any President since FDR.

What I am saying is that Clinton may have been charismatic to some, IMO a minority, but to a very large number of people, many more than opposed to Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, Obama, et al, he was a polarizing figure, especially when you toss in that old lady of his. Not as polarizing as Bush 43 but close.

[kalibane]

There is no doubt he was and remains polarizing but I think you are projecting your own personal beliefs as one who is on the opposite pole and mistaking that for being representative of the country at large.

The Clinton brand wouldn't be so strong today if not for Clinton's charisma and shrewd political maneuvers. Like you said Hilary is even more polarizing and yet she is the favorite for the Democratic nomination if she runs. That would not be the case if not for being named "Clinton". Even with all his character and/or policy flaws he is a major power player in the political landscape 4 terms after he last served, something that is not true of any of the presidential nominees of the past 30 years and likely won't be true of Obama. Reagan is the only one that could have been but we'll never know due to his dementia onset in his 2nd term.

There are a people, like yourself, who really don't like him but if he wasn't a formidable foe they simply wouldn't care. You're mistaking your dislike for being an inneffectual politician. I have a lot of issues with Clinton but that dude is good at what he does.

[Hawktown]

There is no doubt he was and remains polarizing but I think you are projecting your own personal beliefs as one who is on the opposite pole and mistaking that for being representative of the country at large.

The Clinton brand wouldn't be so strong today if not for Clinton's charisma and shrewd political maneuvers. Like you said Hilary is even more polarizing and yet she is the favorite for the Democratic nomination if she runs. That would not be the case if not for being named "Clinton". Even with all his character and/or policy flaws he is a major power player in the political landscape 4 terms after he last served, something that is not true of any of the presidential nominees of the past 30 years and likely won't be true of Obama. Reagan is the only one that could have been but we'll never know due to his dementia onset in his 2nd term.

There are a people, like yourself, who really don't like him but if he wasn't a formidable foe they simply wouldn't care. You're mistaking your dislike for being an inneffectual politician. I have a lot of issues with Clinton but that dude is good at what he does.

+1^^^

[RiverDog]

There is no doubt he was and remains polarizing but I think you are projecting your own personal beliefs as one who is on the opposite pole and mistaking that for being representative of the country at large.

The Clinton brand wouldn't be so strong today if not for Clinton's charisma and shrewd political maneuvers. Like you said Hilary is even more polarizing and yet she is the favorite for the Democratic nomination if she runs. That would not be the case if not for being named "Clinton". Even with all his character and/or policy flaws he is a major power player in the political landscape 4 terms after he last served, something that is not true of any of the presidential nominees of the past 30 years and likely won't be true of Obama. Reagan is the only one that could have been but we'll never know due to his dementia onset in his 2nd term.

There are a people, like yourself, who really don't like him but if he wasn't a formidable foe they simply wouldn't care. You're mistaking your dislike for being an inneffectual politician. I have a lot of issues with Clinton but that dude is good at what he does.

And what you're mistaking is the difference between politics and charisma. I wish I could recall the polling numbers and the company that did the survey so I could document the source, but I remember a poll being taken sometime after the impeachment proceedings that concluded that there were a large number of people, well over 50% of those that voted for him, that supported Clinton politically and would vote for him again but that wouldn't want him as a son-in-law. That's kinda the jest of my argument, that while Clinton's politics might be relatively popular, his personal image, ie his charisma, is not, or at least not as much as you are portraying him to be.

Most former Prez's opt to exit the arena after they have been disqualified from seeking the highest office. Obviously ex Presidents are a very valuable asset for fund raising and other political activities, if they are so inclined, and Clinton is no exception.

[kalibane]

Asking someone if they would want a serial philanderer as a son in law is a ridiculous question to use as a measuring stick for charisma and you damn well know that (or at least you should). Who's going to say "yeah I want my daughter to marry a guy who's going to cheat on her constantly" ? Get serious. Now ask those same people (particularly men) if they want to go out for a night on the town with Clinton. I suspect the ratio between yes and no will shift quite a bit.

