This little bit of post/commenting is just amazing folks. Here Marc Cooper is, a liberal blogger by any definition and you folk are trashing him (well, most of you) like there is no tomorrow. Which goes to show, I guess, that in the left, they really do eat their young.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but look here:

Clinton’s lie that he did not have relations with Lewinsky led to his impeachment in 1998. Jones, who settled her suit with Clinton for 0,000, now claims that she was victimized by both Clinton and his Republican opponents. She has since appeared nude in Penthouse and Playboy and appeared with Tonya Harding on Fox TV’s Celebrity Boxing.

It took just a few seconds of googling.

Paula Jones? Where do you come up with us, Reg?

So have I. But I’m sure as hell not going to make a fetish of trashing Hillary through the general election campaign if she snares the nomination.

You’re just silly. We’re arguing against the Clintonistas at exactly the right time … when the nomination is still in the air.

If Clinton gets the nomination, kiss the Democratic presidential chances goodbye. My distaste for the Clintons is hardly unique — among independents, Repubs and yes, the Dems.

Wow, I think I made that same argument–as a college sophomore in 1992. Marc, are you making this guy up? Incredible.

I didn’t exactly say that. My preference- obviously is a progressive Democrat in power. But in between a Clinton/Obama/Lieberman DLC democrat (who would have done the same thing as Bush, I contend – but lets not argue that, except circumstantial evidence seems to confirm my belief) and Bush tanking the image of American Imperialism, I’ll take Bush. Awakening the masses is important. I don’t think that anyone here can realistically contend that there would have been as much opposition to Bush’s imperialism if a Democrat was implementing it. I presume many (perhaps not netroots, not progressive) Democrats will not strongly oppose the upcoming war with Iran. Edwards’ comments in Israel confirm that.

Nader in 08, as I said, if Dems continue down that path. Or better yet Hagel.

If you’re serious about that Marc and not just exhaling from the wrong end, I’d suggest a concerted effort to make John McCain continue to appeal palatable to independents, moderates and disaffected Democrats. It’s a tough job. Maybe impossible given what a piece of crap McCain obviously is when he’s boiled down to his overt agenda on 90% of the issues, but you’ve got your work cut out for you. Now is not the best time to start – push Edwards in the Dem primaries – but don’t tarry too long if Hillary manages to grab the nomination, which she well might, because the last bastion of hope for those who would “do anything and everything to block (the Clintons’) reassumption of power” will need your help – perhaps desperately.

Defending the Paula Jones harrassment suit is just nuts IMHO. While Marc is reminding us that Clinton fended off an appeal with an 0,000 settlement, perhaps we might also recall the suit had been thrown out of court and Clinton had been put through the Lewinsky meat-grinder and wanted it all to just stop. Even Ann Coulter ultimately called Jones a fraud (I think that was after Jones posed for Playboy but before her boxing match with Tonya Harding.)

Of course Marc is right that Clinton wasn’t impeached because of a blow job. He was impeached because of a years-long campaign by a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine a Democratic presidency by any means necessary. Clinton was a remarkably vulnerable – even helpful – subject of their assault, but the campaign had nothing to do with either the public’s interest in having a person of reasonable integrity in the White House nor any particulars of the Clinton’s alleged transgressions.

I can’t believe I’m discussing this in 2007, but then I can’t believe my earlier comments could be characterized as “Stalinist”, that “supporting Jerry Brown” could be considered transgressive (or screening Woody Allen films to “gringos”, for that matter – another defiant poke in the eye to imperialism from the same commenter as I recall), that Hillary Clinton can be seen as no different from a Republican and that my comments here constitute the “dying bitter breaths of the Clintonistas” (my favorite. Did I mention that I supported Jerry Brown in 1992 ? Oh I guess I forgot to include that 15 year old news because I’ve been too busy making it clear that I’ll oppose Hillary in the primaries, but will certainly vote for her over McCain, Mitt or Brownback in a general election. A modest nod to sanity that I’m not sure Vivien will be able to muster if our fortunes boil down to such a choice.)

The childishness/cluelessness of these folks is humorous to say the least. All except for Jcummings further assertion that, in effect, it’s better to have Bush and, presumably war in Iraq than a “soft-power” Democrat because it heightens capitalisms inherent contradictions and awakens the masses…or something. That’s obviously crazy and equally on the margins of self-absorbed wankering as some of the other stuff, but it’s also overtly pernicious in spirit. I really can’t understand how an obviously humane guy could push his ideological imperatives beyond the pale of what I would consider decency in its implications for the people who suffer when extremists grab power.

Have you slept through the last 6 years?

This is just Marc’s blowharding the obvious point that Clinton was not the liberal messaiah that delivered America away from all evil and Republicans.

For all his high dudgeon and low rhetoric, Marc cannot and will not answer the simplest and most relevant questions:
Which postwar president did a better job than William Jefferson Clinton? Which president in our generation did more to advance liberal values–or the least to contribute to their demise?

Nixon?
Carter?
Reagan?
Bush?

Note that Marc insists on comparing Clinton not to any of these other real-life presidents, but to some hazy-dream-liberal superpol that never existed anywhere and probably never will.

At his worst, Clinton looks to me very much like the average American–perfectly well intentioned, but self-absorbed and not above cutting corners. At his best, he’s one of the smartest, most-effective presidents America has ever had. We should pray someone as well-equipped and well-intentioned as Clinton ends up at 1600 Pennsylvania in 2008.

What a load of hogwash. But even if true, that’s quite a commentary on your beloved Democrats. Clinton in the White House and both houses of congress under Democratic control, but they lose it all, outsmarted by Fox News, Jerry Falwell, Bill Kristol and the VRWC! If that were true, why even bother to have elections?

Fabulous! And did the Evil Media carry out this attack with little black helicopters?

You have to admit you’ve got a pretty pathetic argument there. All the power of the state and the bully pulpit defeated by a couple of right wing rags and a cable TV network with an audience of 1/2 million back then.

I have an alternative explanation: Clinton came in with some big promises to change American lives and most Americans saw no change whatsoever… give or take a half million jobs that were outsourced in the wake of Clinton’s NAFTA. We will ginngerly note that this was Big Bill’s first legislative push, right out of the box.. splitting his own party and to pass Poppy Bush’s job export plan.

Hillary then came through with the sucker punch, proposing a health care program that no one understood and that brought glee only to the HMO’s.

Clinton, by the way, was one of the major forces that introduced enhanced Christian moral sermonolgy into American politics: his blatantly racist manipulation of Sistah Souljah linked to a legislative assault on those you-know-who welfare moms. Get their lazy asses off the dole and into workfare and…. and… let’s examine THEIR sexual history to make sure they are not violating the household rules of workfare. Let’s get their kids into uniforms, their teens into boot camps (remember THAT?) some v-chips on their TV’s and so on and so on.

What a miserable bastard Clinton was.

Under any scenario, your position is a loser. Either I’m right and the Democrats bored the country to death and lost their majorities, or you’re right and the Democrats were so pathetic they were defeated by a slice of the media. Neither version speaks very well for the Clintons.

And I will be happy to do anything and everything to block their re-assumption of power.

And just so we don’t forget: Clinton was NOT impeached over a blow job. He was accused of lying under oath as a defendant in a sexual harrassment case, and of lying to a Federal Grand Jury under oath.

Remember that Bill did wind up paying almost million to settle the sex harrassment case underlying the scandal. He was also disbarred by the Arkansas and US Supreme Court for his perjury under oath. Suck on that.

Defending the Paula Jones harrassment suit is just nuts IMHO. While Marc is reminding us that Clinton fended off an appeal with an $850,000 settlement, perhaps we might also recall the suit had been thrown out of court and Clinton had been put through the Lewinsky meat-grinder and wanted it all to just stop. Even Ann Coulter ultimately called Jones a fraud (I think that was after Jones posed for Playboy but before her boxing match with Tonya Harding.)

Of course Marc is right that Clinton wasn’t impeached because of a blow job. He was impeached because of a years-long campaign by a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine a Democratic presidency by any means necessary. Clinton was a remarkably vulnerable – even helpful – subject of their assault, but the campaign had nothing to do with either the public’s interest in having a person of reasonable integrity in the White House nor any particulars of the Clinton’s alleged transgressions.

I can’t believe I’m discussing this in 2007, but then I can’t believe my earlier comments could be characterized as “Stalinist”, that “supporting Jerry Brown” could be considered transgressive (or screening Woody Allen films to “gringos”, for that matter – another defiant poke in the eye to imperialism from the same commenter as I recall), that Hillary Clinton can be seen as no different from a Republican and that my comments here constitute the “dying bitter breaths of the Clintonistas” (my favorite. Did I mention that I supported Jerry Brown in 1992 ? Oh I guess I forgot to include that 15 year old news because I’ve been too busy making it clear that I’ll oppose Hillary in the primaries, but will certainly vote for her over McCain, Mitt or Brownback in a general election. A modest nod to sanity that I’m not sure Vivien will be able to muster if our fortunes boil down to such a choice.)

The childishness/cluelessness of these folks is humorous to say the least. All except for Jcummings further assertion that, in effect, it’s better to have Bush and, presumably war in Iraq than a “soft-power” Democrat because it heightens capitalisms inherent contradictions and awakens the masses…or something. That’s obviously crazy and equally on the margins of self-absorbed wankering as some of the other stuff, but it’s also overtly pernicious in spirit. I really can’t understand how an obviously humane guy could push his ideological imperatives beyond the pale of what I would consider decency in its implications for the people who suffer when extremists grab power.