posted on May 28, 2003 06:07:52 PM new
As if we needed more Sex. Lies & Interns with knee pads
Reuters Wednesday, May 28, 2003; 8:03 PM
BOSTON (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton said on Wednesday Congress should change the rule that barred him from seeking a third term in the White House, but stopped short of saying he wants to return as commander-in-chief.
Speaking at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum here, Clinton questioned certain aspects of the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents a person from being elected president more than twice.
Clinton said the amendment, passed after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a record fourth term, should be changed simply to keep a person from being elected to more than two consecutive terms as president.
"I think since people are living much longer ... the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton said.
The former president said such a change probably wouldn't apply to him but would benefit future generations.
"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or
50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before," he said. "People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so."
Clinton, who left office in 2001, said he had "loved" his time as president but was also enjoying life outside the White House.
"I was surprised at how happy I was to have my life back," he said during a question-and-answer session with presidential historian Michael Beschloss.
Clinton said he was writing his memoirs, which were due to be published in the autumn of 2004, although he said they may be out before then.
posted on May 28, 2003 07:44:47 PM new
We need changes for sure.....how about term limits for senators and reps? If 2 terms are good enough for the president, and governors why not them?
Clinton is off base on this issue. Not being president is killing him inside.
posted on May 28, 2003 09:03:42 PM new
I'm going to tell you right now all that crap about his sex life was a bunch of HOOEY! Presidents throughout history have had affairs. I never approved of the Republican lynching of Clinton. Eventhough I veer more to the right in my political thinking, I was disgusted by the Jerry Springer antics of the Republican party with clinton. He was the PRESIDENT of the United States. They made fools of us to the entire world with that Monica L crap. I noticed the republican speaker of the house sure got out of town fast when they had some dirt on him.
I think it was shameful and disgraceful to tell all about the Oval office. I don't approve of his marital infidelity but I figure that is between him and his wife. It did not threaten national security as far as I am concerned. Meanwhile while everyone is obsessed with the sex life of Clinton, the terrorists are busy plotting our destruction.
posted on May 29, 2003 04:46:33 AM new
orleansgallery
Hurray! A point on which we both agree! Celebrate good times, come on. . . .There's a party going on right here, a celebration to last throughout the year. . . .
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on May 29, 2003 08:22:04 AM new
Other Presidents may had affairs while in the White House (recent stories of JFK & his intern & etc) but none have been more publically aired.
============================
Clinton the Hoover Bill, Hillary and the Democrats' political vacuum.
Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
The Clintons are back--but then they never really left. More than two years after Bill and Hillary departed the White House with controversies about presidential pardons and missing furniture swirling about them, they still occupy front-row seats in American politics. The former president does not seem to let a week pass without criticizing his successor. His former finance chairman, Terry McAuliffe, remains at the helm of the Democratic National Committee, despite the party's rout in last November's election. Simon & Schuster will be hawking Mrs. Clinton's memoirs next month, and she's considered the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008 should President Bush be re-elected.
But not all Democrats are happy that the Clintons remain their party's most prominent national figures. Two weeks ago Susan Estrich, Michael Dukakis's 1988 campaign manager, wrote a column giving voice to many liberals' misgivings about the couple who came to the (Democratic) party and wouldn't leave. She argues that the Clintons' domination means that the nominee next year won't be able to put his own stamp on the party.
There is also a more practical reason for Ms. Estrich's frustration. "Hillary Clinton is never going to be president," she writes. "There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women do not. Even Democratic women. Even working women." She concludes that while Mrs. Clinton is a hardworking and effective senator, she only helps Republicans raise money and stir up their troops whenever talk turns to her running for president.
As for Hillary's husband, Ms. Estrich maintains that while he is a brilliant man, "the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it were not about him." She concludes: "Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats."
Ms. Estrich is reflecting the private feelings of many Democrats I have spoken with, but most of them won't say it in public. The Clintons and their defenders have long memories, and they are proven survivors. How else to explain Terry McAuliffe staying on as chairman of the DNC, after his party managed to defy history and lose both House and Senate seats last year?
In many ways, the Clinton years were not good ones for the Democrats. In 1992, after Mr. Clinton won his first term with 43% of the vote, the party held substantial majorities of both houses of Congress and a clear majority of the nation's governorships and state legislatures. Mr. Clinton was almost able to muster a popular-vote majority in his re-election four years later, but already his party was out of power in both houses, had a minority of the nation's governors. For the first time in 50 years, they do not control a majority of state legislatures.