Clinton doesn't have especially strong policy but he has a firm grasp on the issues and is able to effectively communicate his understanding without coming across as an intellectual elitist. He is able to disarm and engender the trust of large swaths of voters to convince them that in spite of his numerous personal failings that when it comes to the job either he or the person he's endorses is the man for the job. Like you said Gore and Clinton's policies were practically identical and Gore is no where near as popular. You're own arguments are circling back on eachother.

That's practically the definition of charisma. You get way too stubborn when you don't want to concede a point. Like I said... just google Clinton Charisma. Go read... You may not be charmed but you're in serious denial if you think Clinton isn't gifted in that area.

[Eaglehawk]

Asking someone if they would want a serial philanderer as a son in law is a ridiculous question to use as a measuring stick for charisma and you damn well know that (or at least you should). Who's going to say "yeah I want my daughter to marry a guy who's going to cheat on her constantly" ? Get serious. Now ask those same people (particularly men) if they want to go out for a night on the town with Clinton. I suspect the ratio between yes and no will shift quite a bit.

Clinton doesn't have especially strong policy but he has a firm grasp on the issues and is able to effectively communicate his understanding without coming across as an intellectual elitist. He is able to disarm and engender the trust of large swaths of voters to convince them that in spite of his numerous personal failings that when it comes to the job either he or the person he's endorses is the man for the job. Like you said Gore and Clinton's policies were practically identical and Gore is no where near as popular. You're own arguments are circling back on eachother.

That's practically the definition of charisma. You get way too stubborn when you don't want to concede a point. Like I said... just google Clinton Charisma. Go read... You may not be charmed but you're in serious denial if you think Clinton isn't gifted in that area.

Like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao. Clinton is in good company I guess. I would not want to see a Clinton in office for another 30 years. Nor a Bush for that matter.

[kalibane]

Well charisma really has nothing to do with whether you are a good person or not. Hitler was supposed to be very charismatic. By most accounts Ted Bundy was very charismatic.

There are I believe 16 diagnostic criteria for a sociopath and being unnaturally outgoing and very charismatic are two of them. (I believe you need to hit 10 of the 16 in order to be diagnosed). I know I've encountered one person in my life that I'm convinced would clinically be considered a sociopath and she also happens to easily be the most charasmatic person I've met too.

This is not an attempt to praise Clinton... it's just an objective observation.

[Hawktawk]

Kal is right about Klinton. Guy was a damn smart politician. And he did the will of the people politically. After he got his clock cleaned in the midterms in 94 he governed as a centrist and many good things happened for America, welfare to work, a balanced budget etc. He actually reached across the aisle to accomplish things. His personal morals were/are despicable but he wasn't hired to be a choirboy. None of them were. Id rather have a guy who lied about a BJ to a lawyer than the clown now who lies to the American people about virtually everything all the time. Please, Ill take Bill Clinton back right now.........

[RiverDog]

Asking someone if they would want a serial philanderer as a son in law is a ridiculous question to use as a measuring stick for charisma and you damn well know that (or at least you should). Who's going to say "yeah I want my daughter to marry a guy who's going to cheat on her constantly" ? Get serious. Now ask those same people (particularly men) if they want to go out for a night on the town with Clinton. I suspect the ratio between yes and no will shift quite a bit.

Clinton doesn't have especially strong policy but he has a firm grasp on the issues and is able to effectively communicate his understanding without coming across as an intellectual elitist. He is able to disarm and engender the trust of large swaths of voters to convince them that in spite of his numerous personal failings that when it comes to the job either he or the person he's endorses is the man for the job. Like you said Gore and Clinton's policies were practically identical and Gore is no where near as popular. You're own arguments are circling back on eachother.

That's practically the definition of charisma. You get way too stubborn when you don't want to concede a point. Like I said... just google Clinton Charisma. Go read... You may not be charmed but you're in serious denial if you think Clinton isn't gifted in that area.

