Don't get me wrong, I still wouldn't want to elect him to national office again (or to the head of the UN!), but since he left the Presidency I've started to like Bill Clinton more and more. Maybe just because he doesn't sound insane, in contrast with most major Democrats of the past four years.
Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and . . . whine about this and that or the other thing."Well uh, many in your party don't believe in those things. Faith and family? C'mon, your strongest supporters are militant atheists and parade homosexuals. Work and freedom? I'll give you credit for mostly purging your party of its most socialist aspects, but I think you've got a long way to go.Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.
"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.
Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.If the shoe fits....
In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in September, gave Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.Not only was the message clear, but a majority of Americans agreed with it. Until the Democrats get that -- and quit worrying just about tactics such as clarity, organization, and so forth -- the Republicans can never lose."The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy," he said.
Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less dependence on foreign oil.That's impossible without producing more cheap domestic oil. Oil is a global market, and if you cut consumption then people will stop buying from the most expensive sources first. And guess what? Domestic oil is way more expensive than foreign oil, and the Middle East is the cheapest in the world, so they'll be the last ones to stop producing.
Anyway, amidst all that nonsense, Mr. Clinton addresses Israel's difficulties with blunt honesty -- and a message I agree with.
The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.I don't think they'd have trouble finding new excuses, but maybe people would quit buying them.Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism worldwide, Clinton said. "They would have to think of a new excuse to murder people."
I've always liked Bill Clinton. Not only is he a great communicator.. but he's also a Rhodes scholar.
Take a deep breath there, everyone.
Obviously, Bill's entire speech is designed to discredit anything that occurred after his administration. He's thinking that in 2008 Dems will be pining to return to the glory days of Bill. He's not being an altruist; he's clearing the way for Hillary.
Bill reminds me of my old boss. The old bird had built up his law firm by hand. When he was retiring he made sure that it would fold because he wanted to show that he was still the dominant influence, even if it meant Gotterdammerung for everyone else.
Bill is the same way. How else can you explain some of the goofy decisions he made or allowed at the end of his administration. For example, allowing Reno to grab Elian Gonzales gave Florida to Bush. If an extra 500 pissed-off Cuban-Americans hadn't showed up to vote, we'd be dealing with the second Gore administration. Gore's anger should be focused on his old boss, not on the "plutocrats."
But don't get me wrong. I like Bill Clinton better than Jimmy Carter, aka "history's greatest monster" according to the Simpsons.
Bill Clinton's great. He should have has own talk show.
what is it about a homosexual that stops him/her from believing in family?
what is it about a socialist that stops him/her from believing in work and freedom?
There are an awful lot of Americans who disagree with neo-conservatism; and a subset of them agree with the democrats. A failure in presentation prevented them from voting in greater numbers. I'm all for continually improving policy though.
Dependency on oil in general is going to turn round and bite you, and us in the UK, in the ass within decades. Hydro-electricity, bio-fuels, wind farms etc. are a necessary investment.
Yup peace in the middle east would make people thing three or four times before striping on the bombs. Unilaterally imposing regime change actually encourages them.
Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less dependence on foreign oil.
That's impossible without producing more cheap domestic oil. Oil is a global market, and if you cut consumption then people will stop buying from the most expensive sources first.
No, it's not. In the US there is a love affair with petrol guzzling monstrosities that do a handful of miles to the gallon. I think you call them SUVs.
Increasing fuel economy (maybe giving tax breaks on the purchase price of more efficient cars, and balancing this with a tax hike for less efficient cars) would reduce reliance on oil, and hence reliance on foreign oil. Indeed, rising oil prices due to present circumstances might, of itself, increase the demand for cars which are economic to run.
Reducing reliance on all oil means that when supplies are limited, one doesn't need the imports - and this is what Clinton was saying. One should not have to *rely* on the imports, even if one *chooses* to use them.
Quite aside from this, like it or not, oil is a finite resource. It will run out. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe within decades, possibly not for half a century or longer, but it will run out. Reducing reliance on foreign (i.e. middle eastern) oil is desirable for security reasons, but reducing reliance on all oil is essential for long term survival reasons.
jez: Hydroelectricity is maxed out in the developed world. Bio-fuel is useless on large scales. Wind farms are pretty much maxed out in the US as well, and they don't integrate well into the power grid because they generate power irregularly, like solar cells. There currently is no substitute for oil.
Murk: Cars use only a small portion of the oil we consume. Plus, as I said, foreign oil is cheaper FOB than domestic oil, so there's no way to cut our consumption of it without eliminating consumption of domestic oil first. It's never going to happen. Far easier to change the regimes of the countries that hold the cheap oil. (Which may not be easy at all, but it's easier because it's possible.)
You're missing the point...
Cutting overall consumption will primarily cut consumption of domestic oil. Granted. However it reduces *reliance* on imports.
Granted also that the car may not be the biggest oil consumer - however it is both an iconic consumer, as well as being a fairly major consumer *where the technology already exists for much better fuel economy*.
Murk: It takes years or decades to bring oil fields online. We can't switch from foreign to domestic in weeks or even months. Use equals reliance, at least on the short to medium term.
Technology doesn't exist for much great fuel economy at the current cost efficiency.