Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
B.Clinton: disadvantaged white people are scared to death
huffingtonpost.com — The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death
myelinate- 965 diggs
- digg it
- peticsu, on 04/14/2008, -4/+42so Bill gets elected and saves the day by signing NAFTA (which Hillary supported at the time)
- RRJackson, on 04/14/2008, -12/+5And if he hadn't signed NAFTA, then what? Because the Cold War was over. Two billion workers from the former Soviet Union, China and India were all ready to work for peanuts. The only two options I know of were to institute protectionist measures to protect our marketplace (which I think is a good idea, but most economists think is a terrible idea) or find a source of domestic labor that was competitively priced. That's also why we've got tens of millions of illegal immigrants. It's the only way a lot of American businesses can remain competitive. If someone invented an autonomous robot that was inexpensive and could do things like work in a meat-packing house or pick produce we'd discover that the border wasn't so impossible to seal up, after all.
- freedomwv, on 04/14/2008, -5/+11The thing is that big business does not want to pay Americans the wage they deserve. Instead, they are all too happy to pay some law breaking illegal worker next to nothing. When they have such a cheap work force no wonder profits are going though the roof while the rest of Americans suffer though the start of a depression.
- 5555, on 04/14/2008, -6/+4What wage do you deserve as an American exactly? The problem is that for too long you've been earning more than you're worth. Now that it's time to even the playing feel, you cry foul.
- RRJackson, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3Corporations exist to generate profit. When vast pools of cheap labor are available outside the American workforce what do you expect them to do? They have absolutely no incentive to pay a competitive wage and benefits to an American worker over a worker from Mexico or China or Jamaica or Grenada or India, etc. NAFTA was a way to send jobs that required skilled labor to Canada, where at least their health care system offset the costs. And the rest to Mexico, where labor costs were low and there are almost no environmental restrictions. What was the other option? What was Clinton supposed to do? I'm not saying there's no answer, but I've yet to hear one.
Tariffs and other protectionist measures would have been my call, but I've been told over and over again that protectionism doesn't work. You always got that quote in school that said, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will." Except we've got the biggest, scariest armies in the history of the world, so I don't see how that would have been a problem. Economists often cite free trade as raising the standard of living in other nations, but it's at the expense of our own, so I never cared much for that as a justification, either.
"Free Trade" has kind of a split personality in that regard. It's got a socialist side that chugs along raising the standard of living for those in the impoverished nations where the work goes, but it also creates excessive economic stratification and situations conducive to fascism as the capitalists lower costs and reap large financial rewards that don't filter down to their workers.
In any case, I don't see why Clinton was so evil for signing NAFTA. It's a mess, but it's a mess that was coming whether he signed NAFTA or not. It isn't like he signed NAFTA and the jobs all went away. The jobs were all going away and he signed NAFTA in an attempt to keep some of the jobs on the North American continent.
- freedomwv, on 04/14/2008, -5/+11The thing is that big business does not want to pay Americans the wage they deserve. Instead, they are all too happy to pay some law breaking illegal worker next to nothing. When they have such a cheap work force no wonder profits are going though the roof while the rest of Americans suffer though the start of a depression.
- twinklyJesus, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4See, here's the deal, 3 months or so, before he was elected, Bill spoke to an audience of the AFL-CIO and/or United Auto Workers. He said "I will not sign that treaty!". As soon as he took office, one of the first things he did was sign NAFTA.
NAFTA was a raw deal for us (US) then and everyone who spent 10 minutes thumbing through the treaty knew it. they all went for it.- Speed, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4I actually want to know who benefited from NAFTA. It sure as hell wasn't Canada, all our jobs are going overseas, things such as softwood lumber, which is supposed to be tariff free, have massive tariffs. Unless Mexicans are really better off hten they let on, NAFTA is one of the few treaties that managed to royally screw all parties.
- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3NAFTA will serve to make rich neocons even richer while they ***** both Canada and the US over in the process. People like Hillary, McCain and even Obama don't care about us but they do care about their fund raisers and lobbyists.
- twinklyJesus, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1***** you and your stupid partisan political rhetoric. A democrat signed this treaty, you nit-wit.
