The title of this NY Times article made my heart beat just a little faster. It's hard not to see everything through Y2K glasses.

February 11, 1999

THE HOUSE RACE

Clinton Vows Revenge in 2000, Advisers Say

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By RICHARD L. BERKE and JAMES BENNET

WASHINGTON -- President Clinton is so furious at House Republicans over his impeachment, his advisers say, that he has vowed to mount an all-out offensive to knock off many of his foes and win back the House for Democrats in 2000.

Clinton has already committed to early fund-raising events in nine cities -- the first will be in San Francisco in two weeks -- to amass a war chest to help House Democrats. His advisers, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, described how the president regularly rattled off specifics about House Republicans who may be vulnerable, from the margins they won by in 1998 to how well he performed in their districts in 1996.

They said Clinton now viewed winning back the House as almost as important an affirmation of his legacy as electing Vice President Al Gore as his successor.

But if Clinton's partisan zeal is viewed by Republicans as a personal vendetta, it could undermine another goal that the president considers crucial to his legacy: his legislative priorities, notably a drive to rescue Social Security. Clinton has assured Democrats that they can work with Republicans to pass legislation and still have plenty of ammunition in 2000.

Clinton was particularly angry at the House members managing the prosecution, according to his advisers, believing they have needlessly prolonged the impeachment trial. Most of those managers have seats that are considered safe.

"He knows the districts, he knows the candidates and he doesn't like these people," said one adviser who has discussed next year's elections with Clinton. "He's obviously real hot on the managers. He thinks winning back the House is part of his legacy."

White House officials said they were aware that there is only so much a president could do to help congressional contenders. They said he could be most effective in raising money and in recruiting candidates. But Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, despite high personal popularity, both failed in their efforts to purge specific congressional candidates.

Clinton's intense interest in the congressional contests is all the more striking because leading House Democrats have long complained that he has not been particularly engaged in House and Senate races, Many blame Clinton for the Democrats' loss of House control in 1994 and for not winning it back in 1996 and 1998.

Another adviser who has spoken to the president about wresting back the House in 2000, said, "It will be a personal crusade." He added: "The man knows he's done wrong. But he also knows they should not have taken it to the extreme they have. He says: 'It's the unfairness of this whole process. These right-wingers who tried to undo the election.' "

Beyond his scorn at House Republicans, several advisers said Clinton is motivated out of gratitude to Rep. Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leader, for deciding not to challenge Vice President Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination. He also is described as indebted to House Democrats for sticking by him and insuring that impeachment could not be called bipartisan.

Besides the House managers, Clinton told Gephardt he was determined to defeat Rep. Jay Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, according to people familiar with the conversations. Dickey was elected in 1992; his district includes the president's boyhood homes of Hope and Hot Springs.

Told of Clinton's comments, Dickey said: "If you're sitting there and having the most powerful office in the world, the most powerful man in the world who says, 'We're going to defeat this person,' it's a sobering thing. But I'm not afraid."

"If he's going to personalize this thing, then it's going to take us back a step in terms of cooperation," Dickey said, "and trying to get some programs through in the next two years."

Rep. Ed Bryant, a Tennessee Republican who is a House manager, said: "If he feels he has to vindicate himself by going after House managers, then he has to do that. All I can say is that we as a House, the majority, felt that we certainly didn't put him in this predicament. If anybody ought to be upset, it ought to be American people, with the president, for doing those things."

It is clear that impeachment and the Democrats' encouraging performance in last November's elections have unexpectedly united the White House and House Democrats. People close to Gephardt and Clinton said that in a meeting in the White House residence on the day earlier this month when Gephardt announced he would not run, the president gave his assurances that he would do whatever it takes to make Gephardt the next speaker.

"He was telling Dick which districts he can win," said one person who was familiar with the conversations. He noted the oddity of Clinton trying to educate his party's House leader -- who has been worrying about House districts for years -- about congressional match-ups.

Laura Nichols, Gephardt's spokeswoman, said of the president: "He said he would do whatever we asked him to do. Essentially, Gore said the same thing."

Beyond the president, his impeachment has emboldened other Democrats who say they are eager to unseat House Republicans. "After these years of Ken Starr, people are more energized than I've seen them since the '60s and '70s," said David Geffen, the entertainment mogul and major Clinton supporter. Referring to Rep. James Rogan, a California Republican who is considered one of the most vulnerable House managers in 2000, he added, "Many of us are looking forward to spending time and money and effort to defeating James Rogan."

And People for the American Way, a liberal group, announced a $5 million television, organizational and grass-roots campaign on Wednesday aimed at ousting Republicans in Congress. "Impeachment was the catalyst that shocked and angered voters," said the group's president, Carol Shields.

White House officials have not been shy about saying how they plan to use the Republicans' impeachment votes against them. "Every one of those distinguished citizens is now on record saying they not only want to shut the government down but they want to kick the president out," said one senior Clinton strategist. "That vote won't go away. And if they think the American people will forget about that, they should go ask former President Gerald Ford. They will remember that."

House and Senate Democrats are planning the series of joint fund-raisers starring the president to present what officials described as a "Democratic unity message." That is a sign that they are hoping to take advantage of the presidential race to nationalize the House races. Their goal is to raise $10 million in 1999 for a program they are calling "Majority 2000." The money will be split between the campaign committees of the Senate and House Democrats.

For all of Clinton's determination to help, some White House officials noted that many candidates did not want Clinton to campaign in their districts last year -- and probably would not again in 2000.

Perhaps they are mindful of the primaries of 1938, when President Roosevelt tried to defeat several southern Democrats who opposed the New Deal. The effort was a bust, and Roosevelt was ridiculed as a dictator. And in 1970, President Nixon traveled to 23 states to assist Republican candidates but failed in his drive to gain a Republican majority in the Senate.

One adviser to Clinton said he feared that disclosures about the president's ire toward House Republicans could damage him, given that the Senate has not yet voted on the articles of impeachment. "You don't want this to fall into the gloating category, that he already has a strategy to defeat these guys," the adviser said.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/021199clinton-dems.html?RefId=OPjxYEutttnFuuKZ

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), February 11, 1999

Answers

Aren't these the same people who wanted to "put all this behind us and get on with the business of the nation?"

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 11, 1999.

The Clinton Administration is petty and vindictive. You can't help but see that article title through Y2K glasses, Gayla. It's not a surprise that Clinton and his supporteers will go after those who went after them, but that doesn't worry me as much as another factor. Even in ordinary times it's been known for certain funds or aid or boondoggles to be denied to an area where a governor, senator, representative or mayor didn't think the way the White House did. Imagine how Y2K aid might be distributed if this bunch wins re-election and takes such revenge. . . Eric Berne always said to trust your very first instinct in the first few seconds, and you may have been right on target with the pitter-pattering.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 11, 1999.

I think I'll vote Reform party where I can. This whole thing has made me sick of both of the parties.

Both parties have such big heads that they believe that THEY control the country.

Vote REFORM!!! Vote Libertarian. Just vote the two parties and their bickering feuds out of office!

Run, Ross, Run...

-- Glen Austin (gdaustin@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

The democrats are very concerned about their position on this impeachment trial. No doubt they will acquit, however the democrats are going to look quite foolish when the next scandal breaks. The public is going to take a very dim view of letting the scumbag off scott free after hearing of the other shenanagins Klinton pulled. No doubt we will hear a few of them. Juanita Brodderick comes to mind. NBC is sitting on the story until the trial is over.

-- Bumble Bee (bumble@icanect.net), February 11, 1999.

Glen, I'm there with ya...

Where are the great leaders anymore?

Gayla... thanks, I think : )

Mike ===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

Just a thought....if the y2k TSHTF and martial law is a reality, why would there necessarily be an election in 2000? It's a thought that has plagued me for several weeks now and I can't help but tie strings to it when I hear points like this. Call me paranoid, but who knows?

-- Ninh Hoa 69 (dont@wanna.say), February 11, 1999.

Election? What election? Hey, we're under martial law ya know...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 11, 1999.

Has anyone heard of anything concerning the election systems? To which agency do they belong?

-- Reporter (foo@foo.bar), February 11, 1999.

