The problem with triangulation

[La_Serpiente]

I was very happy while Clinton was in office. I mean, he was a reliable person who you could depend on to stop the anti-abortion, mega-polluting, intolerant Republicans. However, he was also a triangulator himself. One problem with triangulation is that it blurs the lines between the two parties and perhaps the ideological spectrum. It, in fact, defines what the moderate is. Now however, the triangulator defines the moderate posistion and takes it wherever he/she wants to. I think that Clinton took it a little bit too much to the right, but he was more or less, a centrist.

Triangulation also has the effect of alienating the core groups in your party. Many core Democrats were pissed when Clinton signed the DOMA, FCC reform act, the Medicare reform act, the Immigration reform act, and the Welfare reform act. These laws stood in direct opposistion to many Democratic ideals and values.

Clinton won in 1996, but he really didn't do anymore triangulating after that since he wasn't beholden to anyone. Or that's what he thought. He was beholden to his core groups and that is what he didn't do really. That really pissed off a lot of people who then went to the Green party.

Now, I am still deciding what is better...should Clinton have triangulated prior to the 1996 election or should he have stayed the party course and risk losing the 1996 elections?

[Abe Linkman]

1. Clinton was just lucky to have weak election opponents

For the life of me, I've tried to find some evidence of his alleged brilliance, but I can't. His rhetoric has always sounded very weak, fuzzy, non-motivating, and rarely if ever did it inspire, provoke, or challenge.

If someone can think of one thing Bill Clinton did ( or even strongly advocated ) that made life better for all Americans, I'd like to know what it was. His political courage was moribund after the failed Healthcare so-called reform ( corp. giveaway to ins. co's ) initiative.