- twinklyJesus, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1NAFTA, IMHO, was an attempt to spark economic growth in Mexico and stem the influx of jobless immigrants into the US. Mexican trucker's licenses are accepted without verification under the treaty. The same for Medical diplomas and certifications. Mexican truckers drive right across the border and on to their US destinations whether they know our driving laws or not. However, US truckers must park their trucks in a border town and wait for a Mexican driver to come pick up the load and transport it into Mexico.
I am just repeating things that are actually in the document. At one time (1992) I bought a copy of the treaty and read through it. It does nothing for Canada and less for the US.
- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3NAFTA will serve to make rich neocons even richer while they ***** both Canada and the US over in the process. People like Hillary, McCain and even Obama don't care about us but they do care about their fund raisers and lobbyists.
- Speed, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4I actually want to know who benefited from NAFTA. It sure as hell wasn't Canada, all our jobs are going overseas, things such as softwood lumber, which is supposed to be tariff free, have massive tariffs. Unless Mexicans are really better off hten they let on, NAFTA is one of the few treaties that managed to royally screw all parties.
- madroneDorf, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1NAFTA is an economic boogeyman.
I think that their should have been more reinvestment (infrastructure, research, job retraining) in the rust belt (but really all over it) during the 90's, as well as bush administration. However after NAFTA was signed, their was little job movement, really the job gain/loss to nafta is neglible, while the overall economic benefit is small (but real).
What really cannabalized the rust belt was letting china into the WTO and technological changes, not NAFTA - winnestow, on 04/14/2008, -5/+3yes, i want a harvard trained socialist leading the country that his wife hates
- buhbyebot, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2That's all you seem to say in your posts.
Same thing in another thread. Verbatim.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_vision_i ...
- buhbyebot, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2That's all you seem to say in your posts.
- RRJackson, on 04/14/2008, -12/+5And if he hadn't signed NAFTA, then what? Because the Cold War was over. Two billion workers from the former Soviet Union, China and India were all ready to work for peanuts. The only two options I know of were to institute protectionist measures to protect our marketplace (which I think is a good idea, but most economists think is a terrible idea) or find a source of domestic labor that was competitively priced. That's also why we've got tens of millions of illegal immigrants. It's the only way a lot of American businesses can remain competitive. If someone invented an autonomous robot that was inexpensive and could do things like work in a meat-packing house or pick produce we'd discover that the border wasn't so impossible to seal up, after all.
- kva7922046, on 04/14/2008, -5/+37Pot calling kettle black. Again.
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4Well, he never inhaled... but Obama is indeed black.
- offput, on 04/14/2008, -8/+2Pot's wife calling the Kettle black technically.
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1African american IMO.
- ratsg, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4not all Negros in the US are of African descent..
- Diderotten, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Technically, everyone originated from north Africa. That being said, African denotes the culture you assign yourself to, not your race. Not a lot of people get that.
- akimbo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Clines Clines Clines!
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Are Kenyan's african?
- ratsg, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4not all Negros in the US are of African descent..
- jabberwolf, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Kettle black? Ya just HAD to go there didnt ya!?
- andj, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2What a silly woman. She is in a marriage with earnings of 109 million and she calls someone elitist. Lets not discuss her husbands comments.
Give me a break.
She is misspeaking again.
- thebradmiskell, on 04/14/2008, -4/+55So I reassured them with NAFTA
- Swift2, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7So, who do you back? Pro-NAFTA Obama or Hillary or pro-NAFTA McCain?
- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Can I choose Mike Gravel or Ron Paul?
- DavidtheDuke, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6The problem with a Republic is a politician has no legal obligation to keep his opinions the same when voters elect him. You're ***** for the term of his occupancy. The people as a whole nationwide need to become a branch of the government. If we suck and pass retarded bills that ***** everything up, only we can blame ourselves.
- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1This is why I say we vote on each law before passing it. To pass a new law we would need at least 90 percent approval but to get rid of an old law we would only need 10 percent to approve.
- Swift2, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7So, who do you back? Pro-NAFTA Obama or Hillary or pro-NAFTA McCain?
- shedee, on 04/14/2008, -13/+28I am just not sure why Bill and Hillary won't consider retiring gracefully and enjoying their millions. Why does the whole country have to suffer bcause these two as powermongers? No Clinton/Bush/Clinton
- brad3378, on 04/14/2008, -4/+10Because this is a democracy?
Be patient. This should be over after Pennsylvania.- insllvn, on 04/14/2008, -5/+6It should be over now. Do you honestly believe that if she where anyone else, trailing by as much as she is, Hillary would still be in the race?
- Myonosken, on 04/14/2008, -5/+3Yes because most other modern democracies have multiple candidates throughout the race in the interests of representation?
- insllvn, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4We could go on and on about the need for electoral reform in America and the benefits of a more representational system that fosters multiple parties, but right now Hillary is damaging the party I will be supporting for her own ends. If McCain wins, he will owe her thanks for all the damage she has done to her fellow democrat Obama.
- pixelguru, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2We would have multiple candidates - Obama and McCain. Do you really think this country is mentally capable of digesting more than that? History has sadly shown otherwise.
- Myonosken, on 04/14/2008, -5/+3Yes because most other modern democracies have multiple candidates throughout the race in the interests of representation?
- freedomwv, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3Well, there is only one person running that makes any sense and that is Ron Paul. The rest of them are going to go back on every promise they make. You just watch and see.
- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Mike Gravel has changed to the libertarian party after finding out that the democrats are just as bad as the GOP. Gravel will still be in the race to the end, even if Ron Paul drops out.
- mnky9800n, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1After this embarrassing run for the presidency, I don't think Hillary can retire gracefully.
- insllvn, on 04/14/2008, -5/+6It should be over now. Do you honestly believe that if she where anyone else, trailing by as much as she is, Hillary would still be in the race?
- MWeather, on 04/14/2008, -1/+16Actually, it would be Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.
And who knows, maybe Jeb will run next time making it Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush- Lutremi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1And then a Bush gets elected making it Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bush.
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!- MWeather, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Not if Chelsea Clinton has anything to say about it. She'll be old enough by then.
Besides, the Bush twins' antics have ruined their chances.
- MWeather, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Not if Chelsea Clinton has anything to say about it. She'll be old enough by then.
- Lutremi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1And then a Bush gets elected making it Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bush.
- jabberwolf, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1They could but some people are REAL patriots and have been proud to be American for most of their lives.
- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the lulz
- caponumen, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Bingo!
These two are like two black holes of narcissism in a weird death spiral.- nicholai, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Add McCain and we have an axis of evil.
- dafunkmonster, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You said it yourself, they're powermongers. They are under the illusion that they can lie and cheat and deceive their way into the hearts and minds of Americans once again as they did in 1992. I guarantee, if there hadn't been a media blackout on Bill's history in '91, we wouldn't even remember his name today, and we sure as hell wouldn't have to bringing up NAFTA and how it screwed us out of jobs here at home.
- brad3378, on 04/14/2008, -4/+10Because this is a democracy?
- MindyB, on 04/14/2008, -8/+23I am beginning to wonder if Hillary's run has more to do with a marital challenge than anything else. From the beginning, she has been doing and saying exactly the opposite of what her husband did and said when he was running for President. The sad part is that she is not only hurting the chances of on one of the best candidates for the Presidency, but is hurting the Democratic party in ways that it might not be able to repair in time for the general election. So, when a Republican is inaugurated again, we can all thank McClinton for that!
I assume asking her to try to run with a little honesty and integrity is out of the question.- jordisunshine, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3well put.
- freedomwv, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2honesty and integrity? You know that is not how the Clinton`s roll
- SkeeterVT, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1I honestly believe that Hillary's candidacy is Bill's way of circumventing the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, which limits a president to two terms in office. When I blasted Bill in my blog last January over his comments about Obama during and after the South Carolina primary, I said that Bill revealed himself to having a strong desire to return to the Whiter House, even if in the unprecedented role of "first gentleman.'
I'm convinced that it's Bill who's really calling the shots in Hillary's campaign. Of course, being the candidate's spouse, Hillary can't fire him. Had it been anyone else acting like such a loose cannon, he -- or she -- would have been shown the door right away.