Clinton isn't the gifted communicator like Ronald Reagan, FDR, MLK, or JFK were. I don't recall Clinton giving an inspirational speech anywhere close to the likes of Reagan after the Challenger accident, FDR's Pearl Harbor speech, JFK's "Ich bin eim Berliner", or MLK's "I have a dream" speech. Those are the types of things I think of when I think of a charismatic leader, the ability to reach out across political and social divides and unite people in a common cause, if only for a moment. I just don't see Clinton broadening his appeal that way, or at least not nearly to the same degree as some of his 20th century counterparts.

So if you want to call Clinton charismatic, I won't object as you seem to have a pretty broad definition if you're including people like Hitler and Ted Bundy.

[kalibane]

Have you noticed what those leaders you listed have in common River?

FDR had the Depression and World War II. JFK had civil rights and the Cuban Missle Crisis. MLK, Civil Rights. Reagan, the Cold War.

Tell me Riv... what was the great crisis that presented itself during the Clinton years that required "the ability to reach out across political and social divides and unite people in a common cause, if only for a moment"? Welfare reform? There was no crisis during his presidency, it was a time of properity and general peace. And when you're in such a time without a rallying point, people are focussed on themselves, not the country.

You act like any of these leaders you mentioned foresaw the events they are associated with, called the countries attention to it and then rallied them to that cause. That's not how it actually happened. What really happened is certain issues whether domestic (civil rights) or international (Pearl Harbor), happen and then the leaders are left to react and decide how to deal with them. If Germany never erects the Berlin Wall there is no "Ich bin eim Berliner". There is nothing for the Country to rally around. And when something does happen like that it really isn't too hard to get the country to rally. Look no further than the massive support for Bush to invade Iraq despite the tenuous, at best, evidence to do so. All because 9/11 galvanized the country and he rode that ground swell of patriotism as a mandate. Clinton had nothing that even approached any of this. The Cold War was over (which presented the Berlin Wall, Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, Berlin Wall coming down). The Civil Rights issue had been solved. There was no threat to the nation's sovereignty. No financial crisis.

It seems like you have maybe romanticized the notion of political charisma. Hitler did exactly what you described in Germany after the first world war but you seem reluctant to call him charismatic because he used that charisma (amongst other things) to commit unspeakable atrocities. Charisma is neither good nor bad... it's just a tool.

[c_hawkbob]

A crumbling economy was Clinton's great challenge, and luckily one he met well, regardless of his other shortcomings.

[Hawktawk]

A crumbling economy was Clinton's great challenge, and luckily one he met well, regardless of his other shortcomings.

Thats not true Bob. History shows the economy was emerging from recession when Clinton took office. Bush said so in the campaign and was branded as "out of touch" by the leftist media. And I have extolled the positive aspects of the Clinton Presidency in here but Ill tell you about his biggest challenge, and its one he never understood or reacted to. He totally whiffed on it but it never gets discussed.TERROR. Even though WTC 1 happened in the waning days of GHWBs term Clinton didn't do much to combat the growing threat in his 8 years in office. And GWB was prevented from a normal transition to office by the supreme court battle over hanging chads.The 911 terrorists were already entrenched in American flight schools before W took office. Bin Laden had been offered up by Sudan several years earlier but Clinton didn't take the offer.

This damned administration is still blaming Bush 6 years later. I never heard W do that when he was making the tough choices to combat terrorism......

[c_hawkbob]

Thank you for that correction to the right there Talk, but I think I'll keep on trusting my own eyes and judgment in the matter. I lived though it and saw the economy circling the drain then and won't buy any revisionist history of it now.

[RiverDog]

Have you noticed what those leaders you listed have in common River?

FDR had the Depression and World War II. JFK had civil rights and the Cuban Missle Crisis. MLK, Civil Rights. Reagan, the Cold War.

