Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:27:08 MST
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Sep6.045247.5649@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>     It's not the fact that Clinton was reluctant to serve that will turn
> some voters against him, but instead will be what he did while not serving.
> In Clinton you have a man who boasts proudly that he already had as a goal
> becoming President while in his teens, a man who claims to have more
> qualities of leadership than Bush, a man who says he firmly believes in his
> principles, and a man who eloquently wrote of how he could not morally justify
> fighting in the Vietnam war.  If all these things are true, wouldn't such a
> man have thrown himself into the forefront of the anti-war movement and
> demonstrated what a great leader he was?

Maybe he would have.  I don't know.  But if he did, you'd be branding him
now as a scum-sucking anti-war LIBERAL (eewwwww!), or worse, a peacenik,
All because he was in "the forefront of the anti-war movement" in 1968.
The same Republicans who slam Mr. Bill for being a draft dodger would
slam him instead for being a radical pacifist.  Nothing would have
changed.

Clinton, who at the very very least is a patriotic man, would be labeled
a "former Communist sympathizer" and a "traitor."  That's probably what
was in his mind when he wrote about "political viability" in 1969.  He
thought he could be a good President, but he never would've gotten the
chance if he had been tarnished for life by such labels.

Clinton was what, 22 in 1968?  It seems you presume that he should've acted
consistently in accordance with his world view, not to mention developed a
detailed philosophy of war at age 22 (as you would have done :-).  I don't
think this is fair criticism.  Kids always dream big, but often they act
the opposite.  I'd pay much more weight to Clinton's record as Governor
than to his statements as a 22-year-old kid in a fearsome part of our
country's history.  (Humphrey, Nixon, AND Agnew said stuff then that would
be unconscionable for a politician today.)

> All great leaders have been
> willing to sacrifice personally when fighting for what they believe in.  I
> have yet to hear of any event in Clinton's life so far in which he has
> stood fast for what he believes, but at great personal expense.  If Clinton
> was of presidential stock, he would have stayed in the US and worked his
> way into the leadership of the anti-war movement, instead of worrying about
> future 'political viability'.

As you've seen, there are a lot of chuckleheads out there who believe fight-
ing in a war is a test of character, even where the war itself is chuckle-
headed.  I don't believe Clinton in his heart, despite all the stuff he
pulled with respect to the draft, ever thought anything other than, "This
war in Vietnam is wrong."  I count that as standing fast for what he
believes.

His association with the DLC began in the early 1980s.  The Dem leadership
considered Mondale/Cuomo/Kennedy/Dukakis/Jackson their heroes, and considered 
Clinton's membership in a moderate Democratic group vaguely disloyal.
Clinton stuck with the DLC, and so was shut out of the Pres. candidate
selection process that put out subpar candidates in 1984 and 1988.

He finally decided to go forward in 1991 while Cuomo and Co. ran and hid
from Bush, and captured the nomination espousing the same moderate agenda
the Dem leadership tried to shunt off so many years before.  Cuomo, Jesse,
and Ted Kennedy were for all intents and purposes put out to pasture.
I'd count this as standing fast for what he believes.  He's fortunate to
have been rewarded for it.

(There...I've defended Mr. Bill without even once comparing him to Bush!)
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc