Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 21

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

103 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

The Big Oil companies seem to be forcing U.S. consumers to pay more for gasoline. But the Clintons have done little to promote consumer/worker control of Big Oil. Nor have the Clintons done much to promote the use of bicycles, trolleys, subways and other forms of mass transit that do not rely on gasoline use. Mumia Abu-Jamal has still not been released, African-American workers still experience double-digit unemployment rates and third-party candidates, activists and artists are still denied equal access to the TV screen. Yet the Clintons apparently want to be re-nominated without having to debate their politics with alternative candidates such as Ralph Nader—103 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention.

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 5/15/96)

96 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Most folks in Manhattan believe that straight married couples should not possess more legal rights than unmarried individuals, unmarried couples and same-sex couples who wish to be married. Yet Democratic President Bill Clinton is apparently “personally opposed” to allowing same-sex couples to marry—96 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. Bill Clinton is also “personally opposed” to allowing all couples and individuals to legally smoke hemp/pot/marijuana.

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 5/22/96)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 22

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 20

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

152 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Unlike the Clintons, most folks who want to see U.S. society changed in a democratic way—like the 300 people who packed a Campaign to End The Death Penalty meeting in Boston on March 11, 1996—are opposed to capital punishment and in favor of legalizing hemp/marijuana. And most folks in Manhattan and Jersey who favor radical democratic change prefer Nader [in 1996] to the special interests’ presidential ticket of Dole & the Clintons.

But the Big Media has apparently decided that only Democratic and Republican party-linked candidates are to be treated like legitimate presidential candidates—152 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. Yet, as Feminist Chronicles: 1953-1993 observed, at its Sept. 16, 1991 meeting NOW’s Commission on Responsive Democracy urged “that NOW help launch a new political party, free from what it called the corruption and hypocrisy of the Democratic and Republican parties.”

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 3/27/96)

124 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

The Clintons are not eager to debate with Ralph Nader—124 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. But the Clintons are very eager to spend our tax money beefing up the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon and the Israeli military machine. And the Clintons are not eager to abolish the death penalty, despite the movie Dead Man Walking.

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 4/24/96)

117 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Bill “Mr. Peacemaker” Clinton’s Middle East Peace wasn’t very peaceful in April [1996]. And like former CIA Director Bush I, Bill Clinton apparently still prefers traveling to foreign countries like Russia, Korea and Japan to debating domestic issues with Ralph Nader—117 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. Happy May Day!

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 5/1/96)

110 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

The Yuppie Democrats, the Elderly Republicans and the Media Monopoly don’t appear willing to let 1996 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader debate on TV with the special corporate interests’ presidential ticket of Dole and The Clintons—110 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. Yet as Dick Gregory’s Political Primer noted in 1972:

“Inside the convention hall will be found balloons, placards, costumes, live entertainment, bands, loud demonstrations, muffled obscenities, and a more dignified form of obscenity, political oratory. Outside the convention hall may be found demonstrations of a different sort, peace officers ready to club participants in the demonstrations and unleash tear gas canisters which will pollute the convention site for blocks around, occasional street rebellions which may inspire gunfire—in short, everything you would expect to happen when voters are denied the right to choose their president.”

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 5/8/96)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 21

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 19

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

194 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Chicago still appears to be under the White Corporate Male thumb of the Daley Dynasty’s Democratic Party machine, 194 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. In his 1992 book Bitter Fruit: Black Politics and the Chicago Machine, William Grinshaw described how the Clintons’ [former] political allies in Chicago have tended to operate:

“Chicago has been governed by political machines for all but a few of the past 60 years, and Blacks…have derived only meager benefits from their governance…The Daley machine…increasingly took on the character of a Democratic party of the old Deep South, supporting a range of conservative and racist policies and practices…The Black community…remains essentially without representation, forced to deal with a mayor who gained office with scant Black support.”

So don’t expect Chicago Mayor Richard Daley II to urge the Clintons to debate with Ralph Nader on TV about their political ethics, prior to the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention.

(Downtown 2/14/96)

159 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Unlike Ralph Nader, the Clintons’ Administration has no economic plan or political program that can restore [permanent] prosperity to the United States and prevent more working-class and middle-class people from being “downsized” into poverty. Nor has the Clintons’ Administration been very eager to start releasing U.S. political prisoners such as Leonard Peltier.

Yet in 159 days, the Yuppie Democrats still intend to gather in Chicago to re-nominate the Clintons for another 4 years of dodging Whitewater Scandal subpoenas in the White House, promising us that NAFTA won’t cause corporations to “downsize” more U.S. employees, and making campaign appearances in the Middle East while their economic policies stimulate a rise of right-wing anti-Semitism in the United States.

(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 3/20/96)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 20

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 18

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

285 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Mayor Richard Daley and the other Young Democrats of the 1960s are apparently hoping to hold yet another closed Chicago Democratic National Convention on Aug. 27-29, 1996. Yet 285 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention, the Clintons’ Administration still has not freed any U.S. political prisoners, passed a federal gay rights bill, responded adequately to the AIDS epidemic, established a free health insurance program or legalized hemp.

Bill Clinton has also apparently been too busy panhandling for re-election campaign contributions at dinners of the Corporate Rich since moving into the White House to devote much of his time to pushing through Congress a campaign financing reform law that would prevent special corporate interests and the Big Media from rigging the U.S. electoral process. All Big Media power to the people!

(Downtown 11/15/95)

257 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Like former CIA Director George Bush I, the Clintons still don’t appear to have much of a domestic agenda. [Permanent] Prosperity has not yet been restored in New York City and U.S. society has still not been radically democratized, 257 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. Nor has a generous peace treaty yet been signed with the government of Iraq or the government of Cuba.

Coincidentally, at the same time heavily-armed U.S. troops are being rushed into Bosnia to protect the special interests of the transnational corporations and David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, French working-class people appear to be getting rebellious again. Russian working-class people, meanwhile, may be getting more dissatisfied with the [then-]Yeltsin regime’s “free market economy.” All Big Media Power To The People! Bring The Troops Home From Europe Now!

(Downtown 12/13/95)

215 Days Before 1996 Chicago Dem Convention: Where’s The Change?

Under the Clintons’ Administration’s secret economic recovery plan, “about 8 million or 40 percent” of U.S. workers “between 55 and 65 are unemployed” and “two-thirds of these were laid-off or forced into early retirement,” according to American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) spokesperson Patricia Smith (Boston Tab 1/2/96). The New York Times (1/5/96) also reported that, under the Clintons’ Administration’s secret economic recovery plan, “the nation’s merchants reported the worst December sales…since the 1990-91 recession.”

Bill “Whitewater” Clinton still appears more interested in Bosnian politics these days than in releasing U.S. political prisoner Leonard Peltier, 215 days before the 1996 Chicago Democratic National Convention. All Big Media Power To The People!

(Downtown 1/24/96)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 19

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 17

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column item from Downtown indicates, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

1002 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

A peace treaty with the Iraqi government has yet to be signed by the Clintons’ Administration. Nor has any high-wage community service program that actually reduces joblessness among African-Americans been set up by the Clintons’ Administration; and a federal gay rights bill has yet to be pushed through Congress by the Clintons.

Although the Cold War is over, U.S. troops are still stationed in Europe under the Clintons’ Administration; and a special prosecutor to investigate the JFK assassination in Dallas has yet to be appointed by Bill Clinton. U.S. political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Sundiata Acoli and many Puerto Rican nationalists remain locked up by the Clintons’ Administration. And the trend towards Big media monopolization and centralization of media power continues unchecked under the Clintons’ Administration.

Presidential candidates like Perot and Dole, however, are unlikely to produce much radical democratic change. And the Young Democrats still remain afraid to debate with counter-cultural third-party advocates, green activists or anti-war folks on the Big Media TV screen. Yet the majority of people in the U.S. are still interested in radically changing the nature of U.S. society, 1002 days after the Clintons’ inauguration. All Big Media Power To The People! Free Leonard Peltier Now!

