Today on Meet the Press, the Clintons

Bill and Hillary Clinton are against gay marriage. Bill voted for the bill of marriages being between man and woman only. They support ownership of firearms but not assault weapons obviously.Aren't they as liberal as it gets? It seems like the liberals on this site are against these things but the leaders of the liberals are for them?

quote:

---

Aren't they as liberal as it gets?

---

No. The Clinton's are not liberal.Unless you are an American, to whom "liberal" means "anyone who is to the left of me".

Then who exactly is liberal?

On the same token is Bush conservative?

Who is a liberal? Good question. It is fustrating to me, here in the U.S. to try to have a political discussion since words don't seem to have any meaning. People just seem to debate using slogans, pretending that they know what they mean. (That said, I do enjoy reading some of the political threads here at EvC -- even the one without whatever's contributions -- it's been a while since I've seen so many people, in a debate, put together facts and coherent arguments.)Anyway, for what makes someone a "liberal" I read The Nation -- I take the editorial policies of that magazine as an indication of what the mainstream liberal opinion is. (Not being a liberal myself, I don't know whether I have a right to define it. Especially since any definition I give might make conservatives angry, heh.) And that magazine, as well as other leftist publications, were constantly critical of Clinton during his administration. If liberals supported Clinton, it was mainly because of the "lesser-of-two-evils" thing.Is Bush conservative? Yes; not only by most definitions of conservative I have seen, but it appears that the conservatives do count him as one of their own. But I could be wrong -- any conservatives here want to answer this one?Anyway, since the topic of the thread seems to be the Clintons' alleged liberalism, anyone want to take a stab at defining "liberal"? Or "conservative"?

Senator Paul Wellstone seemed pretty liberal, and he was a man of principle besides, which seemed rare in politics.Too bad he's dead.

Yeah, Wellstone's death certainly sucked.Kucinich seems pretty liberal, too. I might have been more interested in this election if there were a chance he would have gotten the nomination.

I know alot of people that liked Kucinich, my brother liked him alot I never really saw him, probably because of the way the media is. What about Howard Dean?

I don't know much about Dean's policies, other than he was a true anti-war candidate. As a socialist, I'm not impressed with someone who wouldn't at least try to challenge the very deep-rooted institutional problems in this country. As I hinted, I would only be tempted to vote for Kucinich (or Wellstone) if he were the Democratic candidate, just like I was very tempted to vote for Nader four years ago.That said, I felt that Dean was the only candidate that really had a very good chance of beating Bush. I was a bit surprised by the desperation of the Democrats to defeat Bush -- so desperate that at the very first sign of trouble in Dean's campaign he was abandoned and everyone jumped onto Kerry's campaign.Have you ever been in the supermarket and jumped from one line to another, thinking that you can get into the shorter line? And then realized that you would have been through quicker had you stayed in your original line? I think the Democrats may have done just that when they stuck themselves with Kerry.

I disagree. I think by choosing Kerry over Dean, they made their only possible chance of defeating Bush. Dean was more radical, I felt people wouldn't connect with Dean. The way Dean looked really made it so I couldn't connect with him, Kerry seemed more human. I remember in winter when Dean seemed to be the one. I was certain the democrats were screwed. Then things started to change dramatically. The "Dean Scream" happened. Kerry was chosen. Kerry was a war hero. Michael Moore's film is released. I predicted about a month before it came out that Moore's film would bring the downfall of Bush. Of course the film was a major success. I went to try to go see it at the local movie house and it was sold out, had to buy a ticket for the next day. I believe I was wrong that the film would bring the downfall of Bush though. It may have strengthened Bush afterall. It has been hailed as propaganda in recent months, I called it that, and I think it is. Though parts were substantiated by fact. Kerry may be a "flip-flop" but I think that Dean was too extreme.On a side note why is Ed Koch voting for Bush, he has said he's a "liberal with sanity"???This message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 08-29-2004 12:01 PMThis message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 08-29-2004 12:20 PM

quote:

---

On a side note why is Ed Koch voting for Bush, he has said he's a "liberal that isn't insane"???

---

Now Ed Koch seems really liberal.Page not found - WND

Well, since Dean didn't win the nomination, I can't really say that you are wrong about Kerry being a more promising candidate. What I was going on was that during the Dean campaign his supporters were excited about him. I simply don't don't see the same excitement about Kerry from anyone. Even the Kerry supporters on this board don't seem so pro-Kerry as much as they are anti-Bush. That doesn't seem to be practical platform on which to win an election. Instead of actually winning the election outright you are, in a sense, simply hoping the other guy is going to lose, if you get what I mean.Also, I recall that Dean's take on the issues (at least those I heard about) were more or less in line what polls show the "average" American believes. Beware of believing everything you read on the iternet, but here is a web page disussing some of his stands that I found after a quick search. You might think he's too radical, I certainly don't find him radical enough, but if polls are to be believed he fits right into mainstream American thought.But you are right -- he is too radical for the establishment politics. Which I suspect is one of the reasons why he was abandoned so quickly.But, you may be right. After all, a lot of Dems did jump onto Kerry rather quickly.

I'm going to start two new topics:1) What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?2) The Presidential Candidates other than Bush and Kerry.Please stand by.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit - Done - I suggest that the non-Clinton material be brought to the 2 new topics.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-29-2004 12:32 PM

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

I would be interested in knowing why some people think Bill Clinton was a liberal president. The only answers I ever got was a list of programs allegedly supported by Clinton that were supposed to be "liberal" programs. Is this was makes someone a liberal? There is a litmus test of one or two policy issues, and depending how you think about it, that is what makes one a liberal? Or is "liberal" an ideology? What is that ideology? More to the point of this thread, what is it about Clinton's beliefs that make him a "liberal"?(By the way, I've given a general answer why I don't believe Clinton was a liberal, although I didn't point out any specific policies.)

Yeah, I guess alot of people consider democrats liberals, I fell victim to that.