There is a school of of thought that even elections are rigged/manipulated, just like CNN "Polls" :) I don't know enough to comment on this but I've heard a couple of guests on the Jeff Rense show talking about this subject.

Anyone know any more?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 11, 1999.

I voted for Harry Truman in 48. LAST time I ever voted Democratic @!!! Elections are rigged ... the're stolen; OUTRIGHT. Like the one in California, where they could show that 180,000 votes cast for the "winning" Democrate were from people who wern't citizens. There was NO REVERSALE of the vote !!! I haven't voted since and don't intend too. BUT , I WILL asses the former job title of anyone who comes to my door in 2000 looking for food. My signs, which I printed 8 years ago say, among other things "If you don't work you don't eat ! WORK COMES FIRST !! For politians, they will have steady work ... Cleaning out the outhouse twice a week and double shift on guard duty EVERY day ! (i.e. Point man ; NO GUN !! ( MY gun clearence laws will NEVER allow a politian to own one; nor will he ever have a vote in government !!!)

-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), February 11, 1999.

I voted for Harry Truman in 48. LAST time I ever voted Democratic !!! Elections aren't rigged ... the're stolen; OUTRIGHT. Like the one in California, where they could show that 180,000 votes cast for the "winning" Democrate were from people who wern't citizens. There was NO REVERSALE of the vote !!! I haven't voted since and don't intend too. BUT , I WILL assess the former job title of anyone who comes to my door in 2000 looking for food. My signs, which I printed 8 years ago say, among other things "If you don't work you don't eat ! WORK COMES FIRST !! For politians, they will have steady work ... Cleaning out the outhouse twice a week and double shift on guard duty EVERY day ! (i.e. Point man ; NO GUN !! ( MY gun clearence laws will NEVER allow a politian to own one; nor will he ever have a vote in government !!!)

-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), February 11, 1999.

So much for Clinton (both of them) claiming the need to "Stop the politics of personal destruction".

Of course what they meant was for the nasty-evil Republicans to stop obeying the duties and laws charged in the Constitution so he could complete his abject takeover to attain absolute dictatorial power. Why else would he fight so hard to stay in office when he's an admitted liar?

Study the rise of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other great consolidators of power this century, and you'll see some amazing similarities Clinton has employed during his term.

Isn't it funny though how this clown accuses his political enemies for what they themselves do?

We should all quake in our boots at the arrogant wielding of power this maniac displays. I'll never forget several years ago at Taste of Chicago, when a woman was heckling him for putting our troops under UN command, and calling him "a bad man", that he stopped - turned to his secret service agents, POINTED this woman OUT OF THE CROWD, and had her arrested for "endangering him." Needless to say, the NBC station aired this tape ONCE, never to be seen again, but I'll never forget it. That woman had the FBI and the IRS destroy her before Cook County also filed charges against her. Again, so much for the freedom of expression if it's against our much beloved leader.

With the acceleration of media reports about "hoarding" and "panic mongering" by those preparing for Y2K, and this Administration's penchant for demaguoging - is it any wonder some of us feel like stars will soon be pasted on us?

Unless of course you want to be "bipartisan", which means you will agree with Der Prez in all cases.

To all our peril.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

Hey he might have the idiots killed like all the others that got in his way. Check out http://www.freerepublic.com and see who hes had murdered and how they were covered up. It will scare the crap out of you after you read it and you realize that he is the puppett leader of the free world.

Mike

VOTE LIBERTERIAN !!!!!

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), February 11, 1999.

Can anyone wonder at the number of DGIs, when 68% of the population think Clinton is wonderful? There have been other threads here, that point out the similarities between Hitler brainwashing the majority of German citizens and what Clinton is doing to the majority of Americans. I pray that nothing comes of y2k, even though we are preparing furiously, because it is what can follow y2k chaos that frightens me the most.

-- disgusted (disgusted@sicktothebone.com), February 11, 1999.

I do not think Clinton is wonderful; No Way. What he did was stupid, degrading, and showed a lapse of ordinary common sense, and I don't intend to rehash the whys and wherefores, for the zilionth time. But if I had been through, what he has been through, (yes I know he brought it on himself) I would be angry too. He has been thoroughly persecuted by the press, the public, on and on and on. He has paid for this folly in the court of public opinion, the most scathingl of any.

The reason his ratings have stayed so high is Not because people think what he did was OK. They don't. But many of us think he has been piled on, and piled on, and we think he's been demonized enough.

Now you go right ahead and flame me. But although I'm not a Christian, and wouldn't presume to exist on that lofty, moral high ground, I do have a little charity in my heart for people who make stupid mistakes. Guess what? I've made many in my lifetime. I've made a few I'm ashamed of; a few that were simply stupid; a few that were sins of omission. But I'm not going to make the one of judging him until I've been in his shoes.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), February 13, 1999.

And to the person who suggested voting Libertarian, I'm with you. The Democrats have blown their chance and the Republicans aren't any better. Who needs them, but it's probably irrelevant. There may be more to worry about than idiotic RepubliCrats. Elections, oh those.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), February 13, 1999.

Andy you redcoat--the book detailing how elections are rigged (using those very friendly computers)is 'Votescam.' As I understand it, all electronically tallied books are sent to an outfit in NYC called Voter News Service (VNS) which is a privately held media company. VNS, on paper, is supposed to feed instant results to the networks so they can make their 'predictions' before polls close. There were numerous examples of final vote tallies being rigged in the last presidential election, and in the early primaries. Buchanon's people remain convinced that they stole some key primaries from him when he was gaining momentum. Can't have a populist anti-NAFTA, anti-GATT candidate, now can we? Especially not one who can write his own speeches! Do a search on votescam, you're bound to get hits.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 13, 1999.

Clinton to his henchmen, "Maybe we can Vince Fosterise them all. If I could only get them all on a plane, we could do a Ron Brown on em. Do you think we could get the GOP to hold a convention in Mena, AR? China owes me big time. etc ...."

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

gilda,

Big difference between a stupid mistake and a deliberate felony. I can leave eternal judgment to a Higher Being, but demand justice on this level. Otherwise, we should abolish courts and prisons because the defendants made "stupid mistakes".

I have never committed a felony. It's not too much to ask to require that those in public office not be criminals. O.K. I am understanding and compassionate that you are a compulsive liar but you are still removed from office.

-- Spoticat (incognito@y2k.com), February 16, 1999.

And what was this deliberate felony about? Perjury! And what was that perjury about? Lying under oath! And what was that heinous lie about? About a tawdry sexual encounter! And you call this high crimes and misdeameanor? YES YES YES!!! OK that clears out the White House, and the Congress. Who's left?

It was stupid; he shouldn't have done it. But it was eveb more stupid to investigate a private encounter between consenting adults. We are a nation of nosy voyeurs. Sounds like the good old days in Salem.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), February 16, 1999.

lol gilda : )

Clinton is the teenage President. The man who never really grew up. The leader who lead during a time of prosperity and never really got a chance to prove himself in a time of great crisis. The only crisis he has seen is one of his own making. Maybe that is why the country seemed to keep his approval ratings up. He managed to stay composed through difficult times.

Hopefully the experience of seeing his family in crisis and his job up in the air will mature him. Hopefully.

If he follows the path above then he's more of an idiot than even I could imagine.

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

gilda,

I've used this argument before, but let's see if it resonates with you:

Put yourself in this scenario. Really visualize this. Your boss gropes you in the back room. He warns you not to talk about it. When you press charges, he lies. His friends lie. Another female employee who submitted to him lies. He tells her to file a false affidavit in your lawsuit. Then his friends say YOU are lying, and an ugly trailer trash slut.

How do you feel now? You were sexually assaulted and denied justice by the powerful and corrupt.

As to Paula waiting to file: she didn't want to take on the governor of Arkansas until her name was dragged into it. I worked in a courthouse for a medium-sized county. Even years later, if someone said "Mabel was sleeping with the State's Attorney" everyone would know who they were talking about, and I would be humiliated, even if they did not use my last name. At that point I would be forced to speak out regarding the harassment to clear my name, which is what she did.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Addendum:

If you haven't carefully followed the case, you may not recognize that this entire scenario accurately portrays Clinton's case. Many still think it was just about "having an affair with Monica", instead of defrauding a plaintiff in a lawsuit.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.