(Downtown 10/18/95)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 18

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 16

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

253 Days After The November 1994 Election: Where’s The Change?

Remember Bill Clinton? He’s the student government politico who’s been campaigning for the U.S. presidency since he was in high school. Yet he hasn’t brought much democratic change or much economic equality to the United States since the Clintons began squatting in the White House on Jan. 20, 1993. Nor has “Waco” Clinton yet signed a generous peace treaty with Saddam Hussein or brought much peace to Bosnia, although his media consultants sometimes marketed him as a former anti-war activist during the 1992 presidential campaign.

With regard to U.S. political prisoners, the Clintons still appear as eager as Newt Gingrich to keep Leonard Peltier locked up and to allow Pennsylvania governor Ridge to have Mumia Abu-Jamal executed next month.

(Downtown July 19, 1995)

974 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

For nearly 1,000 days, the Clintons have been squatting in the White House. Yet despite the First Family’s rhetoric about human rights violations everywhere else, U.S. political prisoners like Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal are still kept locked-up within the United States. U.S. anti-war folks who believe the Clinton Administration lacks the legal authority to launch a U.S. Air Force bombing campaign in Europe, without a Declaration of War or a Congressional debate, are still denied equal access to Manhattan’s TV studios. And [permanent] economic prosperity has still not been restored to New York City or Jersey, despite the Clintons’ 1992 campaign promises.

The threat to the Earth and world peace posed by the French government’s nuclear weapons testing program near its Tahiti colony is apparently regarded as less important by the Clintons’ Administration than its attempt to reverse the results of Bosnia’s Civil War. And the 40 million people in the U.S. who lack health insurance 974 days after the Clintons’ inauguration, still better not get sick; because the Clintons’ Administration is still unwilling to immediately issue Federal Medicaid cards to all U.S. citizens who lack health insurance. Nor has Bill Clinton yet bothered to deliver a nationally-televised evening speech explaining what the Clintons’ administration has accomplished in finding a cure for AIDS.

So don’t expect the Clintons’ Administration to now declare a national day of mourning in the U.S. [in September 1995] for William Kunstler. All Big Media Power To The People! Free Leonard Peltier Now!

(Downtown 9/20/95)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 17

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 15

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following historical column item from Downtown indicates, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

658 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

Bill “Bush” Clinton may still not be very popular among either Arab nationalist youth or members of the Woodstock Generation that didn’t attend Oxford or Yale. But 658 days after his inauguration,[ 2008 Democratic Party presidential candidate] Hillary Clinton’s husband is still not willing to follow Nixon’s example and resign from office before being impeached. One reason Bill Clinton is unwilling to resign is because, like former CIA Director Bush I, he enjoys campaigning in foreign countries while the domestic needs of people in the United States are neglected.

Another reason Bill Clinton apparently still intends to cling to public office is that, as Arkansas governor for 12 years, he grew accustomed to living lavishly at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and on the hefty salary Hillary Clinton earned from representing corporate clients. As On The Make: The Rise Of Bill Clinton by Meredith Oakley recalled:

“As governor, all the perks of his office were exempt from federal taxation. In fiscal year 1988 alone, taxpayers spent $783,116.30 a year to support the Clintons. That included a 12-person security staff, food, utilities, maintenance and operation of the Governor’s Mansion…and transportation. It did not include his $35,000-a-year salary and the public relations fund on which there were no spending restrictions. In addition, for each year he served as governor, Clinton received three years of credit toward his state pension. That and the two-for-one credits he received for his two years as attorney general constituted 38 years of retirement credit for the 46-year-old Clinton when he resigned the governorship to become president.

“Anything Clinton wanted or needed that the state or his supporters did not or could not give him, Hillary Clinton provided. With her six-figure income from Rose Law Firm, the dividends generated by most of her investments and the income tax deductions she parlayed out of donating to charity everything from evening dresses to shower curtains to socks, she could have provided a comfortable living for the family even without the tax-free perks of Clinton’s office.

“In 1989 alone, the Clintons claimed charitable and religious contributions of $12,676, which included two pieces of the governor’s underwear valued at $1 each.”

(Downtown 11/9/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 16