- jordisunshine, on 04/14/2008, -3/+13This all comes out the same week that the Clinton-Penn-Colombian Free Trade Agreement nexus starts to unravel. And HRC once again, ala Dick Morris, uses the rhetoric of how Obama's words reveal his flawed character.
Lets talk about ACTIONS. Like, surrounding yourself with men (Penn and Husband) who are working to expand free-trade-at-all-costs while you criticize that deal and others like NAFTA; like, taking money form big pharma; like sitting on board of Wal-Mart.
Whose actions are on behalf of economic elites in this race?- jjpipster, on 04/14/2008, -1/+9So predictable. Every time something negative comes out on Clinton, she throws something ridiculous out there about Obama, true or made up, to divert attention away from her. She doesn't seem to care how petty or desparate it makes her look. So many people haven't figured it out yet, it amazes me because it is so obvious.
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Whose actions are on behalf of economic elites in this race?
Why, ALL OF THEM - Isn't that plain to see?- jordisunshine, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Can you be more specific?
- quesi, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1ALL OF THEM = McWar, Team Clinton, and Nobama
actions are on behalf of economic elites
k?
- quesi, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1ALL OF THEM = McWar, Team Clinton, and Nobama
- jordisunshine, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Can you be more specific?
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -19/+5Team Clinton = NAFTA + WAR + No more Constitution, Dick/Bush/McDouche = NAFTA + WAR + No more Constitution, NoBama = NAFTA + WAR + No more Constitution + a bill for $845 BILLION to "end global poverty" (as in Worldwide Welfare - take from us and give to them, ala UN Plan for World Socialism).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433:
THERE IS STILL A CHANCE - COME TOGETHER - DONT LISTEN TO THE DIVIDERS - COME TOGETHER AND STAND FOR THE CONSTITUTION The Founding Fathers were right. Look what we have left - more of the same won't fix this...- casuallyevil, on 04/14/2008, -1/+12How does it feel to be so crazy? Really... I'm fascinated.
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -6/+2which part is crazy? Pointing out that both sides are bought and paid for by the same interests? The $845 Billion? The UN plan for world socialism? Suggesting there is still a chance? The founding fathers being correct? Too many CAPS? Tell me of your fascination.
- mchisari, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Yeah, that part.
- Swift2, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4My sentiments exactly, mchisari. Especially, the too many caps part. Hey, he's using all caps. IT MUST BE VITALLY IMPORTANT!
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1yeah, i know.. the caps are over the top... but screw us right? just let it happen?
- Myonosken, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5OH LORDY LOO SOCIALISM IS EVIL COS IT HURTS EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY THE MOST VULNERABLE.
/idiot. - bingobongony, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5the part where you think that Ron Paul; is the solution to all problems you encounter in life. That part,
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1i didnt say ron paul. but he is the only one running that doesn't want a one world corporate machine to chew up your kids. crazy, i know... thats ok, you're obviously not alone in your fear of real freedom.
- mchisari, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Yeah, that part.
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -6/+2which part is crazy? Pointing out that both sides are bought and paid for by the same interests? The $845 Billion? The UN plan for world socialism? Suggesting there is still a chance? The founding fathers being correct? Too many CAPS? Tell me of your fascination.
- bingobongony, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5more incoherent babbling from the RonPaulian side of things.
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Methinks it would be more effective for you to write it on a sandwich board and then stand on a busy corner hollering and waving your hands in the air.
Get out there and bring the word to the people brother, your the chosen one.- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1i'm convinced. nothing happened, we're still a free country. you're right.
- freedomwv, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1You need to include Obama and McCain in the NAFTA+WAR+No more Constitution bunch.
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1I did, as NoBama and McDouche, respectively.
- casuallyevil, on 04/14/2008, -1/+12How does it feel to be so crazy? Really... I'm fascinated.
- Shm259, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1You're right-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOgunsUIWU4
they deserve better...- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -5/+1"We're all the same"
You know what that means right? Welcome to the USSA.
- quesi, on 04/14/2008, -5/+1"We're all the same"
- sweets4me, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1this is disturbing.
- allnone, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3He'll say that he "misspoke" and Hillary will claim that she never supported his statement, but if he did something good, she was behind it too. But if he did, or said something bad, she was no where near it and she "rejects and denounces" his statement. If lying was a job, she would be even richer.
- BroWren, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0And this is different from a typical wife in what way? :)
- savantidiot, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1"If lying was a job, she would be even richer." First she was a lawyer, now a politician. I can think of no other vocations which so clearly state lying in their job descriptions, and now she and Bill are worth over 100mil.
- grannyof3, on 04/14/2008, -7/+2GEEZ YOU SOUND A TAD BIT BITTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Danby123, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1caps lock demands burying
- gcman94, on 04/14/2008, -7/+1how bout' get better stories than this.
BURRIED - Emnsta, on 04/14/2008, -9/+3Thats not racist at all
/sarcasm
//dem there white peoples runnin ova der to day mommas - bluvapor, on 04/14/2008, -9/+4... IN THE BUTT
- greenlight2001, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Although I understand the meaning behind this comment, can anyone tell me why it has had a sudden apearance on digg? What happened recently? Did I miss a story on digg?
- gr3yn3t, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3i would also like to know. I'm assuming it has something to do with 4chan.
/shudder - fantasticFlan, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Comedy Central aired "The Ladies Man" recently, just a guess.
- greenlight2001, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Wow, getting dugg down for asking a serious question... I tell you what, some diggers are complete a-holes.
- greenlight2001, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2NVM... figured it out on my own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRWVQlCEivw
South Park episode.
- gr3yn3t, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3i would also like to know. I'm assuming it has something to do with 4chan.
- greenlight2001, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Although I understand the meaning behind this comment, can anyone tell me why it has had a sudden apearance on digg? What happened recently? Did I miss a story on digg?
- bingobongony, on 04/14/2008, -10/+5more huffingtonpost crap...yawnnnn
- JimmySpaza, on 04/14/2008, -8/+2Actually, most scared white people chose the lesser of two evils at election time...and voted for Bush twice. It's not that the scare tactics worked. It's that we scared white people voted for the person who would do the least economic damage to America.
- peep, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3When people are scared change is hard, when people are not change is much easier but often brought about for the wrong reasons . The first time he was elected we had little reason to be afraid.
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2"The first time he was elected we had little reason to be afraid."
Little reason except a jewish VP.- peep, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3First, I'm pretty sure Cheney is Methodist Second, I hope your just trolling.
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I was talking about bush getting in the first time because of leiberman.
Am I trolling? Maybe a little, sometimes I cant tell anymore. I might be confused so dont take me to seriously.
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I was talking about bush getting in the first time because of leiberman.
- peep, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3First, I'm pretty sure Cheney is Methodist Second, I hope your just trolling.
- robthom, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2"The first time he was elected we had little reason to be afraid."
- madroneDorf, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1err, bush 43 hasput our economy in the *****
- peep, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3When people are scared change is hard, when people are not change is much easier but often brought about for the wrong reasons . The first time he was elected we had little reason to be afraid.
- coffee200am, on 04/14/2008, -8/+5What I've learned from presidential candidates...
Most White people are racist, insecure, bitter, scared, elitists, gun toting, religious, unemployed, live in the north eastern and western coasts of the United States and don't know how to vote...- Swift2, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Great way to ask them to vote for you, huh?
- coffee200am, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2and afraid of immigrants...
- Swift2, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Great way to ask them to vote for you, huh?
- RidgeWalker76, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4You all may be pissed off at the Clintons right now, especially the Obama supporters, but try not to forget that William Jefferson Clinton did a great job while he was President. NAFTA or not, the economy was expanded greatly and Americans at every level were doing better financially.
NAFTA has become something of a bogeyman lately, but it is not what is behind our current financial situation. Ending NAFTA would not be a cure all for all of the economic ills that we have, not by a long shot. In the very long run, NAFTA will be beneficial.- pinetree, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2"...the economy was expanded greatly and Americans at every level were doing better financially. "
I think the Internet bubble had a lot more to do with that than Bill Clinton did.- RidgeWalker76, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4The Internet bubble was not the entire economic gain represented during the Clinton Presidency, and when it burst, it did not take the entire economy with it.
- gr3yn3t, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Do explain.
Nafta supporters said it would increase jobs by 170,000 or more. Since then, over 1,000,000 jobs have been lost.
Nafta supporters said we would have a $12bil trade surplus with mexico. It is $-24 billion now.
Should I continue? Sure, it won't solve our economic problems. Ending the war will. But NAFTA will only continue in the trends it has already started. NAFTA either needs to end or do a 180 in order for it to be profitable.- RidgeWalker76, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2We've lost tens of thousands of job in the service sector to countries like India, which count in those numbers, are you going to blame that on NAFTA as well? Are you suggesting all of those jobs were lost because of NAFTA?
- gr3yn3t, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11,000,000 is the estimate caused by only NAFTA, cited on multiple occassions by Edwards and Obama.
400,000 is about the most conservative estimate I could find, while it is likely closer to a million.
http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/jobs/
- gr3yn3t, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11,000,000 is the estimate caused by only NAFTA, cited on multiple occassions by Edwards and Obama.
- RidgeWalker76, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2We've lost tens of thousands of job in the service sector to countries like India, which count in those numbers, are you going to blame that on NAFTA as well? Are you suggesting all of those jobs were lost because of NAFTA?
- davemak, on 04/14/2008, -2/+21) President Clinton was fortunate to have that "Internet thing" happen under his watch.
2) Does not excuse Bill's recent hate filled divisive rhetoric.
3) Bill is not running this time. Hillary was only the First Lady and does not count as experience in running a nation. - VeritasAequitas, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And don't forget that the president does not do a whole hell of a lot alone. For most of the stuff Clinton gets credit for he had little or nothing to do with other than by the fact that he didn't use his power of veto. If I remember correctly for a least a good chunk of time he had a Republican majority house and senate while he was in office. Though he did do one thing right he sent our troops into Yugoslavia to help stop ethnic genocide, of course he waited till his impeachment trial started so that it would take the attention off him, but hey who said anything about waging the dog being wrong.
- coolkatz321, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2This is hilarious. You Obama sheep are incredibly obnoxious - Clinton really was a great president. And here's the thing you'll all deny... if we didn't have this bickering between these candidates right now, you'd be saying he was great. It's ***** annoying to see all the SPAM (and that's EXACTLY what it is, so don't even try to deny it) covering digg... it should just redirect to Obama's website, since that's basically what digg has become. Obama could open up fire in the middle of an elementary school auditorium, and you'd all defend him and say nothing was wrong.
- pinetree, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2"...the economy was expanded greatly and Americans at every level were doing better financially. "
- nmeadata, on 04/14/2008, -2/+8Why the heck is it a racial issue?
- bradleyland, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Because politicians know they can use "race issues" to get votes.
- BruceDude, on 04/14/2008, -7/+7Not the Clintons again.
*runs to the bathroom to take a dump*- jabberwolf, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Um I think you mean throw up.
I can understand if you get nauseated but them acting as a laxative? You are very odd ! - BruceDude, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Hillary gives me diarrhea.
- Diderotten, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Dugg for being just so ***** weird.
- jabberwolf, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Um I think you mean throw up.
- x252, on 04/14/2008, -9/+4I'm confused as to how this is relevant to anything, really.
This was 17 years ago.
What obama said was last week.- offput, on 04/14/2008, -1/+12It's relevant because the sentiments of the two messages are identical, and Hilary Clinton has been criticizing Obama for his statements.
- tucsonwc, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And both of them are true.
- x252, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1But Hilliary Clinton didn't say the comments?
Must just be my republican blood, but it's still not connecting how two different people are bound by what one said?- MacEnvy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1She takes credit for everything else Bill Clinton did and said, so she's gotta take the "bad" stuff too. (the "bad stuff" in this case simply being a statement that makes them look like hypocrites)
Honestly, she should be trying to stand on her own, but until she stops bringing up the 90s as somehow related to her candidacy, it's all fair game.
