sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
of course a lot has changed since then
Wow- that's pretty freaking cynical? And she was teaching kids this? That the rules only matter if it benefits your side? geez louise..
What rules? she thought the impeachment was completely legal. she didnt think it was "against" the rules and she thought he should have been removed from office. She just acknowledged that there was a line of thought that was against the removal. I don't think thats teaching anyone that the rules only matter if it benefits your side.
and anyway, this was all talk outside class since I was the only person at my school who was actually interested in politics. It wasnt in class.
sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
of course a lot has changed since then
He was impeached. She wanted him impeached. And if he had truly done someone wrong I'm guessing she would have wanted him removed. Ergo, he didn't actually do something wrong. So why did she want him impeached?
She's speaking out of both sides of her mouth. And her thinking is strange.
OMG it was one discussion we had 16 years ago. LOL. But to clarify, she did actually want him removed from office.
I actually heard that analysis quite a bit at the time... the impeachment was meant to batter Clinton, not remove him from office, because an incumbent Gore would be a stronger candidate.
Oh absolutely. But a freaking History teacher telling her kids that that's a - ok? Disgusting IMHO.
It was a political discussion we had outside of class. It was by far the least controversial thing said by a teacher at my small catholic high school.
Oh absolutely. But a freaking History teacher telling her kids that that's a - ok? Disgusting IMHO.
It was a political discussion we had outside of class. It was by far the least controversial thing said by a teacher at my small catholic high school.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
It was a political discussion we had outside of class. It was by far the least controversial thing said by a teacher at my small catholic high school.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
Really? You can't believe someone thought that? I mean isnt that why he was impeached and it went to the Senate? I think it is ridiculous too but its not like hers was an isolated opinion.
Have you ever read the SCOTUS opinion of jones v. clinton (which basically gave the go-ahead to Paula Jones and her lawsuit and led to the deposition wherein "the lie" was said). SCOTUS basically says that they dont think a case like this will be a big deal and it wont distract from the presidency and etc etc. LOL.
Plus, after Clinton's impeachment, hillary really helped the Dems (wasnt that then 98 when the Dems retook the Senate or the house...I cant recall) but I rememebr reading in one of her biographies how that election (98 I think it was) really helped establish her as a Democratic star in her own right and helped her to get into the Senate and so on, to the point where now her experience as first lady is almost a footnote in her career.
I don't think the Rs want to prompt that happening. Michelle Obama, desite being mysteriously reviled by the right wing, is enormously popular with Dems and I can see her really coming into her own if they go after her husband like they went after Clinton. Especially because it wouldn't be over an affair.
Perhaps, but the real reason I don't think Rs will impeach Obama is because of what happened after Clinton was impeached. They might win the battle but they will lose the war.
Plus, after Clinton's impeachment, hillary really helped the Dems (wasnt that then 98 when the Dems retook the Senate or the house...I cant recall) but I rememebr reading in one of her biographies how that election (98 I think it was) really helped establish her as a Democratic star in her own right and helped her to get into the Senate and so on, to the point where now her experience as first lady is almost a footnote in her career.
I don't think the Rs want to prompt that happening. Michelle Obama, desite being mysteriously reviled by the right wing, is enormously popular with Dems and I can see her really coming into her own if they go after her husband like they went after Clinton. Especially because it wouldn't be over an affair.
Perhaps, but the real reason I don't think Rs will impeach Obama is because of what happened after Clinton was impeached. They might win the battle but they will lose the war.
Wasn't the impeachment what essentially broke Gingrich, or was Hastert already Speaker by that point? (right - hastert was after gingrich?)
It was a political discussion we had outside of class. It was by far the least controversial thing said by a teacher at my small catholic high school.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
Do you not remember the visceral hatred of Clinton at the time? People talk about how much folks hate Obama now, but Clinton had it just as bad, albeit for different reasons. He is the reason the entire Republican war machine is what it is today. They *despised* him, and on a personal level. Republican politics under Newt Gingrich was pure blood sport.
Perhaps, but the real reason I don't think Rs will impeach Obama is because of what happened after Clinton was impeached. They might win the battle but they will lose the war.
Wasn't the impeachment what essentially broke Gingrich, or was Hastert already Speaker by that point? (right - hastert was after gingrich?)
Gingrich's career was ended because of it. Hastert was considered a calming influence after all the chaos.
At the time of the Clinton impeachment, I thought they were all still pissed off about Nixon and Bork. To a certain extent, I still feel the same way, but the resentments are less personal and more simmering, generational.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
Really? You can't believe someone thought that? I mean isnt that why he was impeached and it went to the Senate? I think it is ridiculous too but its not like hers was an isolated opinion.
Have you ever read the SCOTUS opinion of jones v. clinton (which basically gave the go-ahead to Paula Jones and her lawsuit and led to the deposition wherein "the lie" was said). SCOTUS basically says that they dont think a case like this will be a big deal and it wont distract from the presidency and etc etc. LOL.
No - I still really can't believe it. Impeachment should be for true abuse of power, fraud, utter disuse of the office of the Presidency. And I must be naive because I really hoped at the time and still hope that Americans of good will can all agree on that. The Clinton impeachment was purely political and that is a misuse of impeachment and I would hope that even people who hate a President and don't agree with his policies can agree that elections are sacred and you don't remove a President on a trumped up impeachment essentially thwarting the will of the electorate. And it is particularly discouraging to me that a history teacher thought that a lie about a blow job was serious enough to remove a President from office.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
Do you not remember the visceral hatred of Clinton at the time? People talk about how much folks hate Obama now, but Clinton had it just as bad, albeit for different reasons. He is the reason the entire Republican war machine is what it is today. They *despised* him, and on a personal level. Republican politics under Newt Gingrich was pure blood sport.
yeah, and I never really got that.
as a progressive D, I always thought that Clinton was closer to the R's than they liked to admit... and I didn't really get the personal animosity.
Unless it all related back to class. This upstart from rural Arkansas, who had the audacity to get himself edumucated and was trying to break into the marble halls???
jillboston - I don't disagree with you regarding impeachment in general. Somehow in the late 90s though what impeachment "should" be for got very twisted and it still is to this day; that's how the Rs can toss the term around today.
if it makes you feel better, my college political science professors were opposed to the impeachment :-)
Do you not remember the visceral hatred of Clinton at the time? People talk about how much folks hate Obama now, but Clinton had it just as bad, albeit for different reasons. He is the reason the entire Republican war machine is what it is today. They *despised* him, and on a personal level. Republican politics under Newt Gingrich was pure blood sport.
yeah, and I never really got that.
as a progressive D, I always thought that Clinton was closer to the R's than they liked to admit... and I didn't really get the personal animosity.
Unless it all related back to class. This upstart from rural Arkansas, who had the audacity to get himself edumucated and was trying to break into the marble halls???
I also wonder how much of it related to Hillary and their sheer hatred of her. I don't think it was 100% because of her, but I think it played a part.
Do you not remember the visceral hatred of Clinton at the time? People talk about how much folks hate Obama now, but Clinton had it just as bad, albeit for different reasons. He is the reason the entire Republican war machine is what it is today. They *despised* him, and on a personal level. Republican politics under Newt Gingrich was pure blood sport.
yeah, and I never really got that.
as a progressive D, I always thought that Clinton was closer to the R's than they liked to admit... and I didn't really get the personal animosity.
Unless it all related back to class. This upstart from rural Arkansas, who had the audacity to get himself edumucated and was trying to break into the marble halls???
I think class was a big part of it, but you have to remember that the culture wars loomed large and conservatives, with all of their own moral transgressions, were truly angry that a known philanderer got away with it all and still became President. Further, recall that his very first act as President was to revoke the gag rule.* This was horrifying to Rs. Additionally, as the "first black President," he represented Other People.
*ETA: forgot to finish my point. He was provocative with his liberal politics in the beginning. Revoking the gag rule, lifting restrictions on abortion, etc., were done by EO, and Clinton purposefully made it the first thing he did. He didn't triangulate and move to the middle until later on, and only then, out of political necessity.