Tell me Riv... what was the great crisis that presented itself during the Clinton years that required "the ability to reach out across political and social divides and unite people in a common cause, if only for a moment"? Welfare reform? There was no crisis during his presidency, it was a time of properity and general peace. And when you're in such a time without a rallying point, people are focussed on themselves, not the country.

You act like any of these leaders you mentioned foresaw the events they are associated with, called the countries attention to it and then rallied them to that cause. That's not how it actually happened. What really happened is certain issues whether domestic (civil rights) or international (Pearl Harbor), happen and then the leaders are left to react and decide how to deal with them. If Germany never erects the Berlin Wall there is no "Ich bin eim Berliner". There is nothing for the Country to rally around. And when something does happen like that it really isn't too hard to get the country to rally. Look no further than the massive support for Bush to invade Iraq despite the tenuous, at best, evidence to do so. All because 9/11 galvanized the country and he rode that ground swell of patriotism as a mandate. Clinton had nothing that even approached any of this. The Cold War was over (which presented the Berlin Wall, Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, Berlin Wall coming down). The Civil Rights issue had been solved. There was no threat to the nation's sovereignty. No financial crisis.

It seems like you have maybe romanticized the notion of political charisma. Hitler did exactly what you described in Germany after the first world war but you seem reluctant to call him charismatic because he used that charisma (amongst other things) to commit unspeakable atrocities. Charisma is neither good nor bad... it's just a tool.

The Cold War extended from Truman through Bush 41, 9 Presidents in all, so to say that Reagan 'had' the Cold War as an issue suggests that he had some unique opportunity the others didn't. Besides, the example I gave was the Challenger accident.

But I understand your point. Clinton did not have war or a depression as an opportunity to prove his mettle, nor did he have a traumatic event like the Challenger accident, and perhaps he would have risen to the occasion if he had the opportunity. But we don't know that, do we?

[Hawktawk]

Well Bob your reality in your economic micro climate may have indeed been bleak and I understand that. But the economy in 1992 was indeed emerging from recession before Clinton ever took the oath of office by all the standard yardsticks used to measure such things. I believe the revised figures were for about 1 percent growth in the 4th quarter of 1991. Thats anemic for sure but growth nonetheless. Clinton inherited a primed pump. And he said it would take 8 to 10 years to be able to balance the budget. With the help of the 1994 contract with America Republican takeover of Congress this was accomplished much quicker. To his credit Clinton sensed the political headwind and moved to the center to accomplish some very good things domestically. But I still submit he fumbled the ball terribly on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, his greatest failure as president.

[Hawktown]

Have you noticed what those leaders you listed have in common River?

FDR had the Depression and World War II. JFK had civil rights and the Cuban Missle Crisis. MLK, Civil Rights. Reagan, the Cold War.

Tell me Riv... what was the great crisis that presented itself during the Clinton years that required "the ability to reach out across political and social divides and unite people in a common cause, if only for a moment"? Welfare reform? There was no crisis during his presidency, it was a time of properity and general peace. And when you're in such a time without a rallying point, people are focussed on themselves, not the country.

You act like any of these leaders you mentioned foresaw the events they are associated with, called the countries attention to it and then rallied them to that cause. That's not how it actually happened. What really happened is certain issues whether domestic (civil rights) or international (Pearl Harbor), happen and then the leaders are left to react and decide how to deal with them. If Germany never erects the Berlin Wall there is no "Ich bin eim Berliner". There is nothing for the Country to rally around. And when something does happen like that it really isn't too hard to get the country to rally. Look no further than the massive support for Bush to invade Iraq despite the tenuous, at best, evidence to do so. All because 9/11 galvanized the country and he rode that ground swell of patriotism as a mandate. Clinton had nothing that even approached any of this. The Cold War was over (which presented the Berlin Wall, Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, Berlin Wall coming down). The Civil Rights issue had been solved. There was no threat to the nation's sovereignty. No financial crisis.

It seems like you have maybe romanticized the notion of political charisma. Hitler did exactly what you described in Germany after the first world war but you seem reluctant to call him charismatic because he used that charisma (amongst other things) to commit unspeakable atrocities. Charisma is neither good nor bad... it's just a tool.

The Cold War extended from Truman through Bush 41, 9 Presidents in all, so to say that Reagan 'had' the Cold War as an issue suggests that he had some unique opportunity the others didn't. Besides, the example I gave was the Challenger accident.

But I understand your point. Clinton did not have war or a depression as an opportunity to prove his mettle, nor did he have a traumatic event like the Challenger accident, and perhaps he would have risen to the occasion if he had the opportunity. But we don't know that, do we ?[/quote]


LMAO!!! what some people use as an excuse and argue point baffle me sometimes!

[kalibane]

Yes Hawk... the Cold War went back through generations (I did reference the Cuban Missle Crisis). But the proliferation of nuclear ICBMs had gone up at an exponential rate during Reagan's two terms. The threat had not just become losing to the reds, it became averting destruction of the world. Not exactly the same thing Truman was dealing with ya?

Comparitive to the other presidents of the last 50-75 years, Clinton had it pretty damn easy.

[Hawktawk]

not going to get an argument from me

[RiverDog]

Yes Hawk... the Cold War went back through generations (I did reference the Cuban Missle Crisis). But the proliferation of nuclear ICBMs had gone up at an exponential rate during Reagan's two terms. The threat had not just become losing to the reds, it became averting destruction of the world. Not exactly the same thing Truman was dealing with ya?

Comparitive to the other presidents of the last 50-75 years, Clinton had it pretty damn easy.

The increase in ICBM's, or rather nuclear weapons in general, under Reagan during the 80's was nothing compared to the increase in the 50's under Eisenhower, of which led to a huge advantage in nuclear weapons by the early 60's. Had war broke out in '62 during the Cuban missile crisis, our advantage was so great that we would have completely annihilated the USSR, a fact which undoubtedly played a role in their backing down. Plus a lot of the initiatives during Reagan, such as the MX and Star Wars, were paper missiles, of which very few ended up actually being deployed, but had the effect of intimidating the Russians into the realization that they couldn't win another arms race. Much of our military build up under Reagan was simply rhetoric, but was just as effective of a deterrent as if they'd actually been deployed.

Truman's big thorn in his side wasn't the Russians as much as it was China. The threat of a war involving Red China was the major factor in fighting a limited engagement in Korea rather than fighting to win, and Truman paid a heavy price for what eventually turned out to be the exact right course to take. In his own words, Truman was so unpopular at the end of his term that he couldn't win an election for dog catcher. The same thing happened to Johnson as he, too, was hounded from office by the cold war, and it played a minor role in Nixon's problems.

Clinton did have it easy when compared to the cold war presidents, as did Bush 41. The major debate in those years was how are we going to spend the peace dividend.

[kalibane]

Still a little different Riv. Eisenhower was the one who ramped up the ICBM missle programs but range and accuracy were still issues. Eisenhower essentially was helping to build the mechanism by which the world could be destroyed. But even up to the early 70s the Soviets could only reach the Western cities in the United States. That's the whole reason the Soviets wanted to put missles in Cuba.

When Reagan was in office not only had proliferation via the arms race gone through the roof, but there was no real limitation on effective range for land based ICBMs not to mention the ability to fire missles with nuclear payload from submarines. Different animal. Like you said the U.S. had a massive advantage at that point. The U.S. didn't have the advantage when Reagan was in office. At least not to the point where the U.S. could come out of a nuclear war with anything approximating a "win".

[RiverDog]

Still a little different Riv. Eisenhower was the one who ramped up the ICBM missle programs but range and accuracy were still issues. Eisenhower essentially was helping to build the mechanism by which the world could be destroyed. But even up to the early 70s the Soviets could only reach the Western cities in the United States. That's the whole reason the Soviets wanted to put missles in Cuba.

When Reagan was in office not only had proliferation via the arms race gone through the roof, but there was no real limitation on effective range for land based ICBMs not to mention the ability to fire missles with nuclear payload from submarines. Different animal. Like you said the U.S. had a massive advantage at that point. The U.S. didn't have the advantage when Reagan was in office. At least not to the point where the U.S. could come out of a nuclear war with anything approximating a "win".

Jeez, I didn't expect you to respond so quickly. I just went back and revised my statement to include all nuclear weapons. We had other delivery systems that were nearly as effective as ICBM's, including ballistic missile submarines and long range bombers. Accuracy wasn't a huge thing when you had the numbers we had available. We had dozens of weapons dedicated to a single target. Accuracy was a moot point.

Actually, Eisenhower was very much a moderate in terms of the nuclear arms race. He did not want to go beyond the point of being able to kill the Russians many times over as those in Congress did. He saw it as overkill. In his departing speech, he warned of his greatest fear, that of the "military-industrial complex".

As you said, Reagan did not have a nuclear superiority, nor a conventional advantage, either, for that matter. The advantage that Reagan had that others before him didn't was that the Soviet economy by the 1980's was fatally crippled. The war in Afghanistan contributed to the draining of their economy much like Vietnam drained our own. They could not afford another arms race. Reagan's tough talk scared the bee jezus out of the Rooskies. No one in the US besides Reagan, members of his own party, scientists, etc, believed we could successfully deploy Star Wars, but the Russians sure did. It was Reagan's psychological warfare that helped force the USSR into capitulation without firing a single shot.

Reagan got a lot of credit for ending the cold war, as well he should. But there were dozens of other factors involved, not the least of which was the coming communications age, which allowed people inside the Iron Curtain a glimpse of what awaited them. Or at least that's my take.

[c_hawkbob]

Yes Reagan did have a huge nuclear advantage.

SLBM's (Submarine Launched Balistic Missiles) are every bit as effective and accurate as ICBM's (more of both actually) and starting in 1959 with commissioning of the first George Washington class SSBN's (Ballistic Missile Subs), each of which carried 16 Polaris class SLBM's, (having 3 warheads each, all separately target-able on a platform trajectory), giving each Sub the capacity to cover 48 targets anywhere in the Soviet Union, the Soviets were woefully and forever outgunned in the nuclear arms race.

I know a little about those first SSBN's because I was stationed on 2 of them; the John Marshall (SSBN 611) and the Thomas Edison (SSBN 610), both Ethan Allen class subs also Polaris missile armed, built in 1960.

Then in 1981 when the first Trident Subs (one of which could cover all the targets of the entire fleet of my class of sub) were commissioned,the "arms race became a joke.

So for virtually all of Reagan's presidency he enjoyed every bit as much military superiority as any president has.

[kalibane]

Bob... the key words of that sentence was "At least not to the point where the U.S. could come out of a nuclear war with anything approximating a win". In shear numbers and delivery methodes there was an advantage but the advantage was such that we could just destroy the U.S.S.R. more times than the U.S.S.R. could destroy the U.S. But all it takes is the ability to destory the other guy once. Unlesss you could destroy the other guy's delivery methods before they were able to fire their missles in a counter attack it was effectively a stalemate regardless of the massive technical advantages the U.S. held in many areas.

If nuclear war broke out both countries would have ended up destroyed so the effective advantage Reagan had really didn't amount to much. That was Reagan's reason behind the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Riv... curious (Bob too for that matter) what's your take is on the economic factor. There are generally two camps. Those who believe that Reagan really didn't do a whole lot to directly bring about the end of the cold war, but rather it was the economic factors out of his control that he and his cabinet were able to take advantage of. And those who believe that the arms race under Reagan and in particular the Star Wars program put so much economic pressure on the Soviets that Reagan essentially broke them. I've heard compelling arguments for both points of view and I've never been able to settle on what I believe.