Yep!
Depends on the audience..

Very analgous to his
"governing by the polls" style of running the country. Back when he was employed..

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Very analgous to his
"governing by the polls" style of running the country. Back when he was employed..

And so was America.

Rant,

Is 5 percent really that bad?

I've always percieved the Tech stock boom (Bubba's bubble)
and the Rush to repurchase Y2K compliant systems, went a long way in
making Whomever was in office look good..

Spacedoubt, it's the kind of jobs we had that I (and many) miss. Not only the skilled manufacturing, but demand for college educated thinkers (for lack of a better phrase) in nearly every field.

Raw numbers don't tell the story of where the jobs are "increasing" now (if that may even be said). But breakouts show it's retail, part-time and unskilled labor and as of 2004 anyway with the most improvement among uneducated hispanics and women. Not that that's a bad thing, unless you happen to be a college educated white male, according to the stats.

But that's the result of free trade, not any one President per se. Though it does perterb me how the Bush administration calls things like adding a million already working manual labor immigrants to the employment stats a "rise" in employment. Or doesn't acknowledge the lost value or hard times of a Telophony Manager (for example) that made $150K with benefits for his entire family in 1995, now working part time at WalMart with his wife and no benefits or health insurance in 2005. According to the "numbers" that a rise in employment and cause for celebration. Except in their house. If they still own a home.

But more on topic, that 'free trade' both with China (started in earnest by Bush Sr.) and NAFTA (championed by Clinton because he listened to Republican "polls") and now Shrub's CAFTA extension to effectively 6 more "Mexicos..." yeah it's that bad. It really is. We're screwed.

I really don't know that Clinton, the best Republican president we ever had, really waffled on anything in trade though as much as he was just being a "good conservative," and certainly didn't seem to waffle here saying both Bush's invasion was a "big mistake" and later that given various scenarios "could still work" (which makes sense to this college educated white male), but to each his own brand of push polling.

I happen to be interested in the opinions of Americans myself. I'd think a good leader would be. Kings don't take polls. Good president's do. And they tend to both do and say things for the benefit of the people they're elected to represent. Kind of a big part of democracy. But again, to each his own.

I suppose if I were struggling to justify one of the least popular Presidents in modern times, that a sheer minority agree with on most anything, I'd have to try and tear down one of the most popular Presidents in modern times, that most people agree with on everything. But I don't know that my integrity could allow me to turn populism into a seemingly bad thing.

I really don't see the 'waffle'. He can think the Iraqi invasion was a big mistake and still think there are certain events that went well and that the outcome might have a chance of being successful.

Much like a parent might say, "Well, I think it's a bad idea for you to marry this guy, but it could work out, I guess." What's flip-floppy about that?

Originally posted by RANT
I really don't know that Clinton, the best Republican president we ever had, really waffled on anything in trade though as much as he was just being a "good conservative," and certainly didn't seem to waffle here saying both Bush's invasion was a "big mistake" and later that given various scenarios "could still work" (which makes sense to this college educated white male), but to each his own brand of push polling.

Kings don't take polls. Good president's do. And they tend to both do and say things for the benefit of the people they're elected to represent. Kind of a big part of democracy. But again, to each his own.

I suppose if I were struggling to justify one of the least popular Presidents in modern times, that a sheer minority agree with on most anything, I'd have to try and tear down one of the most popular Presidents in modern times, that most people agree with on everything. But I don't know that my integrity could allow me to turn populism into a seemingly bad thing.

(which makes MUCH sense to this college educated white male), Yes, Yes it does !
Seek - I remember this sort of parsing nuance to mean absolutes during a recent campaign season........I even saw you wearing flip flop ( with black silk socks, no less ) trying to enforce the false perception!

I have to disagree with the premise here. Clinton said in one speech that he disagrees with what was being done, while in another he said that it could still work. Just because he doesn't agree with the methods doesn't mean he doesn't think it will work.

Or am I missing something?

Dude, it's like White after Labor Day, a no-no

But we're in Bushtopia, where anything short off an absolute position which disregards updates and nuance ( firing leakers is the exception, of course) is considered to be waiting for Maple Syrup.

Sure it's a flip flop. Sure he changes depending on the audience.
BUT, John Kerry still wears the flip-flop crown. It'll take an
awful lot for someone to beat him! Doubt his reign as flip-flop
king will ever fall!

I really don't understand how this even could be considered a flip-flop. Yes, he changed his message based on a crowd, but that didn't change the position. You don't meet with steel workers and explain to them your foreign policy, and you don't meet with world leaders and discuss with them your plan to stimulate your domestic steel industry.

Clinton is talking in Dubai. These people were far closer to Saddam than the average American. Clinton, by his own words through his federal political career, never thought Saddam was good people. However, while talking with the students in Dubai, Clinton disagreed with the methods used to oust Saddam from power.

In New York he said the methods could be successful. How does that statement directly contradict the first? Take, for example, if the US were to just nuke the entire Middle East. Would that work to stop Arab terrorism? I believe it would have strong potential, yes. Does that mean I think that is the best way to wage that war? Absolutely not! Am I contradicting myself or waffling in saying that?

Interestingly enough, the second article SeekerOf links to has a flat out lie by Clinton no one seems to have addressed on this thread to date. Unless, of course, Clinton stopped talking to his wife and doesn't know her anymore.