[size=4]Why does anti-establishment Berkeley love Clinton?[/size=4]

by Monica Friedlander, Monday, February 11, 2002

AS HE walked up to the microphone, screams of "We love you" echoed from the back of the hall. When he was done, hordes of 18-year-olds ran up and down endless flights of stairs to elude security guards and sneak into the gym through the back door. There, students stepped on each others' toes to touch him, nearly knocking down the very inconspicuous California governor trailing closely behind.

Then, Clinton proceeded to shake every hand and thank every well-wisher, even take the time to shoot a few baskets. Back outside, he plunged one more time into the adoring crowd, grasping every stretched-out hand until his own were raw.

This spectacle may have resembled a rock concert, but it was in fact a political event: a visit to UC Berkeley by former President Bill Clinton. Most of the students who crowded the Zellerbach Hall -- many of whom had camped overnight for tickets a week earlier -- are too young to have ever voted for Clinton. But most would undoubtedly do so in a heartbeat if given the chance.

The fact that a political figure can still elicit such enthusiasm in an era of political apathy is unusual enough. What's truly shocking, however, is that in the notoriously anti-establishment Mecca of Berkeley, a mainstream Democrat like Bill Clinton would receive a veritable hero's welcome.

Asked why the right wing despises him so, the former president answered simply, "Because I won."

This was not the theme of Clinton's speech, but these three words are the ones that will be remembered, for they said as much about this country as did President Bush's State of the Union address that very same day.

And therein lies Clinton's true threat to the far right, for which he was subjected to the most relentless campaign of character assassination in American history: his undeniable star quality.

If left unsmeared, this personal magnetism could have turned the Republican strategy on its head for decades to come. And no one understood that strategy better than Clinton himself.

"They thought they found a foolproof formula to turn us into cardboard cutouts -- superficial, one-dimensional, non-American figures. And the American people voted for me. They never thought it was legitimate. They decided 'We should have never lost the White House. It belongs to us.' If you want to be a Democrat or progressive and run for national office today, you have to have a pretty high pain threshold. It's just the cost of doing business in politics today."

- continued -

This same sense of ownership of power reared its ugly head with a vengeance eight years later, when the Republican Party refused to submit to the will of the people. The outcome of the 2000 election will be debated into the next century, but to all those who felt disenfranchised by the ensuing events, Clinton's words rang especially true.

"I think we, the Democrats, don't necessarily hate people when they beat us because we're so used to losing in life. We always like the contest. You get into the ring, you wrestle, someone wins, somebody loses, you wait till the next time and try again. But if you think you're going to win every time and then somebody turns out to win, you've got to go out and convince the people that something bad happened. That's what happened. They never thought any of us would win again."

But Clinton did, and even eight years of almost daily pounding has not soured him to public service. "You just have to smile, go on, stand up for what you believe in," he said. "And if I had to do it all tomorrow again, I'd do it again in a heartbeat."

To that, Clinton received the biggest ovation of all.

See article at:[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/02/11/ED26990.DTL[/url]

Eric The(Depressing,Huh?)Hun[>]:)]

Like sheeple to the shepherd. "Come run our lives for us."

Hmmm, as a right-winger, I would have to disagree with Clinton's assessment as to why people like me hate him.

I don't hate him because he won, or that the Republicans have some sort of entitlement to the White House that Clinton flouted.

I hate him because Clinton is a pandering manipulative liar, who committed perjury during his presidency.  I hate him because Clinton's number one priority was not the long term interests of the US, but his own career and ego and self-gratification.  I hate him because he is a rapist; both statutory and regular.  A rapist was president of the United States.  I hate him because he facilitated the transfer of technology to a hostile country in exchange for political contributions.  I hate him because he pimped out the public Lincoln Bedroom for donations to the DNC.  I hate him because he misused and overdeployed the military.  I hate him because he bombed Serbia for no reason.  

I hate him for many substantial and distressing things.  None which is: he is popular and people love him.  

With people like this, the AntiChrist will have a cakewalk...

[IMG]http://www.3dpcgame.com/cwm/s/contrib/aahmed/sad.gif[/IMG]

I don't get it.  Klinton is too "good ol' boy" for Berkeley.  Or so I thought.  I hate to have to say this, but he's too *conservative* for Berkeley too!

The people there are just plain loony.  Klinton did things like at least giving lip service to business, and "ending welfare as we know it," but *not* ending so-called corporate welfare that the far lefties usually bitch about.  Klinton even claimed not to dislike guns, liking those nice innocuous sporting guns and hating just *evil* guns.

Berkeley should hate him as a traitorous wannabe.  Plus, he victimizes women as individuals while claiming to be their biggest supporter as an "oppressed minority."  The commies on that campus should hate him like they hate Ronald Reagan.  I guess I just don't know my Berkeleyites as well as I thought I did.

Like I said, I don't get it.