A Recertification of the United States in the World, a return to humanist values, Democracy, Habeus Corpus, the end of Torture and Renditions.

Greenspan on the Clinton Years, from his new book:

Greenspan called Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told the president. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

Greenspan interviewed Clinton for the book and clearly admires him. "President Clinton's old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had a more lasting effect on the nation's priorities.

For the detractors, I say we can go back to the horrors of the Clinton years: Peace, Prosperity, technological powerhouse of the world, no deficits, responsible spending, money for the sciences, education, equity and opportunity. We could do worse.

This is actually good news. The supporters of total denial unfurl their flags. They are as one moving forward, learning nothing. We need a dose of reality. One reality is that there's a consistent pattern of very negative public attitudes towards HRC, mid to high 40's over time. Beyond that practical issue, Clinton voted to enable Iraq at a time when every single Senator knew there were no WMD in Iraq. It was convenient, an easy political call. Just like it's convenient for Clark to endorse her after his crypto-progressive act of the past two years.

A recent British study updated the earlier effort from Johns Hopkins on civilian deaths due to the Iraq War. JHU's 650,000 is now at 1,000,000 civilian deaths that would not have occurred had there been no invasion. ONE MILLION DEAD CIVILIANS DUE TO THE INVASION.

Of course, no one in Congress gets much ink for mentioning this fact but it is the central issue - we're approaching Pol Pot numbers here.

For HRC, Clark, Mitt, Rudy G and the rest of them to think that this death toll will be ignored by the rest of the world is absurd. "We" didn't do it, the citizens without the power to stop it or those duped into supporting it. It truly is "they" who bear this responsibility and are guilty without need of trial for the deaths; the quiescent killers.

Clark's endorsement goes a long way to prop up (or should I say "stand up") this unliked, morally indifferent candidate who represents the one chance for a continuation of true madness - the continuation of Republican rule.

I'm optimistic that the public will find a way to reject HRC and the rest of those responsible and start working out of the mess bequeathed by George H.W., Bill, Hillary, W, and the rest of the in crowd. They are truly the very worst collection of leaders in the history of the world because they are the first collection of political leaders whose policies have lead to serious questions about the survival of our society in any acceptable form over the next few critical decades.

I most definitely do not agree. I voted for Clinton in '92 because he had been antiwar at one time and as I saw it the mission of the next president to do was to dismantle the cold war military-industrial complex before it found another excuse to propagate itself. He failed completely.

He not only left our troops in Europe, he expanded NATO to Russia's border to keep the weapons manufacturers happy by allowing them to make big money supplying poor countries in Eastern European with new weapons systems to make them "compatible" with ours. He not only didn't withdraw our troops from the Persian Gulf, he bombed Iraq on almost a daily basis. He left our troops in Japan and South Korea on the flimsiest of excuses.

His job was to dismantle a cold war military-industrial complex that was as big as that of all other countries in the world combined and what did we get: "Gays in the military" and a pitiful health care proposal that put the burden of coverage on employers. Big whoop! He didn't even get his health plan through Congress and if he had it would have put a large administrative burden on hiring new workers thus encouraging things like mandatory overtime and more outsourcing. Even more pressure would have been put on politicians to "preserve jobs" by keeping unnecessary military installations open or to "create jobs" by funding unnecessary new weapons programs.

Sure the Clinton years were relatively peaceful and prosperous but they set the stage for the mess we're in now. Clinton refused to do anything politically difficult. He and Earth-in-the-Balance Gore could have done something to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil by supporting fuel-efficiency legislation in Congress but they did nothing. Instead, the Clinton years saw the rise of the SUV.

A neocon named Robert Kaplan published a celebrated collection of essays in 2000. One of them deplored the self-indulgence of the American culture during the Clinton years and expressed a longing for the discipline of a country at war. It is appalling to hear anyone describe war as desirable for its own sake but it's hard to disagree with his evaluation of the state of the culture. He got his war but it doesn't seem to have cured us of our decadence. If anything the culture has only gotten worse.

I went back to voting 3rd party for President in '96 and have ever since. The only reason to vote for Clinton in 2008 would be if you adopted attitude that Robert Graves ascribed to the Roman emperor Claudius: "Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."

is a fools lament.

It is the universal complaint of the old against the young
Of the religious
Of the hypocrite

A world alive with invention is not decandent

And anyone who voted for Nader is the supreme hypocrite. The candidate who's express purpose of running was openly stated as assuring that George Bush, Jr. would be elected. It was a cowards vote for Bush.

Give it up Scot - we've been through this - you lose this one - time to move on.

You did vote for a Militarist. You voted FOR Bush, no other way to look at it. It was transparent as glass.

We are in Iraq today because of Nader.

Third parties can influence the debate. They can't win in the US. Nader was not interested in influencing the debate, he wanted to influence the election. He purposefully threw it to Bush. What was he paid to do that? No other way to view it. That there was no difference between the main parties is false, a total fabrication.

"So what meeting are we infiltrating?" Rove asked.

"Nader is speaking at a group who protests world trade and corporate expansion," Bush told him, "They're called "Progressives Against Progress". Now let's get inside."

"I don't know about this Nader," said one hippy to another, "He's just going to make Bush win again, and Bush is bad."

"But the Democrats are just like me, dudes," Bush interjected, and then Rove nudged him. "I mean like Bush... dudes. Both Hilary and and Edwards voted for the war like Bush, and they like oil same as Bush and... uh... they wear ties."

"You make some great points dude," one of the hippies stated, "What's your name?"

"I'm... uh... Moonshine," Bush answered, "and my friend here is... uh... T-Bone... wait, that's a gangsta name, not a hippy name... I mean his name is Tubby McGee."

"Tubby McGee!" Rove exclaimed.

"You and Tubby are two smart dudes," said another hippy.

"This is true," Bush answered, "We smoke lots of things that make us smart. Right, Tubby."

"Yep. Lots of smoking,"

"So tell all your buddies that Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and to vote for Nader," Bush stated.

"Will do, Moonshine!" the hippies answered.

"Wow," Rove whispered, "I'm amazed to find people dumber than you."

"It is amazing!" Bush exclaimed, "And I'm playing them all for saps!"

Soon everyone hushed up as Nader came on the stage.

"Corporations!" he yelled,

"The Democrats and Republicans are owned by corporations! Bush is nothing but a living, breathing corporation! Same as the Democrats. Corporations! Bad Bad Corporations!!"

Couldn't help myself - Esch, at the end of the day you are right. Everyone gets to participate and vote, everyone gets to choose, and vote their conscience. Apathy is far far worse. I get too caught up with the backroom of politics.