The Rs didn't like Clinton because he usurped their president and disrupted their 14 year reign in the White House. I don't think it had anything to do with class or race or undoing the terrible global gag rule. They would have responded the same way to any D in office.
The Rs didn't like Clinton because he usurped their president and disrupted their 14 year reign in the White House. I don't think it had anything to do with class or race or undoing the terrible global gag rule. They would have responded the same way to any D in office.
I completely, totally disagree. Clinton sparked a deep level of personal resentment for what he "got away with" and for who he was.
The Rs didn't like Clinton because he usurped their president and disrupted their 14 year reign in the White House. I don't think it had anything to do with class or race or undoing the terrible global gag rule. They would have responded the same way to any D in office.
I completely, totally disagree. Clinton sparked a deep level of personal resentment for what he "got away with" and for who he was.
I don't think who he was was anything different than any other D at the time.
Are you saying that if Jerry Brown had won the primary and then the presidency the R would have responded differently? Because I don't.
I completely, totally disagree. Clinton sparked a deep level of personal resentment for what he "got away with" and for who he was.
I don't think who he was was anything different than any other D at the time.
Are you saying that if Jerry Brown had won the primary and then the presidency the R would have responded differently? Because I don't.
Yep. See my post above about the cultural wars at the time. You underestimate how much of the hatred of Clinton was personal, rather than political. He was thoroughly hated even after he shifted to the middle and compromised with Rs.
I don't think who he was was anything different than any other D at the time.
Are you saying that if Jerry Brown had won the primary and then the presidency the R would have responded differently? Because I don't.
Yep. See my post above about the cultural wars at the time. You underestimate how much of the hatred of Clinton was personal, rather than political. He was thoroughly hated even after he shifted to the middle and compromised with Rs.
We might have to just agree to disagree. But I think your argument would have more weight if the Rs didn't respond the exact same way when the next D came into office.
Yep. See my post above about the cultural wars at the time. You underestimate how much of the hatred of Clinton was personal, rather than political. He was thoroughly hated even after he shifted to the middle and compromised with Rs.
We might have to just agree to disagree. But I think your argument would have more weight if the Rs didn't respond the exact same way when the next D came into office.
They behave the same way with Obama because the entire tone shifted with Clinton. Now it is politics as usual to behave this way, and frankly, Ds contributed to the poisoned atmosphere with how they handled Bork. We see this all the time - politicians lower the bar for what constitutes acceptable behavior, and everyone sinks to this level going forward. The tone of collegiality that existed under Tip O'Neill died when he left, and there really was a sea change with Clinton. The phrase "the politics of personal destruction" found life during this era.
We might have to just agree to disagree. But I think your argument would have more weight if the Rs didn't respond the exact same way when the next D came into office.
They behave the same way with Obama because the entire tone shifted with Clinton. Now it is politics as usual to behave this way, and frankly, Ds contributed to the poisoned atmosphere with how they handled Bork. We see this all the time - politicians lower the bar for what constitutes acceptable behavior, and everyone sinks to this level going forward. The tone of collegiality that existed under Tip O'Neill died when he left, and there really was a sea change with Clinton. The phrase "the politics of personal destruction" found life during this era.
You are right. It feels a bit more visceral for Obama, but they cut their teeth on Clinton. It really was bad. I also don't recall any first lady before HRC that was treated so poorly.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
They behave the same way with Obama because the entire tone shifted with Clinton. Now it is politics as usual to behave this way, and frankly, Ds contributed to the poisoned atmosphere with how they handled Bork. We see this all the time - politicians lower the bar for what constitutes acceptable behavior, and everyone sinks to this level going forward. The tone of collegiality that existed under Tip O'Neill died when he left, and there really was a sea change with Clinton. The phrase "the politics of personal destruction" found life during this era.
You are right. It feels a bit more visceral for Obama, but they cut their teeth on Clinton. It really was bad. I also don't recall any first lady before HRC that was treated so poorly.
It is contempt and disrespect. Pure and simple. And I don't recall Republican presidents being treated the same way before or after Clinton (by members of Congress and other politicians - I am not necessarily talking about late night talk show hosts, bloggers, etc.)
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley