Sunday, September 26, 2004

Hoping to draw a parallel


"And my margin of victory was THIS LARGE!" Posted by Hello

Here's some more swag from the 1992 Clinton campaign: the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette from the day after, announcing the arrival of a new direction in leadership. This is a terrific reminder of what can happen when a Democratic candidate overcomes the hurdles it takes to beat a Bush. They said it was impossible. They called him weak. They sold stories of his womanizing. They joked about his oratorical skills. They said he'd never be president, especially in the light of Bush's war in Iraq. Clinton still came through and kicked ass. Proof positive that, at least sometimes, the good guys win. Underneath the fold is a headline that would be nice to see again, though that seems unlikely given Bush's track record in elections:


Nov. 4, 1992 and/or Nov. 3, 2004? Posted by Hello

Take heed: real work for change begins now. We can do it. Why? Because we've already done it!

13 comments:

Hegemon said...

I hear he was impeached for lying to a grand jury...real swell guy.

Ian McGibboney said...

"I hear he was impeached for lying to a grand jury...real swell guy."

Yes, Bill Clinton was so popular and antithetical to Republican values that he was the subject of a four-year, multi-million-dollar investigation (one, I might add, that was so weak that they had to impeach him over a blowjob). This was headed, of course, by an organized partisan attack committee that had the collective moral fiber to never lie about a blow job were they ever to actually receive one (except that a few of those guys, Gingrich, Hyde, Livingston et al., did). The Clinton impeachment speaks a little about Clinton and volumes about the jerks who initiated it.

I'm still waiting for a similar investigation on Bush. Now THERE'S a swell guy!

Phillip said...

clinton's lie about a blowjob embarrassed his family.

bush's lies about EVERYTHING have caused thousands to die.

Mike (RightWingSpic) said...

Clinton's impeachment and the result sent the following message: It's illegal to lie under oath, especially to federal investigators, unless you're popular.

http://rightwingspic.blogspot.com

Phillip said...

"unless you're popular"

i think "unless your party controls the house and senate" would be more accurate.

Ian McGibboney said...

Mike, I just visited your profile. What is up with you guys and guns? You, Carl P, Tom Alday, and Sarah K at IMAO all have pictures of yourselves holding guns. What message are you trying to send?

Kyle said...

phizz,

Many thousands more died when Clinton ordered every bridge on the Danube to be destroyed when he was defending the terrorsts of Serbia.

Phillip said...

carl, you are comparing apples and oranges. for one thing, clinton did not bomb the bridges, nato did. and it was in order to place sanctions on slobodan milosovic (clinton opted for "sanctions" instead of "unilateral invasion" - see the difference?). milosevic, if you remember, was a proponent of ethnic cleansing, forcing ethnic Albanians of Kosovo to flee for their lives. and i don't reall him lying about our intentions there?

Kyle said...

phizz,

It was American fighter jets, American pilots with NATO markings doing the bombing. I don't agree with Milosevic on the mass murder, however, I do agree with a leader of a country defending his land from an invasion of extremists. Milosevic was fighting Islamic terrorism. "Ethinic Albanians" is a sweet, sensitive word form Muslim Extremists.

Ian McGibboney said...

"I do agree with a leader of a country defending his land from an invasion of extremists."

So are you saying you understand the Iraqi resistance movements? That IS how they see our presence, isn't it? Or is that standard only applied to those who fight Muslims?

Kyle said...

Ian,

Yes, I "understand" their "movements". It will be much easier for our soldiers to kill them if they keep uprising.

Ian McGibboney said...

You clearly missed my point, and painted yourself as an incredibly racist hypocrite at the same time. That takes talent.

So you genuinely think that the United States has the right to invade another country without provocation, remove its leaders if we don't like them, and then kill anyone who feels the need to defend themselves? Do you not even understand the Iraqi insurgents' anger? You don't have to agree with it, but do you at least see it? Or do you think only Americans are the only ones worthy of policing the world and defending themselves?

You can't win hearts and minds with bullets. Sometimes you have to try not shooting and see where that takes you. And don't say it takes us where we are now, because we've been shooting and bombing them for more than a decade. And what has come out of it? What ever comes out of violence?

Kyle said...

I just don't get why you call me a racist. Is Radical Islam a race, Ian? NO, it's a religion hell-bent on destroying the very freedoms you and I love so much.

You should as the "insurgents" the same question you asked me: "What ever comes out of violence?"