Democratic pollsters concede that the Clinton impeachment scandals eroded much of the party's support with blue-collar women and religious voters. Like a battered spouse, Democrats struggle to justify hanging on to the Clintons. "He is a good provider," Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, told me a few years ago, referring to the millions the Clintons raise for Democratic candidates.
But that money won't do the party any good if it can't win elections, and Ms. Estrich's point is that the Clintons stand in the way of that goal. Two-thirds of the country cannot name a single Democratic candidate for president in a field that includes Joe Lieberman, a former vice presidential candidate, and Dick Gephardt, a former House minority leader. The Clintons are so big there is no room for anyone else in people's minds when they think of the Democratic Party.
Most former presidents have not tried to dominate their party's affairs after leaving office the way the Clintons have. Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were in their 70s when they left the White House and uninterested in anything other than the role of an elder statesman. Jimmy Carter suffered such a crushing defeat in the 1980 election that his party tried to forget him. George Bush père suffered a similarly crushing defeat in 1992 and poured his political energies into promoting the gubernatorial ambitions of his sons, George W. and Jeb. As important as the Bush family is in the GOP of today, no one believes it is crowding out or inhibiting the development of the party's future national candidates. Indeed, its political success is creating exciting new potential candidates, such as National Security Adviser Condi Rice.
The publication of Hillary's memoirs next month, followed by her husband's just before the presidential election next year, will create a lot of buzz and may even sell a fair number of books. But the attention will benefit the Clintons, not the party whose ideals they claim to champion.
As the Clintons continue to suck the oxygen out of the political atmosphere, more and more Democrats are going to find themselves yearning to breathe free.
posted on May 29, 2003 08:51:11 AM new
The only sucking sound,was the 49 million for just the Clinton/ Monica investigation.All those investigations on him, and nothing was achieved in the end except, the republicans had some dirt on him.
How much money was really spent on all those investigations?
Bush hides information or has it sealed.So do you want to know truth or do you want to be lied to?
posted on May 29, 2003 10:10:52 AM new
I don't often post from a strictly partisan basis, and I do believe there's a lot to hold Bill Clinton responsible for. (He acquiesced to a lot of bad policy on welfare and the environment, among others.)
But on one issue, the record definitely needs to be set straight.
No administration in the history of this country has had a better policy of open records and access than the Clinton administration. No administration in the history of this country has closed more records and done more to restrict access than the Bush administration.
This is not just hyperbole. It's the facts. The Clinton administration was at the forefront of the electronic revolution, making millions of documents from federal agencies and courts available through dial-up access and over the Internet. The FBI had an aggressive de-classification program that put thousands of reports back into the public domain. The Justice Department operated under a directive that all documents were to be presumed open to Freedom of Information requests unless an agency could state a specific reason to withold them.
Since Bush took office (and dating back before 9/11, the Reporters' Committee on the Freedom of the Press and the non-profit watchdog group OMB Watch have documented a systematic effort to remove information from the Internet - ranging far outside security issues. One of the big areas: There's tons of environmental data missing, details that would let outside agencies see what kind of pollution is being poured into the water, air and soil. NOAA used to have a very detailed storm-tracking system on its website, the capabilities of which have been greatly reduced.
And let's not forget that one of President Bush's FIRST actions was to seal documents dating back to the Reagan administration that might implicate him or his father.
Perhaps most importantly, John Ashcroft has reversed the former directive saying that documents are presumed open unless there's a good reason they should be closed. Attorneys in his FOI division are now instructed to presume any documents are secret and force the people asking for them to prove why they should be open!
posted on May 29, 2003 04:29:13 PM new
A President's personal life should be our business because any deviant behavior can be used for blackmail.
If the Russians were smart, they would've sent a hot female spy to be an intern for Clinton. If they did, the Russians would have gotten anything they wanted.
After a President is out of office, he can hump anything that moves for all I care.
posted on May 29, 2003 05:11:12 PM new
Blackmail is only effective when the topic of it musst be kept hidden... in other words.. .the puritan attitude of the US puvblic at large makes its officials ripe for blackmail based on personal issues.
If people could accept that even intelligent people get laid it would not be an issue
Celebrate good times, come on. . . .There's a party going on right here, a celebration to last throughout the year. . . .
