I think if presidents could stay longer than 2 terms, Clinton would still be prez.

This would not have happened if Bill was in office. Once again Bush costs us lives, honor and diginity and untold billions.

There was a diary at Kos which mentioned an article from 1999, where President Clinton flew back from a summit in Asia, I think, before Hurrican Hugo struck the US. Notice the differences. Clinton was actually working, not on vacation, and was in another continent, but rushed back BEFORE the hurricane hit. Yeah, despite the flaws, things would be better with Clinton.

Wow. So that's what an adult human being sounds like.

Yes, down the road let's have another fucking whitewashing commission.

God forbid we should actually hold that piece of shit Bush accountable for anything.

Disaster after disaster and it's never the right time to place blame.

Bullshit.

Nice to hear a president with the ability to have cogent thoughts and express them in a precise, intelligent manner. I agree he made some stupid mistakes, but damn, it would be nice to have an adult back in the White House.

ya he was so great, he brought us nafta and the wto. grrrr. what he will ultimately be remembered for.

Norm, that is exactly what I thought while watching that earlier today. Hearing him talk was like getting water in the desert (or New Orleans, in this case).

Aw man. I love Bill Clinton.

Not everything was perfect when he was in office, but he was such a damn good president, especially compared to that asshole we have now.

I have no doubt that he'd still be president if we the law was like it used to be before FDR.

People can bitch about him getting a blow job, but at least he's a fucking human being and he has some compassion and sense in his body. And getting a blow job is pretty cool too.

The US does not need a "President." The whole concept is absurd. It's just a halfassed attempt by some (very very) old white guys to create a democracy when they couldn't quite imagine a country without a King. "An ELECTED King! That'll do it!" Pfshaw.

No one person should have their finger on the nuclear button. No one person should have the power to command the world's most powerful military. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for giving just one person more lawmaking power (with the veto) than two-thirds-minus-one of our elected legislative body.

Out with the President. Not Shrub-- ALL Presidents. We've had quite enough of that whole lame idea, thank you.

<3

There's a great bit in one of Maher's recent comedy specials where he loved how Bill Clinton was so "on the case" that he was calling up senators late at night and talking about pending legislation while at the same time getting oral sex from Monica. I'd actually like to see that bit on the site.

Now compare Clinton's level of energy and focus on the job with our current president's.

clear cogent compelling thoughtful

it is how all of us think in our hearts - Bill Clinton has among his many skills, the ability to express what we as a people are feeling and he can do it with his pants up or down...

Do we need a president? The administrative branch is an important part of how a democracy or republic operates.

What we need is a president of ingerity and who is willing to be accountable to the people who elected him/her - not to the powermongers.

Will that happen? As soon as pigs fly or Australia get iTunes... :P As in: NOT!

So what are we to do - get off of your lazy arses and vote these ass wholes out of office - all of them - and hold EVERY politician to account.

Here in Australia, citizens are required by law to vote and the stumping only goes on for a few weeks, rather than for a few months or what seems like years. AND if a politico scres up, he leaves office immediately - he doesn'f finish out his or her term, then the opposition takes the responsibility of the position.

Can you imagine how the face of US politics would change, if that was how it work?

IMHO, I think Bill Clinton should be the head of the UN, then we would see some real changes...

:)

@american in oz

This is just what I thought, that in other regions of the world such an administration would not see the sunrise of another day. In Switzerland we have a desaster response force, which contains of firefighters, construction workers and communication officers. Each of our states has its own troops so they can be on the spot within one or two hours. We had some major floods on different spots in the country and thanks to its decentralisation, the system was able to respond quickly. As far as I understand FEMA is centralized, so that may be part of the problem.

now those who know me don't fall over just yet.

Clinton made a great speach, and he is 110% correct.

The failure is not in what he said, it is in how everyone here is responding.

I was HARSHLY criticized the other day for bringing up Clinton's sins (what is interesting is that the guy on T.V. can do it and you guys laugh your butt off) anyway, I was criticized for bringing up Clinton's past failures, but now it's as if everyone is bringing up Clinton's past (although not his failure) What I am not understanding is why can you bring up his past, and I be the idiot for doing it. Good or bad, I thought we were leaving the past out of it.

I know, I know, you think I am a Clinton hater and a Bush lover and again... I am NOT... I am just confused where we have drawn the line and why you guys gets to keep on moving it.

I guess it's because Clinton's 'sins' are between him, his wife and his God. Bush's sins cost human lives every single day.

Ole Bill probably would have been to busy bedding a young intern to notice that New Orleans was flooded. LOL

This is what I don't see... That is probably because I see black as black and white as white.

Clinton's "sin" was not between just he and his wife. The man lied not once but on many ocassions to the American People.

It is NO secret, that this was not Clinton's 1st little oral episode, Hillary has known for years that Bill was a cheater. So was his lying to protect his wife from finding out that he had ANOTHEF affair..... No my friend, it was because Billy knew or thought he knew how America would respond.

Don't give me that stuff that it was between him and Hillary, because none of you have kept Bush's kids drinking and gettin in trouble just between George and Laura! You have used it to make him out to be a horrible person for it.

Again, let me close by saying.... I am NOT a Bush lover and a Clinton hater-r-ator.

Clinton's sin or lack of sins has nothing at all to do with his opinion of what should be done in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Comments that discuss Clinton's past are not on topic. Keeping making them and I'll delete them continue after that and you'll longer be welcome to post comments here.

Here is the question that needs to be cleared up. Is it just negative comments about Clinton or all comments about Clinton?

I hope you know it was not a smart ass question, just want to know the facts before I change my comments.

The issue on this thread is Clinton's view on Katrina. If you disagree with the his view make arguments that support you're own view. The number of blow jobs he's had in the last 30 years have nothing to do with the subject, nor do his lies about the subject.

I don't think I really believe that this thread is just about Bill's opinion on Katrina and who supports it or does not support it.

example: "Once again Bush costs us lives, honor and diginity and untold billions." anon

example: "God forbid we should actually hold that piece of shit Bush accountable for anything." Kali Yuga

example: "Now compare Clinton's level of energy and focus on the job with our current president's" anon

Also, I am not the one that brought up the "blow job" or his past anything, I was just curious from the begining why I don't get to bring up what I think are his failures if all you guys can bring up his failures as long as it is "funny"

Perhaps, Patmos, it's because there's a difference between bringing up Clinton's blowjobs in a quippy gag way and bringing them up as bait for taking the discussion way off-topic--i.e. someone brings up x, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand in a way that solicits a defense of x post, or more likely several defense of x posts. Don't act like you didn't know that's what would happen with your comment.

Instead, to have a substantive discussion about the different leadership styles of the two presidents, people are bringing up the coherence, simplicity, and honesty of Clinton's remarks to contrast them with Bush's appearances, which, even in a dark hour, are still comprised of childish talking points, photo-ops with rescue workers badly needed elsewhere, and a lack of useful leadership.

Bringing up blowjobs adds nothing to the discussion (except possibly levity) and has only the potential to derail the thread.