Eric Marcus

It's Time for Them to Go

Filed By Eric Marcus | March 26, 2008 8:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags:

Back when Bill Clinton was being hounded by Kenn Starr and the Republican Congress, I was one of those Clinton supporters who never once thought that President Clinton should resign. Even when it turned out that the affair was for real and that he'd lied under oath. In hindsight I was wrong.

For the good of the Democratic Party and for the future of the nation Bill Clinton should have stepped aside. (No question that what the Republicans were doing was despicable, but after all it was Clinton who gave them an opening to take him down.) Al Gore would have assumed the presidency and it's hard to imagine a scenario where President Gore wouldn't have wiped the floor with George W. Bush. Imagine eight years without Bush!

Instead, we had months of toxic wrangling as President Clinton stonewalled, lied, clung to power, fought back, and stayed in office--and in turn damaged his administration, Al Gore, and the Democrats. In the end, what was good for Bill Clinton was terrible for us.

I find myself thinking of the Clinton imbroglio all over again because now Hillary Clinton seems not to know the difference between what's best for the Democratic Party and the America people and what's best for Hillary and Bill Clinton (I'm sorry, but no fool believes that you get one without the other).

Even the Clinton camp has acknowledged at this point that all of the stars have to align just right and that the Obama campaign has to step in quicksand for Hillary Clinton to get the nomination. Is this a good reason to drag out the nominating process, so that the Clinton campaign can possibly triumph on the ashes of the Obama campaign? Or, alternatively, that Barack Obama can triumph only after a drawn out and bruising battle with Hillary Clinton? How do any of us benefit from either sorry scenario?

Back in the early 1990's when Bill Clinton was campaigning against the Bush/Quayle incumbents, he introduced a slogan that became a rallying cry at campaign events: "It's time for them to go!" And now that time has come again again. Unfortunately, the Clintons have given every indication that they're following the same playbook all over again. And, just like the last time the Clintons failed to leave the national stage when they should have, it's the Democratic Party and the American people who are going to pay the price.

It's time for them to go.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


For the good of the Democratic Party and for the future of the nation Bill Clinton should have stepped aside. (No question that what the Republicans were doing was despicable, but after all it was Clinton who gave them an opening to take him down.) Al Gore would have assumed the presidency and it's hard to imagine a scenario where President Gore wouldn't have wiped the floor with George W. Bush. Imagine eight years without Bush!

Interesting scenario.

I don't know if Democrats giving in to Republican smears is all that good of an idea. If it wasn't Lewinsky, I'm sure they could have come up with other idiotic reasons to go after Clinton. I mean, Bush has lied far more, and it's not like anything's happening to him. It's just a difference in the way the two parties play the game.

eric! pleeeeeze! as far as clinton resigning and gore assuming the presidency, this is monday morning quarterbacking at its' worst. what president ever volunteered to resign in disgrace over a meaningless affair? true, his lie was stupid...he should have refused to answer...but impeach a president over hiding an affair? that whole issue was a disgrace - on the media, on the republicans, and on ken starr. clinton did what men do. he was a dog.

for hillary, the presidency is a goal she has been working for since childhood. maybe to the point of being an obsession...probably what attracted her to bill....another way to get in the white house. if she gave up now, she wouldn't be hillary. she will withdraw from the race in one of two ways - victorious or kicking, clawing, and screaming. is the sun hot? is water wet? is hillary consumed by personal ambition? i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for her to quit the race.

why haven't the Dems moved to impeach bush and cheney? do they need to have an extramarital affair? together? they could bump uglies all day long and i wouldn't care. but i do care about what they have done to this nation. it is a disgrace that the Dems didn't back kucinich, and include W in the proceeding. or maybe W would just resign in disgrace? pelosi would have PROBABLY had half of our troops home right now. if only.....

Michael Bedwell | March 26, 2008 11:38 AM

This comment was removed for a Terms and Conditions violation:

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Play nice, people.

Last night Charlie Rose interviewed John Hofmeister, the outgoing president of Shell Oil Company. According to Hofmeister, the oil industry held an energy summit in Houston in February and invited all the candidates --- and only Hillary showed up! Moreover, she presented to the gathering a comprehensive energy plan that was mostly well received. (When you tell oil people their taxes are likely to go up, don't count on that being well received.)

Where was Walk-on-water Obama? And where is his national energy policy?

Woah! Eric Marcus!

AJ, I'd rather have a president who doesn't go to oil industry functions. Obama's energy policy plans: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Are you being ironic, A.J.? I do have to wonder what went on at that "energy summit" and why the president of Shell would be supportive of her energy policy....

Kevin and Alex: While I support energy independence and movements away from petroleum combustion for energy, it is also obvious that, even with the best of leadership on all fronts, this will not happen overnight. Using the petroleum we currently consume in more efficient manners is one of the first steps. Like it or not, we need to garner the cooperation of the oil companies (as well as the auto makers both foreign and domestic), who themselves realize that (1) global warming due to carbon emissions is real, and (2) being wealthy still isn't so great if the entire globe has been hopelessly poisoned, and (3) longterm, they must define themselves as being in the energy business, not just the oil business. A president who "doesn't go to oil industry functions" isolates himself/herself from a major and central sector of the American economy, and would make about as much sense as a president who refuses to communicate with bankers and Wall Street.

"Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them." Carl Bernstein

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/hillary-clinton-truth-or_b_93523.html

Kevin, that makes me laugh every time.

Ahh the wounderful game of what if. Yes Al Gore as President Gore against Jeb Bush as Jeb was supposed to be the next Bush as President not George.Hmm maybe brother Neil isn't as dumb as they try to make him out to be he's the only one of the Bush boys not to get into the family business of Politcs.

If georgie is supposed to be one of the smart ones, I really have to wonder about Neil then?

As always, this degrades into an obama vs clinton thread with people throwing flaming darts of rhetoric around. Everyone goes through the same tired cliches and "facts", the obamaton robocrats line up and charge into the blazing pundits of the demoratzi biliariites.

Nice little war we have here.

So stupid.

Before G.W. got elected it was Jeb who was supposed to be the smart one and poor Neil the dumb one.But all Neil does is get paid to sit on Boards of Directors get a nice check and what ever other perks those folks get all because his Daddy is G.H.Bush and who his brothers are daaa nice way to make a buck if you ask me!

"clinton did what men do. he was a dog."

Jer, truer words have not been soken.

Eric, I agree with you about Hillary (whoda thunk I'd be telling Hill to step aside). But as far as Bill goes, he lied about an affair. He didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, secret FISA courts, torture, etc, etc. Who HASN'T lied about getting laid?

Al Gore would have assumed the presidency and it's hard to imagine a scenario where President Gore wouldn't have wiped the floor with George W. Bush. Imagine eight years without Bush!

I agree that this is Monday morning quarterbacking, but it's still a fascinating scenario.

I have one disagreement with you; it is WAY beyond time for Hillary Clinton to exit the stage. If she were anyone ANYONE else , she would have dropped out weeks ago!(and the calls for her to drop out would've been deafening!)
Now? Now she's broke (or in the hole depending on how you look at the finances) , behind in states won, both primary states and caucus states, behind in campaign contributors , behind in enthusiasm, behind in delegates , behind in every measure . To paraphrase Geraldine, "If she were Hillary Minton, she wouldn't still be in this fight and we would have our nominee ".
It is WAY beyond time for her to go back to being a war-enabling , centrist Junior Senator from NY. And let the rest of us get on with the smashing of the remains of the Republican party .

As long as we are climbing into our time machine and re-writing history, let's do the minimum re-writing necessary: All we need to avoid a GWB presidency would be for Nader to withdraw from the presidential race in 2000. The Nader votes, most of them, would have gone to Gore, and his victory in the election would have been obvious and incontestable.

If anyone finds a wormhole that leads into that alternate universe, please leave us a map!


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
Hillary's Approval Rating Plummets In NBC/WSJ Poll


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-latest-clinton-canard_b_93508.html
The point is supposed to be that this race isn't over. They're just getting started. Give her more time. Here's the problem, that isn't really true.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/time-for-superdelegates-t_b_93451.html
Time for Superdelegates to Ratify Obama's Insurmountable Pledged Delegate Lead and Settle the Democratic Nomination

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | March 27, 2008 5:55 AM

Serena, you’re dead wrong claiming that Bill Clintons didn’t lie about “WMD in Iraq, secret FISA courts, torture, etc, etc.”Bill and Hillary Clinton, aka Ma and Pa Warbucks, and their administration constantly lied to justify his extension of the war begun by Bush1. It’s a long term war over oil aimed at permanent US military control of the Gulf oil supply. Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 basically had the same program and it’s one shared by McCain, Hillary Clinton and Obama.

USMC Major Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps serving officer from 1984 until 1991. Then he became a senior U.N. (UNSCOM) weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998 during most of Bill Clinton’s time in office.

He quotes Hillary Clinton, an early and ardent support of Bush’s genocide in Iraq, as saying “I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." Operation Desert Fox was a massive 72 hour bombing and missile attack ordered by Clinton. It coincided with his program of economic embargoes. Both were designed to bring down Sadam Hussein and both caused civilian casualties. The embargo was especially devastating for the thousands of Iraqi children who died from malnutrition and lack of medical supplies. Bill Clinton defended his murderous policy saying that Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, the same lies Bush used in 2003.

During Bill Clintons administration the CIA and the US military began the policy of “extraordinary rendition “ or “irregular rendition”, which in real life refers to the illegal kidnapping of victims and turning them over to US satellite regimes for torture. It’s suspected that false information about a “chemical weapons” plant run by Osama bin Laden given under torture was the motive for the 1998 U.S. missile strike on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan which produced more than half the Sudan’s antibiotics and vaccines.

The ONLY difference between Bill Clinton and Bush is that the latter was given a green light to invade by the criminal attacks on 9-11. Both of them continued the oil war begun by Bush’s father. Obama, Hillary Clinton and McCain will do the same. They have no choice and it’s simply delusional to imagine that they do. That's why the Democrats refuse to impeach Cheney and Bush or to call for an International War Crimes Tribunal in spite of the fact that they are cleanly guilty of treason against the US and genocide against the Iraqi’s.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48729/ (Major Ritter’s testimony)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47231/ (Rep. Maxine Waters says “There's Not a Dime's Worth of Difference Between Hillary and Obama on Iraq. “) by Glen Ford, writing in the Black Agenda Report