- MacEnvy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1She takes credit for everything else Bill Clinton did and said, so she's gotta take the "bad" stuff too. (the "bad stuff" in this case simply being a statement that makes them look like hypocrites)
- mlock2k, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Bill keep up the good work good budy.
- Swift2, on 04/14/2008, -4/+4So what? That's the true part of what Obama said. The part that's getting him in hot water is this point: "So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinging to guns or religion? Anti-immigrant sentiment as an emotional crutch? And I thought Obama was supposed to be against NAFTA and only evil Hillary was for it. Oh, no. That's not true? - darwinwins, on 04/14/2008, -5/+1I just wanted to point out that the first (and hopefully last Clinton) President was not elected entirely on his own - the fact that Perot syphoned off a good chunk of the Republican vote was a big factor in the Clinton victory. Right now, Bob Barr has set up an exploratory committee to run as the Libertarian candidate and has a good shot of taking at least 7 percent of the republican vote away from McCain. Should Clinton the second win the nomination (not a snowball's chance in hell), she would win the presidency if enough conservative vote should go Barr's way. When Obama gets the nomination, it'll be like the spring primary nightmare never happened. People will coalesce around Obama or stay home rather than vote McCain. Or they will in fact vote 3rd party. I'm not panicking about the general election, but would just love to see the primaries end since we know who will be ahead by fall.
- RidgeWalker76, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5That's a load of junk apologists for GHWB spin to distract from the fact that he was an unpopular President who was not doing a good job with the economy. Had GHWB been a decent President during his first term, Ross Perot would not have mattered at all. Incumbents rarely lose, and when they do, it is because they were awful in their first term, which GHWB was.
- kingUssop, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Hurricane Hillary needs to give it a rest. She's gone into fullscale war to take the Democratic party, when it just doesn't make any sense. Obama would do better. We don't need another 51% of the vote President, which is the best she could hope to be.
- RandaII, on 04/14/2008, -14/+6***** you diggers. Man you guys are getting worse and worse. This is between Hilary and Obama not Bill. Seems to me you guys are doing the dirty work for obama. Yes this is america and we have a right to voice my opinions but you guys are taking it over the top. This is why digg is full of losers.
- MANonFYER, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3well...damn
- helster83, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2it's true though.. they're also freaking zombies. it's one thing to like SOME things about an individual and to dislike other things that you disagree with. but every ***** thing obama does, these drones agree with him. if obama were to say that all white people should burn during the election, these morons would be like "obama 08!" or they'd just digg you down for being like "hey, did you hear what obama just said?"
- kylere, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2I think this is all just a vast right wing conspiracy! I do not know anyone with a wife dumb enough to fall for that line....'cept Bill!
- zephyear, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10man bill seems like the kind of guy who would of endorsed obama right away
***** hillary - MANonFYER, on 04/14/2008, -4/+4I can care less about this...this is BILL stating his opinion...it has no bearing on what he has done for this country..SO WHO CARES..i would vote for him again if I could, I was born in 83 and he's hands down the best prez we have seen since... BILL clinton FTW
- MacEnvy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1"i would vote for him again if I could, I was born in 83"
Since you were born in '83, you never voted for him the first time ...
- MacEnvy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1"i would vote for him again if I could, I was born in 83"
- dclarkdigg, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6he is correct. Check out George Lakoff's work and the concept of paranoid angry white men vs enlightened parents. the demise of education, falling standards of living in the US, and recent destruction of the bill of rights. see also "the clinton wars" by sydney blumenthal. Bill Clinton was a fine president.
- terrix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Other then lying under oath and embarrassing the office of President, allowed some of the shadiest corporate shenanigans to go on under his administration and continuing to lie and make backroom deals to this day to try and get Hillary in office. Whatever, he has the personal integrity of a pimp and the shifty demeanor to match.
Also, anyone who takes basic economic courses in college knows that policies put in place by a President or government take 6-10 years to take effect on the national level. We've been in a recession since Bush took office. Guess whose fault that is? Not Bush's he hasn't been in office long enough for him to damage (not that he's any better, but at least he keeps it in his pants while in office). You might be able to blame the current downturn on Bush and just barely, but Clinton is just as at fault. Clinton also waged his little wars and international meddling while in office too.
- terrix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Other then lying under oath and embarrassing the office of President, allowed some of the shadiest corporate shenanigans to go on under his administration and continuing to lie and make backroom deals to this day to try and get Hillary in office. Whatever, he has the personal integrity of a pimp and the shifty demeanor to match.
- MrErr, on 04/14/2008, -0/+8Awesome find. I wonder if Hillary thinks Bill is an elitist now?
- scamper22, on 04/14/2008, -7/+2I'm sorry to say, Obamas comments were far worse than Clinton's. Even if Clinton believed the same thing, he was far too smart a politician to say what Obama said.
Clinton's comments are vague and just say some white people are scared. He then says that some politicians take advantage of these fears. Nothing really offensive about that...and it even feeds into the cynicism people have all government (it's all evil people).
Barack takes this kind of statement and extends it. He basically says these white people are scared, their beliefs are stupid, and they're racist...
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - krewl, on 04/14/2008, -5/+0"disadvantaged white people" is like saying "disadvantaged advantaged people."
- sfacets, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Bush doesn't like ...white people?
- cambob76, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Bill isn't voting for Hillary. I smell a divorce before Nov.
- mecharabbit, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Bill Clinton made a career of mass generalizations about the causes and effects of bitterness among low-income black people, without any backlash. So why is it so bad when Obama uses the word "white" instead of "black"?
- ileftfark, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6The sentiment is very similar, but the wording is what got people up in arms.
Bill Clinton said that the Republicans were doing X to white people.
Obama said that white people are X
People tend to agree when the situation seems forced on them, and tend to be disagreeable when lumped together in a few descriptions.
I don't think the distinction is that difficult to see. - WikiEasy, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1More anti-Clinton SPAM
- YodaJones, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Bill, instead of spinning the media, how about you and Hillary get back to spinning my laundry.
- Bamshackle, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I think the time is coming for Bill to get his balls back from Hillary or was he catching her pitches all along?
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1PROOF!! (_not a RR_)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlxr6mCmbf0 - ForestRangerBen, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Once again the Huffington Post shows it bias ftw
- caponumen, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Yes and they should be scared of YOU.
You are one of those that threw them to the dogs and all for some half assed FAILED political maneuver.
YOUR trade policy is a disaster! - neilwoodcock, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Yea... afraid Clinton or Obama are going to be elected president and raise taxes while wrecking the medical system. That's enough to scare anybody.
- salinemist, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2The President has zero control over the economy, only the house and senate can propose and pass bills.
Someone remind me who's been in charge the past two years.....- terrix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because interest rates are dictated by congress, not the executive branch or nor is the Federal Reserve part of the exectutive branch...oh wait, they aren't.
Why does everyone point the finger at the President then when there are economic issues? Hmm?- terrix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Meant to say Federal Reserve part of the legislative branch, which it isn't or at least the chairman is appointed by the President.
- salinemist, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Your point is valid, but interest rates are not the economy.
- terrix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because interest rates are dictated by congress, not the executive branch or nor is the Federal Reserve part of the exectutive branch...oh wait, they aren't.
- WTFppl, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0I'm white, I'm not scared!? This article should be dug for it's attempt at social engineering!
- yunus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3The article headline misquotes him the part in quotations is never mentioned in the article. Maybe some think its a minor detail but if your going to tear into someone, quote them accurately because a few words here and there can make a big difference.
- QaSpel, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0As long as they are not bitter. I'd hate for them to be bitter.
- AvangionQ, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1These quotes are from 1991 ... c`mon, talk about digging through ancient history ...
- burningspleen, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of the worst kinds of conceited, craven malingerers there are. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that BJ truly believes that two wrongs make a right. It is just such dodgy megalomania, shallow egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs BJ to exploit the masses. Fabianism is, at its core, a bilious system that seeks to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals, to put it mildly. Think about it. Let me offer some free advice to BJ's minions: Stop giving rise to pushy offensive-types! We have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. What I don't enjoy are BJ's disrespectful editorials, which respond with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. We must do everything in our power to cast a gimlet eye on BJ BIll Clinton's sound bites. The fight must go on.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by